Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

Changes to lead paragraph

I'm not happy with the changes made to opening sentence, which were made without consultation and give the impression that all sex cases are merely 'allegations'. I've reinstated the sentence as it was, although as a concession to those wanting to stress that not all cases are proven, I've brought the word allegations forward. I hope this compromise is acceptable to everyone. Obscurasky (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel like the current version is overkill...how many times do you have to say what is essentially the same thing?LedRush (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it's a bit longwinded the latest change ( restoration ? ) is a more precise and suitable description of what the article name actually refers to and includes - some of the cases can only be accurately and legally referred to as "allegations" whilst other cases already have the legal status of crimes. Afterwriting (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I made simple changes to make the lead more clear but was immediately reverted. I wanted to make the opening list shorter so I removed allegations. I wanted to make clear that the lawsuits were not all proven, so I added "allegedly committed" in addition to "committed" (thus making the list shorter and the language more precise). I also removed "legally documented" because it adds nothing to the lead and is not technically accurate with the way the sentence is written. Afterwriting (or anyone else), could you please comment on what is wrong with my revision?LedRush (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While I wrote this, Afterwriting removed "legally documented". Thanks. The other question still stands :) LedRush (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite what you actually intended, your revision was grammatically illogical and implied - as written - that some criminal convictions already legally made may still only be allegations. Afterwriting (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and believe the grammar is fine. The problem with the current version is that as written, it assumes that everything listed in the beginning is a result of acts definitively committed. This is, of course, not true. My revision allowed for some of the things on the list to be the result of acts committed while others (like scandals) could be the result of acts committed or acts allegedly committed. As it now stands, the lead sentence is just plain wrong. My revision is slightly unwieldy (as is the whole sentence), but grammatically and factually correct. If you don't like my revision, could you suggest a change to fix the current inaccuracy?LedRush (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the current revision implies that there are allegations and other stuff that isn't allegations...meaning that all the scandals and civil suits etc. are true. Furthermore, it affirmatively (and illogically) states that the allegations are based on sex crimes committed by the priests. If they actually committed the crimes, they aren't [merely] allegations. My revision fixed all these issues.LedRush (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your grammar may have been technically "fine" but the meaning provided by your edits certainly wasn't. The previous version was more accurate than yours. Your second lot of comments are very confusing and I can't see why you think you "fixed all these issues" when it seems that you did the exact opposite. Afterwriting (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where we are having the miscommunication. Would you mind addressing my points directly? ( I mean that much less rudely than it sounds). I would like to get language in there that is accurrate.

Perhaps a summary would be helpful: 1. The current language assumes that all the scandals and civil suits are based on sex crimes that were actually committed...not allegedly committed. 2. By putting allegations in a list with scandals, lawsuits and prosecutions, the structure implies that scandals, lawsuits and prosecutions aren't merely allegations. With successful prosecutions, this true. However, with unsuccessful prosecutions, most settled civil suits and scandals, it is not true.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely the lead is only stating the simple fact that some of the "cases" have resulted in criminal convictions and others have the legal status of allegations?Afterwriting (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, no. My edit said that. The current version says that the cases, scandals and allegations are "related to sex crimes committed by Catholic priests". That means that the cases/scandals/allegations stem from actual crimes definitively committed by priests. This is obviously not the case. Some scandals, some cases and all convictions relate to "sex crimes committed by" clergy, but others are based on allegations of sex crimes. That is why the term "committed" must be modified.LedRush (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I put "criminal convictions and civil lawsuits" at the beginning of the lede. That reflects reality. This is way beyond the "allegations" stage. --John Nagle (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make any major difference what "order" the various kinds of cases are in. From what experts already know about these matters, some of the cases of allegations of abuse will actually be false. I know of some cases of allegations of sexual abuse which have, for various reasons, been established beyond any reasonable doubt to have been false. Therefore the article needs to include "allegations" in the list of "cases". Afterwriting (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The article lead paragraph is burdened by nonsense: "are a series of criminal convictions, civil lawsuits, scandals and allegations of wrongdoing related to sex crimes either committed or allegedly committed by Catholic priests ". All is about the crime committed by the RCC clergy. As to the 'allegedly', it can be applied to only 300 priests out of more than 4000 accused and then convicted in the USA. These honest men cannot be mentioned, even indirectly, here. Their tragedy is in being defrocked and never acquitted of any guilt by the RCC nor their priest status was given back to them.

Worldwide, the number of the RCC priests convicted is over 8,000. So, all quoted text shall be replaced by is "are the sex crime"

The next two sentences:

"Many of the allegations led to civil suits and criminal prosecutions which resulted in the imprisonment of some priests and the awarding of significant monetary damages to the plaintiffs. Some allegations could not be proven and others were shown to be without foundation."

do not say anything wise, except raising doubts that 'many' never happened and, therefore, are baseless.

The lead paragraph must be concise and coherent, focusing to the crime nature and root causes of that crime. Therefore all after "With the approval of the Vatican, national bishops conferences ..." does not belong to the lead paragraph, for a simple reason for being retold in the article later. Moreover, what the popes said about these crimes of those who were under their power, is a matter of their preference and far less relevant than opinions of those victimized children worldwide. Their victims are holier than both popes and the truest Catholics.

Bottom line, I took liberty to considerably reduce and make concise the leading paragraph as it was explained here.--Remind me never (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by making the lede concise, you've introduced inaccuracy. You've conceded yourself that many accused are not guilty, but still say that the number isn't big enough. Well, adding two words for accuracy is not a bad trade off in my book. Also, your change incorrectly says that all the sex abuse cases revolve around sex crimes. Many (most?) of the cases are civil suits, and therefore have no relation to "crime" in the legal sense. I plan to revert your change, but suggest that for such a radical change, you post your changes here so we can comment on a way to address your opinions (concerning conciseness) while not sacrificing accuracy.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For example, how about deleting the following phrase, which doesn't really need to be explained until the body: "while under diocesan control or in orders which care for the sick or teach children".LedRush (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the mass deletions, I actually don't have a problem with much of that. However, I suspect that there are many others here who might. I'll go on record as generally favoring the deletions, though.LedRush (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, I did not introduce any inaccuracy. Claiming "Many (most?) of the cases are civil suits, and therefore have no relation to "crime" in the legal sense. " proves that you do not know what is the legal sense. Where did you learn that a civil suit cannot handle the crime? Does it mean that a crime is not the crime if handled as a civil suit? All in all, I do not see a valid reason for reverting the changes I did.--Remind me never (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I learned it in law school. Yes, if it is handled in civil court (in the US), it is technically (usually) a tort, not a crime. People can sue in civil court for crimes committed against them, but they sue for a tort with the same underlying facts as would be pursued in a prosecution for a crime (as is very often the case with rape-and OJ even didn't commit the crime of murder, he committed the tort of wrongful death). However, the torts and are not themselves, legally crimes, and therefore have different standards of proof and evidence than criminal (crime) cases. Common usage may de different than the legal one, and I only speak for US law on this.

Anyhoo, your changes to the first sentence do introduce inaccuracies. As stated above, in many of the cases, no one was accused of a crime. In many others, no one was convicted of a crime. Your language does not allow for these possibilities and does almost nothing to address your issue of being concise. Anyway, I won't revert tonight because even though I don't think my edits qualify me for 3RR, I have tinkered with this a lot today and some around here have quick tempers. I do, however, suggest you discuss these changes specifically on the talk page, perhaps giving each suggested deletion its own section so we can focus correctly.LedRush (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some definite problems with the changes, Remind me never. First of all, you deleted a very relevant, very real, other perspective, pretty much in it's entirety from the article, complete with great citations. That is, frankly, really uncool. If you have a reason for removing an entire perspective from the article, please explain and discuss it here before trying again. That the media has overblown the issue is a perfectly valid and perfectly relevant thing to say.

Also, I remind you, and everyone, that this article is about abuse CASES, not convictions. That means that this article is about convictions, ongoing cases, and aquittals too. Your change to the lede created a statement that technically claimed that every single Catholic sex abuse case involved an actual crime, or in other words that every single case resulted in a conviction. This is far and away untrue. That they are cases in general, and not just convictions is an extremely important thing to make clear right away.Farsight001 (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a concise summation of the article, covering the main points. It is not intended that people cherry-pick out bits they don't like, or don't think relevant to their view of the article. The point of view of the Church as well as its detractors on this issue needs to be fairly presented. Overuse of language such as "crimes" and "Concealment" can also be POV. We need to state what Bishops actually did without opinionising or drawing conclusions of our own. I'm not sure where Remind me.. gets his figure of 8,000 convictions from. I certainly haven't seen it anywhere. Xandar 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• @LedRush Here you are playing with phrases of a bad lawyer. Crime is not defined by whether it was handled by a court as a crime case, but by the law. Rape of an orphaned child is the crime, even if it was never a subject of a criminal prosecution, my dear friend. And even if the Roman pope chants about that as a devil's deed and a grave sin and, at the same time, prevents naming and prosecuting those who systematically raped hundreds of children in Ireland over decades. I do not think that a serious law school could teach anyone the way you pointed at here. Your 'accuracy' of the law notions is a bureaucratic one, not academic.--Remind me never (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I have defeated you so thoroughly on the substantive points that you have nothing left to do than make a failing moral argument on a side discussion. However, even here you are mistaken. The law is concerned with fact, not morality. Crimes are only crimes when they have been proven in a court of law. No American law school will teach that any differently. Quite honestly, any contrary view goes against the basic principles upon which the US legal system was founded.

The sad thing for you is that you've acted like such a jack-ass that you've made making deletions to the lede more difficult for yourself. Congratulations.LedRush (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with the version of the lead I added? It was a suitable length and tightly written. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you remind me of your proposed change, perhaps in a different section? Tempers flare on this board, and changes are difficult to make without garnering consensus on the talk page first.LedRush (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added one small amendment to Afterwritting's changes; "scandals about sex crimes" doesn't really read too well, so I've changed it to "scandals relating to sex crimes". Obscurasky (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good grammatical change.LedRush (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• @LedRush You tried to defeat very basic logic, my friend. The crimes related facts are given. Here is not issue that the crime has not been proven in a court of law, the issue is that the raped did not get chance to bring their cases to the court due to the state collusion with the RCC, here in the USA, in Ireland, in Italy. When justice is obstructed this way then your talk what is the crime and what is not simply does not work. The law is concerned with morality, too, for morality is a fact. So, "No American law school will teach that any differently.".The sad thing for you is that you've acted like such a jack-ass who kept throwing meaningless phrases of a bad lawyer being not capable of proving what you wanted to prove.--Remind me never (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to your other mistakes, you seem to be under the impression that every single member of RCC who has been accused of a misdeed is actually guilty. This is clearly and provably false.LedRush (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, you slipped into lying, eh?! Somewhere above you can read my statement: As to the 'allegedly', it can be applied to only 300 priests out of more than 4000 accused and then convicted in the USA. These honest men cannot be mentioned, even indirectly, here. Their tragedy is in being defrocked and never acquitted of any guilt by the RCC nor their priest status was given back to them.--Remind me never (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At least you're using one of your actual account names at last instead of all those anonymous IPs. Other than that nothing has changed. Afterwriting (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@LedRush, "my" version of the lead is below - though it had been improved significantly by others as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Version of the lead from the 1st June

The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and scandals related to legally documented sex crimes committed or allegedly committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders, while under diocesan control or in orders which care for the sick or teach children, that first rose to widespread public attention in the last two decades of the 20th century. Although awareness of the scope of these abuses first received significant media attention in Canada, Ireland and the United States, other cases were also reported in a number of other countries.

In addition to the actual abuse, much of the scandal focused around some members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report the crimes to civil authorities, and in many cases reassigned the offenders to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors, giving the unfortunate unrepentant the opportunity to continue their sexual abuse. In defending their actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counselling. Members of the church hierarchy have compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions.

In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses as well. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius." With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States claimed to institute reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers, while opposing legislation making it easier for abusers to sue the Catholic Church.

This seems fine to me, but I'm new here. What were the objections to leaving out the other bits?LedRush (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@.... In defending their actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counselling????????? Their actions are obstruction of justice, therefore the crime, too. Then, this shall be in the lead paragraph of this article?! --Remind me never (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That comment is already in the lead. And I presume that a reliable source can be found to back it up - it doesn't seem implausible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Factually, (outside of murder), non-reporting by a third party (ie a bishop) of an alleged crime by someone else, has not been a crime. Reporting is the primary responsibility of the victim or their family. Hence no prosecutions of Bishops, secular teachers, secular social workers etc, who habitually did not report such matters during the 1990s, and used other methods to deal with such allegations. Xandar 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Obstruction of justice"!?!?!? Jeez... Making stuff up with strongly worded opinions does not increase their relationship to reality. Does anyone have any intelligent comments on the abbreviated lede?LedRush (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, does the silence on this mean that there is consensus to take the more concise lede on a test drive?LedRush (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've been WP:BOLD and added the shorter lead to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to be God!

The criminals are definitely treated as criminals! Bravo Belgium!

This news shall be reflected in the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world/europe/25belgium.html

Belgian Catholic Church Offices Raided in Abuse Inquiry By STEPHEN CASTLE

BRUSSELS — The scandal over sexual abuse of children by priests continued to reverberate across Europe on Thursday when authorities raided the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium and the home of the country’s former archbishop, according to the prosecutors’ office and local media reports.--208.103.155.144 (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• @208.103.155.144 Your lead paragraph change lived barely one minute. Looks like the RCC hired some watchdogs here to delete whatever might displease them.
• @Eraserhead1 You can, for example, insert somewhere in this article, that Belgian authorities started to treat the RCC as common criminals for the crime they committed. This is a positive step if compared to Ireland where the RCC is still untouchable. Some money is given to the victims but the Irish government shields the perpetrators: no one is jailed yet, even the perpetrators names are not public!--Remind me never (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On the second point, fair enough. I'll do so in the next few days if noone else does. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

At least the Irish state media have covered the Belgian inspection; see this.86.44.213.96 (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

PS the NY Times article didn't mention the 450 complaints. I guess that's reason for any police force to investigate, especially where internal documents about past transfers of priests just might go missing.86.44.213.96 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I see our anonymous troll is posturing again. It looks like police have seized a computer and some documents as part of an investigation of complaints from so far anonymous sources. This seems to have been some sort of grandstanding exercise since the papers seized were part of a joint Church commission into the issue. The RCC has not "been treated as common criminals" and no "crime" has been commited by the "RCC". That is why no one has gone to prison for official actions, though some priests against whom criminal actions have been proved have gone to prison - just as other proven abusers have. Xandar 20:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• A good reading is here: Vatican astonished at Belgian police raid

News of the Belgian raid was welcomed by the U.S. victims group SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which urged police and prosecutors across the world to use their full powers to gain access to church records. By contrast, the group criticized the Vatican's reaction.

"Vatican officials who criticize the Belgian police raid of the Brussels church hierarchy should be ashamed of themselves," Joelle Casteix of SNAP said in a statement Friday. "While Roman church officials talk about stopping abuse, Belgian police officials take action to stop abuse."--Remind me never (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Added a "Belgium" section, with properly cited material about the raid. --John Nagle (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sky News has video of the raid.[1]. --John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored New York Times reference to raid. --John Nagle (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Belgian police brought in Cardinal Danneels and interrogated him for ten hours.[2]. The Google translation from Dutch isn't too good ("Earlier contradictory statements about Roger Vangheluwe, former Bishop of Bruges, the investigators already strong in their belief that the cardinal knows more than he is."), but the general idea of "cover up" comes through. Meanwhile, grumbling from the Vatican [3]. --John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Roeach

The book does exist:

Roeach : leerboeken godsdienst ASO : Jef. Bulckens. Werkschrift. Publisher: Kapellen : Patmos/Pelckmans, cop. 1991-...

From The Fall of the Belgian Church we can read this:

The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997 when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: “Stroking my pussy makes me feel groovy,” “I like to take my knickers off with friends,” “I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex.” The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are “playing doctor” and the little boy says: “Look, my willy is big.”

My advice is to keep the information about the sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops under the Belgium subsection of this article.

--Remind me never (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I found some more reliable sources supporting the evidence in the blog of Alexandra Colen: http://archives.lesoir.be/un-manuel-de-catechese-qui-incite-a-la-pedophilie-_t-19980210-Z0EV3A.html and http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/archief/Artikelen/2010/4/29/Hartkwaal

Both confirm that the picture and alleged text is indeed in the textbook. The lesoir source also speaks of the reaction of Toon Osaer who admitted the incriminated images but tried to downplay them. However the the text in the article should be changed to give a more factual description, everyone can draw conclusions from that. In this case it appears ok to use the blog as source as the other sources confirm the most important information and the rest can be taken as opinion of the author who is notable as MEP. Richiez (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all off topic and based on self-published websites of odd political groups. Whatever this so-called "catechism" or "textbook" was, it has nothing to do with this article - and certainly not the interpretation of whatever it was by some right-wing Flemish politician, angry at liberals in the Church. Even if the material were related to the topic of the article, none of it is reliably or even properly sourced. Xandar 00:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• @Xandar By calling something 'self-published', 'odd political group', 'some right-wing Flemish politician' you did not prove that the facts presented by Alexandra Colen, a notable member of Belgian House of Representatives, are false. Richiez just supported this author's claims by new sources and by other people. I myself, found this book available in the Tilburg University library --Remind me never (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not a body for presenting the views of certain maverick politicians. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, which obscure websites and unavailable books in flemish are not. The whole idea of this addition is to make an inference about an unavailable "catechism" or "textbook" and an illustration taken completely out of its context, and to build on this flimsy material by Original Research some wild allegation that Belgian Bishops had a "culture of sexual abuse"! This is the biggest load of nonsense I have read for a while. This violates wikipedia Biography of Living Persons policies, and cannot be in the article without firm, reputable English language reliable sources showing that this argument is being reputably made by mainstream sources. Xandar 01:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this, but if said catechism actually exists, there should be references to the book itself. If this was real, I'd expect major press coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@maverick, @xandar: if you have sound reason to believe that "lesoir.be" is an untrusted source please explain that a little bit. It may be borderline off-topic for this article but that is another story. Richiez (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

lesoir.be is a blog. I see no sources or indication that it has a reputation for good fact checking like, for example, the panda's thumb blog has. Furthermore, it is not in English. While it doesn't absolutely have to be, it is highly encourages - especially for potentially contentious and disputed material.Farsight001 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you check it? See Le Soir and the same article in French fr:Le Soir and Italian it:Le Soir. It is certainly not a blog and I see no indication that it would be a substandard paper. Richiez (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I checked it. It's a blog, even if it doesn't label itself as one. It's so obviously a blog I don't know why we're having this conversation. In addition, I found some more problems with it - the author of the article is anonymous, going only by "C.L." Who is this person? What are their credentials? What makes them notable enough to be cited on the subject? Without this information, we really can't use the link even if it wasn't a blog.Farsight001 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

a) Blogs by major newspapers are considered reliable. b) Authors for the Economist are anonymous, and that is a very respectable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead, we're not talking about an article from The Economist here, nor, as far as I can tell, a blog by a major newspaper - which, btw, is not always considered reliable anyway. I don't know where you got the idea. A news article in a major newspaper is always reliable, but op ed pieces and blog posts in that same newspaper are NOT.Farsight001 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Farsight001: are we both speaking about http://archives.lesoir.be/un-manuel-de-catechese-qui-incite-a-la-pedophilie-_t-19980210-Z0EV3A.html ? For me it shows the author name quite clearly - Christian Laporte. I can not follow your conclusion that this is a blog. From the article click the "blogs" button, go to one of those blogs and see what their blogs look like. Here is one for example http://blogs.lesoir.be/grammedheroine/ Richiez (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Also.. the article has the date 10.3.1998 (3/10/1998). For anyone who can remember that time - it was years before blogs became modern. I would guess the only blog that existed at this time was that of JWZ. Richiez (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I can certainly see the author name now. Thanks for making that clear. But still, it screams blog to me. Remember - just because it doesn't say blog, doesn't mean it isn't. I have a blog. But nowhere to my recollection is it identified as such. It's still a blog. And again - an English source, especially for information like this, is quite strongly encouraged.Farsight001 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See also fr:Christian Laporte. Richiez (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why to spend a single word arguing with these people (Farsight, Xandar, etc.)? They are pretending to guard quality of the article which is everything what comes from the RCC and nothing what might point at the true nature of the RCC crime. Belgian state was frustrated with that Catholic committee who keeps hundreds of cases in existence for over a decade, but for most of that time it dealt with only 30 complaints and took no discernible action on them. Within last eight weeks they received new 500 cases which just points at the tip of this crime iceberg. This Wikipedia article is not worth of reading--Remind me never (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been warned for your incivility in the past, as well as recieved a block to one of your IP addresses. Keep down this path and you'll likely lose the account too. If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules, which is what we've been trying to do and trying to get you to do.Farsight001 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever anyone claims Le Soir is a respectable newspaper, Christian Laporte a well known Belgian journalist and the article is dated several years before the first newspaper had a blog.

In conclusion, this is a reliable source and anyone claiming the opposite should consult some French speaking wikipedians and ask them to give expertise here. Richiez (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why consult French wikipedians? They don't determine the usefulness of a source. The source's reputation for fact checking determines the usefulness of a source. In addition, as I already said above, just because you don't call it a blog, doesn't mean it isn't a blog. Also for the second time - opinion pieces are typically not to be used either, even if they come from the most respectable source on the planet. So again, the newspaper itself may be reliable, but I see every indication that the article itself is not. Can you not find a better citation - especially one in English? My other issue with it is even if it is a perfectly usable source, it has the appearance of one that is not, and so this problem you're having with me objecting is just going to continue with future editors that come to the page. A respectable source that's actually in English would solve such a problem.Farsight001 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The only actual reference I can find to such a book is this ad on a classified-ad site in Belgium.[4] for a used copy of a pamphlet with "Roeach 3" on the cover. Is that the item in question? The author name shown on the cover doesn't match. --John Nagle (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Farsight can you bring some evidence that Le Soir isn't a reliable source? It sounds pretty reliable to me. Opinion pieces and blogs in reliable newspapers are allowed if they are by a professional journalist - as in this case per WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and blogs by professional journalists are RS, but only for the opinion of said journalist and not as fact. As for evidence that it isn't reliable - proving a negative is not how it works and I believe you know that. The burden of proof is on the person wanting to use it and so far all we have is that it is the most popular French language newspaper in Belgium. I don't understand why you're all pushing so hard for this exact source. Surely there is another - one that is actually in English. Farsight001 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:USEENGLISH you don't have to use an English language source - its only preferable if there is one available. Given that non-English speaking newspapers have only recently had English language versions so it seems fairly unlikely for there to be an English language source from 1998. If you want to find an English language source to replace this one by all means put in the effort, but stop trying to obstruct this content which is backed up by a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UseEnglish is about article naming, not content. WP:SOAPS, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are more relevant here. Firstly most of this is irrelevant for the article, and an unreliable opinion piece. Second, There is no reliable source for this speculation on an unseen and unknown book. If there is no reliable english language source, the matter is clearly not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Even a single source in English does not fully establish notability and prominence for such a viewpoint, unless it is clearly held by a significant group. These safeguards are even more necessary where the reputation of living persons is concerned. As far as I can see this is the ramblings of some Flemish extremist politician on a tangential subject. And as far as I can see from the links presented, the theories complained off originated with American secular sexologist, Kinsey. Perhaps you should put this stuff on his page. Xandar 00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

By WP:USEENGLISH I meant WP:NONENG -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not any blog that happens to be hosted by LeSoir - this is a regular newspaper article. Like most serious newspapers LeSoir takes care that all blogs are clearly identifiable as such, they are hosted by blogs.lesoir.be. I gave that example earlier, here it is again: http://blogs.lesoir.be/grammedheroine/ The footnote of the blog says "Ce blog émane du Soir.be et tourne sous WordPress", our article does not and looks completely different anyway.

The article in question is a normal article from 1998 that is available from the archive of the newspaper. It is obviously a pretty old affair, seems like Alexandra Colen wants to ride the wave by bringing the affair back to attention again. Nevertheless it was her (according to LeSoir) who started (or perhaps popularized/exploited) the affair way back when the newspaper wrote about it (long before the blogs of LeSoir or Alexandra Colen existed). It is not a commentary or "opinion piece" - it is a simple account of what Alexandra Colen's claims (described as such), actions and the reaction of the church along with the description of the most controversial picture. It does explicitly state that Tony Osaer, speaker of the "Conférence épiscopale" confirmed the existence of the incriminated book, pictures and texts. There is no way a major Belgian newspaper would write this without double checking. Also it is certainly not so that the article would describe Alexandra Colen in an overly postivie way or rely on her information, she is described as far right (LeSoir.be is generaly considered liberal).

Regarding language, this is not some obscure language where you would have to search hard to find someone to verify content but one of the 2 official languages of the UN. Richiez (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's not hard to find confirmation in English, then why have you not done so? Thus far we have this one and only one article, which most wikipedians will be unable to read, as a cite.Farsight001 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on this to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but why? Check this conversation. We have 3 people against it, 2 people for it, and 1 troll for it. How does that make this ok? I've said repeatedly that we really need an English language source for a contentious statement like this. In addition, I also submit that it lacks notability. Some random clergy in Belgium say pedophilia is ok? So what. There's a priest in California who wears a clown costume at mass sometimes. How is random Joe priest notable or important here? If it was the pope, I might understand. But a no-name priest? Not at all.Farsight001 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Because your argument before was poor and as Wikipedia works by consensus and not by democracy it doesn't matter on the number of !voters. Per WP:NONENG there is no reason that an English language needs to be found - I think on reflection, given its controversial, another reliable source - such as http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/archief/Artikelen/2010/4/29/Hartkwaal would cover it. Your latter point here is worth considering - however they contacted a Cardinal about this book and he ignored the issue which is worthy of criticism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead appears to be correct; Per policy, it should be ok to add, so long as we can verify it (ideally by multiple editors). That said, due to the controversial wording of the proposed addition, it seems appropriate that we can reference multiple sources (and if possible, have a ref to something an English speaker can pursue). Are either of these possible? Jess ^talk _cs 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Eraserhead, but did you actually just say that consensus is not a matter of numbers? What is it then? And I will again question the notability - this one source is, as far as I can tell and as far as anyone else can show, the only source in existence that makes this claim - making confirming it or providing multiple sources for this contentious bit of info completely impossible. And as the Verifiability guidelines that you cited, Eraserhead, we should thus not be using this information at all.Farsight001 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jess, there are two sources, http://archives.lesoir.be/un-manuel-de-catechese-qui-incite-a-la-pedophilie-_t-19980210-Z0EV3A.html and http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/archief/Artikelen/2010/4/29/Hartkwaal. And while its not ideal an English speaker can pursue them with Google Translate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Farsight, there are two reliable sources which have been presented showing the required point, which even though it is controversial should be enough and that should also be enough to establish notability. Per WP:CONSENSUS consensus requires good reasons to be given for your claims, and in this case both you and Xander have mostly given poor reasons as to why this content should be excluded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. There's two sources in existence, neither of which are readable to the average wikipedian. I have repeatedly questioned one's reliability with no evidence provided in response. I have also pointed out that English sources are strongly encouraged, which you have mostly responded with the fact that it's not necessary. I understand that, but the problem remains - no one can really confirm that the sources say what is claimed that they say. Furthermore, the fact that you cannot provide an English reference is indication in itself that this information is non-notable. A couple no-name clergy say pedophilia is ok? So what. What makes them notable? Nothing. That is another issue I have brought up with no response. This isn't a matter of having poor reasons for exclusion. This is a matter of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This information is a minor blip of importance compared to the rest of the article, comes from an unconfirmable source which attributes it to a few no-names, is questionable, and on top of all that, is contentious information - which requires extra solid sources, but we only have piss poor ones. There is simply no valid reason to include this information right now.Farsight001 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Farsight I know this is frustrating, but please try to keep your tone professional. I'd hate to see this discussion become uncivil. There appear to be two objections raised.

1. The sources are not English. This appears to be covered by WP:NONENG. English sources are unnecessary, and therefore (per this policy) the language of a source shouldn't even be a point of discussion unless we also have an English ref. Is there a reason you can cite that this policy does not apply?
2. The issue is not notable. It directly applies to the article, and it's referenced in multiple sources (listed above), at least two of which appear to be reliable. I would say that makes it worthy of inclusion. Do you have any specific observations about the two links which show them to be unreliable? Jess ^talk _cs 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also because we have to keep the whole article neutral, next time - if it is reasonable - we can go with the "pro church" side. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1)Again, while English sources are not required, they are strongly encouraged. In other articles, for contentious information like this, an English source is often SO strongly encouraged that it pretty much becomes necessary. The lede of articles also doesn't require citations. However, we often put them there anyway because it almost becomes a necessity for some information.

2) Applying to the article makes it relevant, but not notable. I am speaking of notability, and I don't think it even comes close to being notable. A blip in two news articles out of millions about a couple of priests who have no notability of their own. Relevant? Yes. Whether or not Hitler dyed his hair is also relevant to Hitler. It's not notable though. Nor is the personal opinion of a couple of no-names.

3) One of my other points was that if we use these sources and put this info in the article, it's just not going to last. Way too many wikipedians are going to hate it far more than I because a source that can't be understood pretty much amounts to no source at all to most people. They'll see the info, they'll click the link, and then they'll object to the info just as, if not more, strongly than I am. If someone can conjure up an English source (which, if this info is actually notable, I'm wondering why no one has been able to yet), then it will make things a lot easier in the future.Farsight001 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Farsight, I don't have the time to search for English language sources. If you want to challenge WP:NONENG I suggest you take it up on the relevant talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No.WP:NONENG has only tangential relevance to the main issues. The issues here are Relvance, WP:UNDUE, and Notability. The opinion expressed, that elements in the Catholic church support pederasty, is clearly (there is no argument possible about this) WP:FRINGE. It has been referenced to one flemish politician. We shouldn't even be talking about considering material this outlandish and non-notable. The fact that no references exist in English for this stuff - and that the first English-language repetition would be Wikipedia - only goes to further underline the non-notability and unreliability of this material. WP:REDFLAG also screams out here, since the material and its use make extreme allegations on the basis of the flimsiest and unreliable source material. Exceptional allegations require exceptionally good sources. There is also the fact that serious accusations against living persons are being tangentially made here. Even if this material had readable English-language sources, as it stands, it would not be includable. Xandar 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been found here - this isn't just something on a blog - and its perfectly possible that there are English language sources - I just can't be bothered to put in any effort to find them when we have enough sources already. EDIT; Its quite clear that in this case the Cardinal hasn't taken the matter as seriously as they should have done, which given the recent news coverage and reaction from the church doesn't seem to be a particularly unreasonable claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Eraserhead Being neutral does not mean giving equal weight or time to both sides. I'm not sure blatantly adding "pro catholic church" ideas to the article just for the sake of it would be a good idea. Then again, I'd have to see the specific proposal to know how it applied to WP:NPOV.

@Farsight

1. WP:NONENG says English sources are unnecessary. You are still arguing that we shouldn't add information because the source is non-English. I don't know what else to tell you... this is an objection you should raise on the policy page, not here. Until it's changed, we have to follow policy.
2. There are two issues with notability:
   1. If a topic is irrelevant. (i.e. not a notable topic to be placed in the article). This clearly is.
   2. If a topic isn't backed up by reliable sources. (i.e. It's not notable in the real world) Until you can demonstrate these sources are not realiable, then we don't have a problem here either.
   • Think of it this way: Can you think of any other topic which is both relevant to the article and backed up by reliable sources which shouldn't be included?
3. Your expectations of how this information will be used or debated in the future is of no concern to its inclusion now. If other editors object later, then we'll discuss it later. Unless you can furnish reasons why the sources provided are not reliable, or why we should abandon wikipedia policy in a wikipedia article, then I move that the content should be added. Jess ^talk _cs 22:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Xander Looking over the wording of the proposed addition, and in light of the fact that we currently only have a few references to the claims (note I haven't even done a cursory google search myself), I agree that we have WP:Fringe issues. I do not, however, think that the topic itself is a violation of WP:Fringe... just that until we see sources from mainstream news sources, the current wording is far too assertive. Something along the lines of "Allegations have been made that...", "Some sources may imply...", etc might be more appropriate. A single sentence in the appropriate section should suffice. Would anyone care to rewrite the proposed content? Jess ^talk _cs 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jess, I didn't mean to add something blatently pro-catholic, but if the sources are fairly good we should add that content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Eraserhead If there is content which is relevant to this article which happens to be from the "Catholic perspective", then sure. For example, responses to allegations would be appropriate. However, I read your comment to mean that we should try to balance the amount of content on each side. (We added X things which were anti-catholic, so now we should add a few that are pro-catholic) If that's not what you meant, then we have no disagreement :) Jess ^talk _cs 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jess I was saying the latter, and you're quite right - I retract the comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

English-language source covering the Brussels Journal story: Blog by Mary Ellen Synon on the Daily Mail website. Google books entry: [5] I am not voicing an opinion on whether inclusion in this article is due or undue. Other English-language sources on the recent controversy in Belgium:

• Article in National Catholic Register
• Article in The Guardian

As a general point of principle, foreign-language sources are absolutely fine when no equivalent English sources are available, especially for coverage of events in non-English-speaking countries. --JN466 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1)For the love of God. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. I know English sources are not technically necessary. That wasn't my point. Read what I wrote again.

2)This topic clearly is NOT notable. It boggles my mind that people think otherwise. It's the opinion of a handful of complete and utter no-names. Can we also cite MY opinion of all this? I'm no less famous or notable than they are.

3)The burden of proof is not on me to prove that the sources are reliable. It's on the ones trying to use it.

4)No, I cannot think of any other topic off the top of my head. That is, however, irrelevant. The perceived non-existence of a similar issue does not automatically make this subject notable enough for inclusion in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Farsight I don't know what else to tell you. Three editors have repeatedly explained WP:NONENG to you, yet you're still objecting to the language of a source. You need to take this up on the policy page. Furthermore, my question about notability was intended rhetorically to highlight how we decide what content to include. If a topic relates to the article and is backed up by reliable sources, then it should be included. That you can't think of any other case where this isn't true, should demonstrate that you're using different criteria to exclude this topic than you would use for others. My assumption is that it's because of the language issue... which again, has no place here. Jess ^talk _cs 02:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're obviously not understanding what I'm saying about using an English language source because I certainly don't have a problem with policy here. Second - your comment about notability may have been rhetorical, but mine was not. Being related to the article and having a reliable source is NOT the sole criteria for inclusion. Notability is very important here, and this info is simply not notable enough - no more so than Hitler's hair care is to the Hitler article or the scope zoom setting to the JFK assassination page. There is such a thing as excessive detail, and this is definitely it. If we're going to include one no-name's view, then we would logically have to include EVERY no-name's view. It is absolutely ridiculous.Farsight001 (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Farsight You're discussing 2 distinct things. One is relevance, and the other is scope of the sources. Hitler's hair color is irrelevant to his article. On the other hand, a book allegedly published by the Catholic Church supporting sexual abuse is very relevant to an article on Catholic sex abuse. As for scope of sources, we have numerous reliable sources, and your only apparent objection to them where you've given any specifics is their language. I understand perfectly well what your objection is with respect to their language, and it is directly opposed to WP:NONENG. A source's language has no bearing on its utility in any way. I'm having a hard time seeing how this conversation is ever going to get anywhere; As far as I can tell, a major part of your objection is in clear conflict with established policy, and I'm seeing strong support (backed up by policy) for the proposal. Jess ^talk _cs 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you're never going to understand my language objection, then try my other one - that of notability. I'll say it again. This information is the personal opinion of a couple of complete and utter no-names. It is not even remotely close to notable enough for inclusion in this article. This is a point that has been utterly ignored in this conversation.Farsight001 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Farsight, if you really want to continue this argument I suggest you take it to some form of dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The principle is clear - it's up to those wanting to introduce information to the article to justify it. The material presented so-far is absolutely non-notable and is an extreme fringe viewpoint, sourced back to the one blog. The allegation is an extremely serious one, yet there is zero solid back-up or serious reputable comment and analysis to back it up. A copy of the offensive publication itself has not even been produced. I would imagine that if the "story" has any basis at all, that certain sex-education material of the type being forced on schoolkids in the Uk without much comment has been seized upon by certain individuals, and used in a rather far-fetched argument in an attempt to hurl mud. If this story is going to run, serious comment from significant sources will have to appear. Until then, it is a libellous non-starter. Xandar 20:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be sure to take it to dispute resolution if people continue to ignore what I say. I'm trying to be a good wikipedian and get people to discuss it first. I notice that, once again, you did not respond to the argument I put forth - that this info is EXTREMELY non-notable, and thus not worthy for inclusion in this article.Farsight001 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Xandar, they have justified it at great length and its backed up by reliable sources - just read the above.

@Farsight, given its only a single sentence and it is backed up by two reliable sources I don't think WP:UNDUE applies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Again its been at least reasonably well justified and is backed up by reliable sources. Therefore if you guys really wish to continue this take it to dispute resolution. Its completely crazy that we need to have a 6000 word discussion over a single sentence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course Undue applies! Things on the furthest fringes should, per undue, not actually get ANY mention. There are many things that don't belong in articles because they're undue even though there are far, FAR more than 2 measly sources in existence. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. We shouldn't even have to have this conversation. Adding information to the article that exists in only 2 sources making allegations about a couple of completely and utterly non-notable randoms is the epitome of Undue weight.

And Eraserhead - would you please stop talking about reliability and relevance. They are not the only two criteria for inclusion in an article. As I have had to say half a dozen fucking times now - notability is also quite important. And this information just doesn't have it.Farsight001 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not a fringe theory if its been published by the biggest French newspaper in Belgium which is the country concerned. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Being the biggest French language newspaper in a place like Belgium not being the least bit impressive aside, it really doesn't matter how big a source it is published in. People magazine, Time, or even another encyclopedia - The information itself is not notable because it comes from a complete and utter no-name. It'd be like citing Obama's cooking tips in an article about flambes. Who gives a crap what published Obama's cooking tips. The problem is that the tips come from Obama - famous in his own right, yes. But a no-name in the cooking world. His opinion on cooking is thus completely non-notable. Not worthy of inclusion in a cooking article. Likewise, the info in question here is not even remotely worthy of inclusion. It's completely speculative. It's from a nobody. And as Xandar said, it's borderline libelous.Farsight001 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you still think that and aren't prepared to compromise on the matter I suggest you take it to dispute resolution. There is no point in continuing this discussion otherwise as it isn't going anywhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not going anywhere because the issue is NON-NOTABLE. The concept of notability and Due Weight is based on the understanding that just having a reference, however vague or flimsy, is not enough to insert a topic into an article. Any number of things can be referenced. They are not however notable or due weight. This particular "story" is non-notable, it is not a major element in the international coverage of the subject of this article, therefore its inclusion is not Due Weight. In fact the objection goes further in that the viewpoint that some want to add is not only extreme, and unreliably sourced, but the epitome of WP:FRINGE, being held by hardly anybody and with no serious backing. There is no consensus to add this unreliable and scandalous material. So it has been removed Xandar 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Which level of dispute resolution do you think would be most appropriate? Or are you prepared to make some form of compromise? I'm more than happy for the wording to be altered if that is an issue as long as the content isn't fully removed from the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Before dispute resolution, I would appreciate you actually acknowledge my objection of the info being non-notable. I've stated this no less than six times now, with argumentum, plus Xandar has said it a few times as well and the only response we've gotton thus far is that it's reliable (which we also dispute) and relevant. But reliability and relevance are not what we're talking about anymore. Notability. Notability. Notability. That is the subject. Address it. Cut the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT crap. If you think it IS notable, then at the very least say why. No one has even mustered that up yet. You said above that consensus is not about superior numbers, but rather about having a valid reason to include something in the article. so provide that valid reason. Quit talking about dispute resolution or reliability or relevance. Notability is what's in question here.Farsight001 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a sentence sourced from two reliable sources written in both the languages of the country concerned can possibly be non-notable or undue weight. You're trying to apply what approaches WP:ITNC notability criteria to a single sentence. Even so if more than a single sentence was being added then you're argument about undue weight would have much more merit and there would be room for more compromise which I would be happy to make. Additionally if a major national newspaper in the country concerned publishes something it isn't a fringe theory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it can be non-notable just like, as the analogy I have already drawn twice, Hitler's hair stylings are non-notable in the Hitler article. We may have a plethora of reliable sources to choose from about Hitler's hair style, but his hair style is just not really notable. In addition, the claim that pedophilia is ok is supported by, what, 2 people? 2 out of over a billion Catholics. That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. A far smaller percentage than people who believe the earth is flat or believe the sun revolves around the earth, both of which have been reported on in mainstream media, and yet completely absent from articles like Earth and Solar system. And why are those things absent? Because despite being multitudes more popular than this, they are non-notable. Read WP:Fringe. If a position is rare enough, it deserves NO mention, not even one sentence, in an article. 2 out of 1.1 billion, or 0.0000000018181818...% of Catholics is not even remotely notable. How do you NPOV such an issue that is so out there? Add half a billion sentences for the other side? Of course not. You simply don't bother including that one sentence in the first place.

And let me say that your major newspaper analogy makes no sense. If the Vatican (a sovereign country just like Belgium) publishes an article in it's most popular newspaper that claims a link between breast cancer and abortion, does what they say suddenly make the breast cancer-abortion link idea NOT fringe? Simply by virtue of the fact that there was an article about it in the most popular newspaper in a country? Need I remind you that not all newspapers are actually reliable. The dailymail is about the most popular news source in England, and yet I am constantly reminded by my British friends not to bother reading it because it's trash. If popularity made reliability and notability, we would all be falling on every word of Perez Hilton, God forbid.Farsight001 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Knockout

The U.S. Supreme Court clears the way for suing the pope by refusing to hear a Vatican argument over international jurisdiction.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to directly do with improving the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in adding something like this. For the most part, it's irrelevant, not being about a sex abuse case, and it's not really notable enough the rest of the way. Stuff like this is very standard for legal issues.Farsight001 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we hat this section unless the OP can make a more substantial point about how this benefits the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic? Substantial point? Well, here is more: Without its immunity, can the Vatican survive?

A US supreme court decision could have serious implications for the Holy See, historically protected by its sovereignty

The US supreme court decision paves the way for other suits to be filed against priests accused of paedophilia, which will in turn involve the Vatican. Jeff Anderson, the lawyer representing the claimant, is already understood to have more cases against the Holy See in the pipeline. The combination of potentially thousands of victims in numerous jurisdictions, and the economic incentive for lawyers seek-out cases (particularly in America where so-called "ambulance-chasing" is rife), could result in enough cases to have devastating implications for the church.

The necessity is: a whole section in the article that will capture the Belgian police raid of the Church offices and the US supreme court decision, as reflection of the national states decision to take the matter of this sex crime (not abuse) out of the Church control.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@166.32 Are you suggesting this get added into the article? If so, where and why? If not, then it doesn't belong on this talk page and should be hatted. Jess ^talk _cs 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm clear: The necessity is: a whole section in the article Why? as reflection of the national states decision to take the matter of this sex crime (not abuse) out of the Church control. All this is in plain English, isn't it?--166.32.193.81 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@166.32 For someone who just criticized another editor for being uncivil, you're being quite confrontational yourself. You were obviously not clear, or multiple editors would not have asked you to clarify. As for your request, we cannot add a full section in the article for this sort of case. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and so we cannot speculate on what implications this will have. The best we could possibly do is add a sentence which referenced the article to the effect of "One case has been successfully tried". However, even this I would oppose; Your first article is broken (and by the looks of it, was irrelevant). Your second article is written entirely tentatively, even ending with "But how the law will deal with (this) remains to be seen.". That's the kind of content that belongs in a news article, not an encyclopedia. Jess ^talk _cs 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@Mann_jess. Taking high post 'supported' by 'not a crystal ball', 'multiple editors', etc. you did not say much. Which 'multiple editors'? How come that these 'multiple editors' use the same brain? The US Supreme Court move to deny Vatican sex abuse (more correct crime) immunity and Belgian police raid are echoed in thousands of articles. Expressing dissatisfaction with someone's article selection the way you did then 'explaining' what is encyclopedia, is not far from 'multiple editors' thinking.--Remind me never (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also recentism to worry about. This is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news channel. There is no need to add information to the article as soon as it breaks. It would actually be more wise to be patient and wait for more clarity on this issue. For example - while the supreme court decided against the Vatican, there is still miles of red tape and a likely appeal to work past. It will be months before any real action takes place. So lets wait and see what actually happens instead of speculating about everything.Farsight001 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@Remind I've read your reply a number of times. I legitimately don't know what you're trying to say. Something about me not saying anything? I quoted policy to you, which is perfectly applicable in this case. If you don't agree with policy, then you should take it up on the policy page. Thanks Jess ^talk _cs 03:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a sex abuse case, or so says The Guardian.[6] There are multiple reliable sources: Wall Street Journal Reuters ABC News. This is going to be a big deal. But give it a few days, until the weeklies have had a chance to weigh in. The big question is whether the Vatican is the "employer" of priests under US law.[7] That's a case by case issue, but in this case, a priest was transferred from Ireland to the US, which lends support to the claim that the Vatican was the employer. --John Nagle (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@Mann_jess Please, do not change any word in my text here. Civilty is mandatory, isn't it?--166.32.193.81 (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What is Bruni?

The references cite "Bruni, p.336" five times, but nowhere is this source identified. What is "Bruni"? - dcljr (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that content using that source is removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is probably this book by Frank Bruni and Elinor Burkett. However, I will comment that the book has 336 pages so the page reference is almost certainly worthless. --Richard S (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)