Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.14.42.234 (talk) at 05:50, 13 August 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Major redundancy now lower in the article

With the aim to reduce the lead, seen here and here, Travers introduced significant duplication/other redundancy lower in the article by moving the lead material there. I noted this to him, seen here and here, in the edit history. Just in case Travers does not remove the duplication/other redundancy he created lower in the article, I'm noting this here for others who may wonder why that duplication/other redundancy is there and/or may want to remedy this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>> Pope seeks forgiveness over priests sex abuseLihaas (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverup is half the story

I think there needs to be a reorganization of the article to give a lot more weight to the coverup of the sex abuse cases by bishops and other members of the church hierarchy.

If you lived under a rock and came to this story completely unawares, you could read hundreds of words deep into the article before you had any idea that a cover-up of sexual abuse committed by priests by their superiors occurred, and is at least half the story.

The repeated reassignment of offending priests by bishops and large payouts by the church to victims (inevitably with gag clauses in the contracts) permitted offending priests to be moved to other parishes and to find new victims. This, to many, is the real focus of the scandal, that it was repeatedly covered up the church hierarchy, in a way that similar offenses in schools, Boy Scouts, other religions, etc. have not been.

Half the lede or more should discuss the coverup, as should half the article. Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled sexual abuse cases not sexual abuse coverup. The second paragraph of this article states that there is a coverup so anyone entering unawares will see that immediately. There is an entire section dedicated to the criticisms which focuses on the coverup and delays in removing priests. If you would like there to be more details about how the Church covered up these cases, that would be the place to add them along with sources.
This isn't a news site, so it isn't so important what the story is as much as what transpired. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes seeks to include all the important details, not just the ones that will interest the most people. Vaxine19 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poland addition - unencyclopedic?

An addition to the Poland section I made has been reverted as "unencyclopedic". Could the user who did this please explain why? My addition was very well sourced primarily from a 2013 Financial Times article entitled "Polish Catholic Church rocked by sex abuse scandal", plus a secondary source. Without my addition the current Poland section carries a view different to this recent cite, giving an inaccurate impression of the situation. If anyone has a better phrasing than mine, could they offer a suggestion please. Rwendland (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was also baffled by the revert. However, I can't see that you have directly contacted the user who reverted (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If it was me, I'd want to be contacted personally first, in case the revert was a misclick or a mistake in some form. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 12:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the explanation that it was unencyclopedic was quite clear. But if you want more, the value judgments that there was a poor response from the Church for one thing, is a statement that one would never find in a real encyclopedia. Opinions states as though they were facts have no place here.Farsight001 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although talking about a different context, I think WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC applies here. Some things might be explained by the summary "unencyclopedic" but this definitely doesn't seem like one of them to me. It seems to me like your only issue with the content added was that it was phrased in a way that violated WP:NPOV. If this is the case, why not try to rephrase the text yourself, rather than removing it?
But getting back to the original issue of what to do now, here's a quick draft of something I think would be neutral - it's really very similar to the original:
However, during 2013 a succession of child sex abuse scandals became a matter of public concern. The church resisted demands to pay compensation to victims; some were unhappy with this response.[refs]
Any problems/improvements? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems repetitive. Essentially the same statement is elsewhere in the article. Multiple times I think. I also find it inaccurate, as it was not in 2013 that the scandals became a matter of public concern. On top of that, the statement "The church resisted demands to pay compensation to victims" carries a negative connotation with it and has not clarification. Every organization of significant size resists demands to pay compensation to victims for whatever they do that's bad. Car companies who don't make a recall in time still try to resist paying to victims hurt by whatever fault their car had. Resisting paying is par for the course everywhere for everyone. It would be shocking and of note if the DIDN'T resist, not that they do. The statement just seems to be there to make the Church look bad or just to fill empty space at the very least.Farsight001 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine. I've not read the article in its entirety, so I can't comment on that unless I have time to read it all through tomorrow. Would "Although some said the church should pay compensation to victims, they did not." be any better or would you be happy with the first sentence alone? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 21:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really any better because, for one, saying that "some said" is too vague. Who is this "some"? And second of all, the Church has paid a LOT of money to victims, so to say they did not is patently false.Farsight001 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the first source ([1]). I would assume that the "some" would be the authors of the references listed, or at least a person/group mentioned in the ref.
Has the church paid money to victims? Does it say that in the first source or have you found that somewhere else? When did the scandals become a matter of public concern, if it wasn't in 2013? Where exactly is the same(ish) statement "elsewhere in the article" (I can't find it)? You can easily pick apart my rephrasing because I can't access the first source and didn't originally introduce the text. But you haven't explicitly denied that this is a relevant incident to include in the Poland section. Can you try writing something yourself? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases per discussion Ground Zero | t 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Catholic sex abuse cases → Catholic clergy sex abuse cases – This article is about a rather narrow subset of sex abuse cases that involve Catholics. The only thing uniting these cases into anything like an article-worthy notability is the fact that clergy members are involved. Evan (talk|contribs) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does adding "clergy" to the title make it less "commonly recognizable?" I also disagree that it's unnecessary length; the title as it now stands is both misleading and inaccurate as a description of the actual contents. Evan (talk|contribs) 04:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and WP:Common name is clear on what it (that policy) means. I have nothing else to state on the subject. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does "clergy" include brothers in religious orders? Or even sisters of the same? Our Clergy article suggests not. Because at least in my country some of the sexual abuse has been perpetrated by such people. If clergy excludes brothers, this name change would be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clergy defines the term as encompassing "some of the formal leaders within certain religions. The roles and functions of clergy vary in different religious traditions but these usually involve presiding over specific rituals and teaching their religion's doctrines and practices." If the monks/nuns in question meet any of those criteria (and, if they were in a position where they were instructing children, they certainly would), then, for Wikipedia's purposes, I think they would be considered clergy. A large number of Catholic monks are, of course, ordained priests as well. Evan (talk|contribs) 05:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but see new comment below for an alternative I like better for precision. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here, because "Catholic sex abuse cases" isn't a name or title of anything, it's a made-up descriptive phrase we came up with here at Wikipedia [and apparently some others did so independently, among many other phrases, per Flyer22's Googling note below]. The proposed rename is a less ambiguous and over-broad description. Also, if our Clergy article would somehow not include Roman Catholic brothers, then that article is hosed and needs to be fixed. It's normal, everyday English to refer to priests (and Protestant preachers/pastors/reverends) as members of the clergy. If there are more specific definitions that implies national or international leadership, they should be covered, with sources, in a subsection, but they're not standard usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC) PS: Catholic clergy sexual abuse cases would actually be better, but see also below. "Sex abuse" is telegraphic writing, and really should be "sexual abuse", and "Catholic" is also shorthand. But I wouldn't flip my !vote on the basis of this concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC) These insertions were added after User:Red Slash's "per SMC" below.[reply]
SMcCandlish, Google shows that "Catholic sex abuse cases" isn't simply a matter that "we came up with here at Wikipedia." For example, that title, and variations of it, such as "Catholic sexual abuse scandal," was often used in the news media. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different phrases. Google also shows all sorts of other phrases in use; you can't cherry-pick one or two of them to try to make a false point about those in particular. Note also (per WP:NOT#NEWS), WP is not journalism and is not written in news style, much less the telegraphic style of news headlines and ledes, which are written in a form of shorthand, such as that which can turn a specific reference to Roman Catholic clergy or Roman Catholic priests into something as vague and intentionally drama-mongering as "Catholic" (or "Catholics") by itself. It's plainly POV-pushing to emulate this baiting of Roman Catholic Christians here on WP just to slightly shorten a title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are two different phrases that happen to have "Catholic sex(ual) abuse" in their titles. That's my point. That has been the predominant phrasing for this topic, whether including "Roman" in the heading like this article used to do, or not. The word clergy has not been in the phrasing nearly enough. This is not a WP:NOTNEWS matter. Articles are commonly titled by what name they are/were most commonly referred to in the media, if there are not yet scholarly sources to base the WP:Common name on. Even scholarly articles commonly use the wording. So I don't see this as a POV-pushing matter, and I certainly was not interested in engaging in any "baiting of Roman Catholic Christians here on WP just to slightly shorten a title." Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using "scandal" in the title is not optimal, according to some WP:Manual of Style discussions, so that's why "scandal" is no longer used in the title. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. Clergy states that "unordained monks, friars, nuns, and religious brothers and sisters are not part of the clergy," though it lacks a source. Evan (talk|contribs) 15:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. The main point here is to get a title that reflects the Church-specific nature of the events. Just "Catholic" is too overly broad. Evan (talk|contribs) 15:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too would support Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hebephilia is generally pubescents. Ephebophilia is generally post-pubescents. And, pedophilia, like the Pedophilia article notes, is not the same thing as child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problematic paragraph: Original research, unreliable source (fringe), and anti-gay propaganda.

Firstly why is there a section in pedophile priests about homosexual priests? Totally separate topic and very insulting to the LGBT community. The subheader should be removed/renamded and/pr the material be put in a different place. Secondly, this constitutes original research:

According to the John-Jay-Report, 80.9% of the abuse victims in the United States were male;[100] and a study by Dr. Thomas Plante found the number may be as high as 90%.[261]

The sources don't link homosexuality to the problem in the Catholic church. These two sentences are simply compiling statistics in an attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion, and the two sentences don't say anything about homosexuality. It is original research.

The next sentence following the two OR sentences is this:

A number of books, such as "The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church", have argued that homosexual priests view sex with minors as a "rite of passage" for altar boys and other pre-adult males.[262]

It is sourced to Engel publishing, a fringe right wing Catholic publisher. From their website: 

“New Engel Publishing is a new kid on the publishing block specializing in Internet sales of traditional Catholic and pro-life books, e-books, and tapes. We are located in Export, Pennsylvania.”

Please do better, editors, and please fix this problematic anti-gay propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

% out of date?

According to bishopaccountabilty.org, the % of priests who have been accused is 5.9%. bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/data.htm#accused_priests

The article says it's approximately 4%. This should be updated. I would, but I'd probably mess something up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.45.113 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is bishopaccountabily.org? The Guardian reported an estimate of 5,000 priests(see 'Criticisms of church responses' in this article'. A quick google search turns up a count of 414,313 priests in the US(this count is from a Wikipedia article.) Supposedly CNN did a report of the national percent being around 1-5% in a CNN Specials Transcript[#454] called Thieves of Childhood but I couldn't find it. Vaxine19 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That 414,313 number is number of priests in the world, not just the US. It comes from this data, which puts the US figure at 37,578. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. The individual is at this writing indefinitely blocked from contributing because of this issue, and content is being removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violation. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source. Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I revert such additions to older versions, but in this case I fear that the older version is an WP:NPOV violation. Accordingly, I have tried to retain high level information. I have no background in this issue, so of course have no objection to modification of that content. It was simply done because of the copyright cleanup and the neutrality issues with older content, which I could not restore. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest deletions

It are actually just two sources. The newspapers provide no sources and make sarcastic remarks about Catholic dogma while more celebrating the claim that church attendance drops due to abuse then providing proof. They also promoted extra judicinial violence against the church praising the illegal Belgian raids, they pretend that child abuse is unique to the church, and it is hurtfull anti Catholic bigotry. This makes the article unbalanced especeseally when there is no such article for Protestants nor contrary sources. Also the part on Polish church attendance contradicts the article Roman Catholicism in Poland which states that most decreases in church visits were due to Polish Catholics imigrating and attending mass elsewhere. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IP is referring to this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated why I thought a few anti Catholic sections needed to be deleted, and I got no response here or elsewhere. The only response I get is when I redelete the biased sections but I get the response I need to discuss it but noone responds when I try to do so. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the IP's reason for exclusion very valid. However, I am against inclusion. For one, the grammar is poor and the writing awkward. For another thing, this feels like excessive detail. Why mention decline in the Church in Haiti? Why not the U.S.? Or some other country? And if we mention decline in Haiti, should we not also include the decline everywhere else too? And if including the decline, how about the increase? It just seems like too much and a bit WP:RECENTISM Farsight001 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For Poland: I can't view the FT article but I can read the Telegraph article and vouch for the reliability of both sources. Can't even see any sarcasm or much bias in the Telegraph article.
For Germany: The netzwerkB article is hard to track down — I found this vaguely relevant article but the homepage of site itself doesn't verify the facts that it was sourced. Both other sources look fine.
In general: I've found nothing particularly "sarcastic" in the articles; even if I had, bias is something we cannot have on Wikipedia, but reliable sources certainly can be — and are — biased. As long as the sourced facts are true, which they seem to be, then we can include it in the article. I've reverted the removal because until consensus can be determined, we should stick to how the article originally was.
What about the Protestants?: As for there being "no such article for Protestants", or more importantly, for Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism or any other major religion, this is because that would be undue weight. There are reliable sources documenting notoriety of Catholic sex abuse, but I've never seen any for any other religious denomination. Similarly, we have an article on Islamic terrorism that is much longer than the article on Christian terrorism, due to a prevalence of Islamic terrorism (and a plethora of Western media coverage on it). To use reductio ad absurdum, there is more coverage on Wikipedia for the United States than there is for Belarus, even though both are classified as the same denomination of land mass: countries. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Farsight001: If you feel that the sections are badly written, would you like to suggest (or boldly edit) a better summary of the sources. I can't read the FT article, which I assume was the source of any mention of Haiti. And events being recent are no reason to exclude them if they are still significant. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because, as you can see by my post, I gave other reasons to oppose their inclusion as well, making fixing the wording pointless. And since the subject is a 2000 year old Church with currently a billion members and its relation to a series of sexual abuse cases, I would have to argue that a 2 million member drop in one country in the world is anything BUT significant. Again, why include numbers for Haiti only? Why not every country? and wouldn't that make it problematic to include every country? This is just excessive detail, poorly worded, biased, and imo, apparently recentism.Farsight001 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that a 2 million member drop is significant. Not in terms of Catholicism in general, but in terms of notability. Relative to the United States, for instance, this random bridge is incredibly insignificant, but in terms of Wikipedia's notability standards, it still deserves an article. Same here. Within Catholicism, the sex abuse scandal in general isn't even mentioned, but the sex abuse cases are certainly notable enough to deserve their own article. Within this article or any sub-articles, anything well-sourced enough to be included should be.
I can't personally defend Haiti. I never wrote anything about Haiti. I can't view the Financial Times article I assume the statement comes from. If you want to remove it, I'd say you can as long as you've read the FT article and can still say Haiti is irrelevant, go ahead. As for "not every country", I actually addressed that before you wrote it with my "What about the Protestants?" bit above — we can't mention every country in the world everywhere if it's not relevant. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything well sourced enough to be included should be included? No, not at all. Excessive detail is a real thing.
And yes, I know we can't mention every country. THAT WAS MY POINT. For consistency, we would HAVE to mention data for every country, but that would be very excessive. You have not really addressed this at all (since you misunderstood it), nor the matter of recentism.Farsight001 (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I said what I did was because WP:N states "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge [notability]". Notability correlates with reliable sources; if something is backed up by reliable sources, it usually doesn't count as "excessive detail", unless we're talking about due weight, in which case the content might not deserve to be included in an overview article, but does deserve to be included somewhere on Wikipedia. And to explicitly state so, I feel that the content being discussed here is not excessive detail and does deserve to be included; there are relevant reliable sources that can be (and was) used as a basis for content written here.
And my point was that "it's not relevant", and that mentioning every country would be undue weight to those who weren't a contributing factor. We don't have to mention every country whenever we mention one country. For instance, there's no section in this article about Belarus, not even under the "Prevalence" by country bit. If we accept your point as true, that means that if we want to discuss the topic of sex abuse scandals in any one country, then "we would HAVE to mention data for every country". Clearly that's not being applied, yet I doubt you would argue that Belarus deserves equal weight to the United States in this article, as there is less coverage (if any) on Belarus.
I briefly addressed recentism with this: "And events being recent are no reason to exclude them if they are still significant." Would you care to expand on your point here? — it's not immediately obvious with just a link to WP:RECENTISM. Something being new is not a reason for not including it, and I think that page (from a cursory glance) deals more with events unfolding as they happen, rather than a set event (e.g. 2013 scandal) that happened recently (and I would argue that 2013 is not recent relative to the WP:RECENTISM essay anyway). — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Again, excessive detail is still a real thing. NOT everything that can be sourced should be in an article. Simply re-asserting that because it has a valid source, it should be included does not make your assertion any less incorrect.
2) I get that mentioning every country would be undue weight. That's exactly WHAT I SAID. Please re-read my post more carefully. Collaboration is impossible if you continue to misread what I type.
3) I know events being recent are no reason to exclude them. I never said that they were. I merely pointed out that we should NOT include it just BECAUSE its recent. We're an encyclopedia, not a news source.Farsight001 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fine. Let's assume that notability and reliable sources have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I think that the facts are important enough to be included. "In January 2010, 62% of German Catholics said they trusted the Pope, but by the end of March 2010, only 39% did." That's a significant difference. It's backed by reliable sources and shows a large change in attitude towards the Catholic Church and the Pope.
  2. If you're agreeing that mentioning every country would be undue weight, what's the problem? Sorry for being thick — I've read the discussion again — but I thought your argument was that if you mentioned Haiti you had to mention every country for consistency, while I was arguing that you could mention Haiti alone without having to mention any other country, as mentioning every country for "consistency" would actually be giving undue weight to countries irrelevant to the discussion. But to get more to the point: are you able to read the Financial Times article that was cited and if so, could you please summarise what (if anything) it said about Haiti? Arguing about theoretical mentions of countries won't help anyone if the word "Haiti" isn't used in the FT source, and arguing about Haiti being insignificant is incorrect if the FT source gives a good argument for why it's a big cause of Catholicism gaining a bad reputation in Poland.
  3. I'm sorry. I was just asking for a clarification on your position. I would argue that the events are not important because they're recent, but because they're relevant and important to the article. I'd say that the response to sex abuse cases in Poland is more important than the Polish abuse cases themselves, as "the scale [is] very low", according to the Catholic Church, but that paragraph has remained in the article while the response paragraph has been removed. Germany, again, shows notable responses to the cases.

I'd like a third opinion here. If anyone's reading this — including the original IP commenter — please weigh in. @Cfred: You reverted the removal a couple of times. Do you have an opinion? — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 22:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that notability and reliability had nothing to do with each other. I didn't even say that it wasn't notable. I merely pointed out that there is such a thing as excessive detail in an encyclopedia where we are supposed to provide an overview, not every detail we can find, and that I believe this counts as excessive.Farsight001 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bump. Does anyone have a third opinion? — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 18:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor source

@Ryt78: you need a real source for your claims comparing Protestant priests' abuse to Catholic priests' abuse. Synthesizing claims from unrelated sites and adding your own personal commentary won't cut it, as much as you may want to downplay RCC sex abuse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "Ryt78" is supposed to refer to me? I didn't add that section - look at the edit history before you make accusations - I was simply restoring it because I didn't see any legitimate reason to delete it. The first person who deleted it claimed it was "US-centric", which didn't make much sense given that it's just a couple sentences or so. A mere couple sentences dealing with the US doesn't make the article "US-centric". Your objections make very little sense either : comparing cases of abuse among different groups is normal procedure to provide context. It doesn't amount to "downplaying" anything. You constantly accuse me of things I haven't done. Ryn78 (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, screwed up your username, sorry. And it doesn't especially matter whether you were the first person to put it in or not; it doesn't belong and you shouldn't be restoring it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left that section of text out while restoring the necessary spelling corrections and other copyedits which you and Black Kite keep chopping out along with the text you don't like. Kindly only remove the part you don't like from now on. As for the text under dispute: I agree that the source - an anti-Baptist website, evidently - isn't exactly neutral, but I've seen similar comparisons of child abuse rates in media sources which would qualify as RS. I could look it up again and reword the disputed text for better neutrality, but I suspect it'll be removed anyway because you seem to object to any comparison. I think comparisons are normal procedure for something like this: it puts the issue in context rather than treating each group in isolation. Ryn78 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source would have to make that connection, not you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the source has to explicitly tell us that sex with a minor by a Catholic priest is essentially the same act as sex with a minor by anyone else? Ryn78 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you want to include in the article, yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're really claiming that an RS containing comparative statistics would only be usable if it patiently explains to the reader that sexual abuse is sexual abuse no matter who does it? Really? That's not how Wikipedia works : we don't have to have an explicit statement explaining the obvious before we can use a source for something like this. We're allowed to use common sense. Ryn78 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Graffiti" photo

What evidence is there that anyone knows exactly what this is meant to be depicting? Without any such evidence the caption seems to be merely POV speculation. If so then I suggest it needs to be removed. Anglicanus (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if there is a reliable source. The photo seems to have been taken by a Wikipedia user, so it's very much open to interpretation. I agree that the caption needs to be more neutral, but I'm not opposed to retaining the photo. Sundayclose (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the speculative commentary since we do not seem to know anything about what it is trying to actually depict. Anglicanus (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Pope Benedict and cover-up allegation

Under the "2005" section the second sentence alleges "Some have claimed that this immunity was granted after intervention by then-US-President George W. Bush." The citation [169] is to a movie "Deliver us from Evil" which has nothing to do with the Juan Carlos Patino-Arango case, the request for the Pope's immunity as head of state, nor any intervention by former President Bush and thus falls under #13 of wikipedia's section "links normally to be avoided" as it is an example of "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". Ergo 1) this is not a valid citation for this allegation 2) If this allegation were to stand we would need to see some valid source for the allegation as well understand who these "some" are and if there is any substance. As is "some" could mean a bunch of people in tin-foil hats. Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. There are numerous policy issues here, not the least of which is WP:BLP. Citing a Wikipedia article is WP:CIRCULAR. "Some" is a commonly used WP:WEASEL word. I have removed the statement. It can be restored with adequate sourcing and specific wording. Sundayclose (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defrocking

The Catholic Church has no process called "defrocking". The correct term is (usually) laicization, however, the actual meaning of "defrocking" is more closely reflected by "canonical suspension" which is a temporary, rather than permanent, measure. Elizium23 (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Hello! You are indeed correct; there is no procedure (formal or otherwise) called "Defrocking". It's a term used by the media simply a "catch-all" term they use to mean a priest taken from duty. In the church, this can come in the form of suspending certain activities (i.e. giving a sermon, speaking publicly), laicizing, removing a priest's faculties or even complete excommunication. As I was quoting a secular mainstream news source (I've been taught a very nasty lesson here never to quote from sources straight from the Vatican on what they do or believe as that has been deemed "unbiased") I had to use their verbiage as it was in the title. Very open to elaborating on the subject matter if it makes sense.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the "criticism of church responses" section, two sentences have been added. Together, they give the impression that Pope Benedict made sweeping changes to prevent abuse, when the reality is that the vast majority of our sources don't say that, but instead say the precise opposite. If there is controversy, we can document the controversy, but we cannot express a minority viewpoint as though it is "the real story, evidenced by these numbers". Let's discuss here first before reintroducing this content, please. We might be able to find a place for those sources, but this isn't the way to do it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although Pope Benedict did not make sweeping changes, it is not a "minority viewpoint" to state the number of priests he laicized. That's not a viewpoint; it's a fact. Please restore that part of your revert. That's twice that you've removed it, and at least three editors want it to stay (the editor who added it, Trinacrialucente, and myself). If you think it should go elsewhere, that can be discussed, but in the mean time please restore that section of your revert that you unilaterally decided doesn't belong. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An accurate summary of the source is not that he "laicized more priests than any pontiff in history". An accurate summary is that he laicized X in 2008, Y in 2009, Z in 2010, etc. The numbers indicate his efforts were reduced significantly in later years, and all fell short of the number of priests accused in outside venues. I don't see a problem with placing these numbers in the specific year sections we have above, but we should not be providing this kind of undue commentary on how the numbers mean that Benedict made sweeping, unheard of changes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you reverted the factual information. It doesn't matter to me whether you divide it up by years, but please restore the facts. That's your responsibility since you removed sourced, factual information. If you want others' opinions about where those facts ultimately should go, that's fine. But in the mean time, please restore the facts. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here with Sundayclose. Jess, by using WP:WEASEL words like "sweeping" (i.e. unquantifiable) you are showing your bias to the topic. Pope Benedict did in fact enact changes which you can read in detail here [2]. In 2010 abuse ALLEGATIONS (note: not convictions nor substantiated events) against Catholic clergy numbered just 8. I would invite you to use scientific method to grasp a cause and effect here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Islam and sexual abuse cases?

Sexial crimes were and still are also commited by Islamic clerics.--Anders Longholm (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you requesting that something should be added to this article? Abuse by Islamic clerics is not relevant to this article. If you are simply making an observation about sexual abuse by Islamic clerics, this talk page is for improvement of the article, not for general discussion of the topic. Sundayclose (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donahue Sensationalized the Scandal

Here is at least one source to back this claim.[3]Theists and atheists have both engaged in child molestation and I am not saying there weren't any victims. However, the truth has to come out.2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have a personal agenda in your edits on this article. The issue is not whether Donahue played some role in revealing the sex abuse cases. The issue is that you are misrepresenting sources. The sources do not state or even imply that Donahue alone "popularized" Catholic Church sex abuse cases. You have stated this very boldly in the lead (and obviously you never bothered to read WP:LEAD) as if it is indisputable fact. Single purpose editors with a personal agenda in their Wikipedia edits don't last long here. Your comments that "the truth must come out" and "the truth hurts" are very revealing about your motives. You're not interested in building an encyclopedia; you are only interested in pushing your point of view into a Wikipedia article. You have been given more than adequate warning. If you don't remove your misleading edits very soon you are on your way to a block from editing anywhere on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hypocritical of you to say I have a personal agenda when I am quoting scientific facts. If you have a grudge against the Catholic Church, and I am not accusing you of having one, don't take it out on people like. I am a Lutheran, the Branch of Christianity which regards the Pope to be the anti-Christ, but I like the facts. This website should be neutral and not one-sided. Did you read the cite I referenced?2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Alien comparison

An IP user has repeatedly reinserted WP:OR content comparing abuse accusations to space alien claims. This has been reverted by multiple users; the IP user should follow Bold, Revert, Discuss guidelines, using this talk page to gain consensus for the material before reinserting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From edit summaries and user talk page comments, this IP is here to right great wrongs inflicted by "anti-Christians". Sundayclose (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases&oldid=734270857"