Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 14

Contents

Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens proposed lawsuit

Several users keep removing information about this. I have seen some people refer to this as a BLP violation. I don't understand how including the proposed lawsuit in this entry is any sort of violation of wikipedia's policies. Mrbusta (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it on the grounds that it was in a section where it didn't self-evidently belong without some indication of its relevance - not for BLP violations as such. I am not against including it per se but it needs to be placed within an appropriate section with some further information. Afterwriting (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been removing it because it states the pope's culpability as a fact when there is as of yet even a case brought up against him. For us to state his culpability as though it were fact, we would need an actual conviction. That particular entry was also filled with SYNTH and had, IMO, a rather pov tone to it.Farsight001 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Plus I'm not sure it holds enough relevance and am to understand that Dawkins has since retracted his call to do this. The BLP violation alone was enough, but add all this together and it just doesn't seem to belong at all.Farsight001 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It has way more relevance that the page of content on whether homosexuality is related to pedophillia... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't care what Dawkins and Hitchens are going to do. Their accusations don't hold any water. Catholic priests worldwide do not commit more sexual abuses than another other church denomination. In fact, the abuse is lower than the general population and much lower than that in the public schools of USA (according Shakeshaft's statistics). And the alleged cover-ups comprise only a small percentage of bishops and could not be a systemic thing. See tabulated John Jay statistics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#United_States_5 - where the allegation were substantiated or credible, around half the priests were suspended. Around 10-20 percent of the priests were dead or inactive at the time of allegations. Around 29 percent retired or resigned. About 6 percent sought laicization and were removed from clergy. The Church officials may be mostly guilty of forgiving too much but NOT of systemic cover-up. joo (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, the section on whether homosexuality is related to pedophillia is very relevant. distinguished Professor Philip Jenkins said "Of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile." The vast majority are pederasts who abused adolescents aged 11-19. See Pederasty: "Pederasty is the archetypal example of male age-structured homosexuality." (Sandfort, Theo (2000). Lesbian and gay studies: an introductory, interdisciplinary approach. SAGE. ISBN 076195418X.) joo (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
If there is a connection between pedophillia and homosexuality then it should be in the article on Homosexuality, rather than this one where at best it is off topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
PS here's what Dawkins has to say on the legal challenge: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The "challenge" is a publicity stunt which Dawkins himself couldn't justify see here. It deserves as much credibility as any other self-promoting media publicity stunt. Xandar 23:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You are interpreting that video rather strangely, he seems to justify it reasonably well... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
He was asked what crime the Pope had committed - and he couldn't answer - instead he started huffing about how he shouldn't be asked difficult legal questions! Xandar 20:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
He wants to sue the Pope legally internationally for "crimes against humanity" and he said he won't discuss the international crime law courts definition of Crime against humanity because that is a difficult legal/technical question? Was that question even difficult? Perhaps it is indeed difficult because he couldn't logically justify why. Is Dawkins in his right mind? joo (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion." Dawkins & Hitchens are publicity whores alright! joo (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy on the proper treatment of publicity stunts like this? joo (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • To Mrbusta. There are many other who want to see these criminals under priest's robe there where they shall be - in jail. The misery of this article is a great number of the Roman Catholic Church sycophants who are regularly censoring the text not allowing the whole truth to be seen. All these 'distinguished scholars' with all their percents and comparisons are in the same line as these few here who knows what is the right question and the right answer to the right question. The irony is that all their efforts of whitewashing and further suppressing the truth and all Ratzinger's crocodile tears shed are and will be in vain.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
If our anonymous editor is so incapable of discussing issues in a rational manner then perhaps he/she needs to find another forum for his/her fanatical prejudices. Your abuse of this article is intolerable - and therefore will not be tolerated until you learn how to edit it in a responsible manner according to Wikipedia's policies. We will not be held hostage to your personal agenda. Afterwriting (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fanatics are all those who are trying to whitewash terrible crimes against innocent youth worldwide. Personal attacks, like the one of talk, is just reflection of the attacker's weak mind.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you really concerned about child sex abuses or only when there's a Catholic angle to it? If you are really concerned about child sex abuses, you should denounce the leaders of all nations as well. The Pope is the leader of over 1 billion people worldwide and so far there have been around 11,000 alleged abuse cases worldwide. The US president is the leader of around 300 million people and around 39 million people have been abused as a child. But it looks like you're more concerned about attacking the Church than anything else. joo (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just getting more and more ridiculous and a total waste of everyone's time. This amonymous editor is just obstinately ignoring numerous Wikipedia editing policies. It is time a block was imposed. Afterwriting (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AIV if you want to ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but this appears to be relevant only for vandalism rather than BLP violations - unless this is also considered vandalism. Isn't it interesting that this editor falsely describes the removal of BLP violation edits to be "vandalism" or "damage"? Afterwriting (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I strenuously oppose any action against the anonymous editor. I'm composing a more complete response for later posting. --StudiousReader (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
To be fair the IP has made several violations of the BLP rules and has been edit warring, and has received multiple warnings from me at least on that. Its not a POV issue with me as I think the catholic church has behaved very badly over this scandal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The POV problems are in the personal commentary and the non-neutral phrasing the editor uses. Afterwriting (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I strongly support the proposal to take action against 71.163.232.225. The latest antic is the removal of an entire discussion section on the Homosexuality Theory. joo (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What Dawkins & Hitchens should have read/known

Well maybe Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens should have read these articles:

Just a qoute from the last source: Bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins wants the Pope prosecuted for aiding and abetting child abuse. His “smoking gun” is the case of the Californian priest Stephen Kiesle, who actually asked to be defrocked after s-xually assaulting two children in 1978. Ratzinger wrote to Kiesle’s bishop, who supported the request, in 1985 saying he needed more time to give the matter “careful consideration”. Why did Ratzinger need to consider the request, Dawkins asks? And why didn’t he report Kiesle to the police? The answer is that Kiesle had already been reported to the police, convicted and sentenced. After completing his sentence, Kiesle left the priesthood and wrote to the CDF asking to be formally defrocked. Every year, some of the church’s 410,000 priests quit. They don’t need Vatican permission: they can simply walk out. But they do need to be laicised if they want to get married in a Catholic church. Ordinarily this is not a problem, but it was in Kiesle’s case, because his bishop cited the sexual assaults as a factor in favour of laicisation.Ratzinger’s reply to the bishop has been misrepresented by selective quotation. It begins by referring to “the matter of the removal of all priestly burdens from … Kiesle”, making it clear that the CDF was being asked to grant a favour, not a punishment. Ratzinger then says “it is necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with [i.e. not just] the petitioner [Kiesle]”, and that the CDF “is also unable to make light of the detriment that the granting of the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.” The “detriment” is the problem created by rewarding a convicted pedophile with permission to marry, which also explains the reference to Kiesle’s age. Kiesle was defrocked 15 months later, and married shortly afterwards. He abused another child in 1995 and was sentenced to six years’ jail. So Ratzinger’s concerns were well-founded. The suggestion that Ratzinger covered anything up or endangered children, however, is completely groundless. And so on... So where is the beef for arresting the Pope for Crimes against humanity? No doubt that the catholic church has behaved very badly over this scandal and could have done better, but I believe as a non-catholic that this is changing know. Hopefully this is not just changing for the better in the RCC but also in other places like secular schools in the USA or whereever... They suffer from the same problem....--Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Here you just found a very weak defense of the pope's 'innocence' There are many others who attempted and further attempting to bring Ratzinger to justice. I found it pointless to list articles elaborating clearly Ratzinger's crime for a simple reason - you are seeking for articles not analising the gravity of the committed crime rather all possible denials even the idea that this man is not above the law.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.... "gravity of the crime". If it's about the crime, then the presidents of all countries ought to be sued because child sex abuses happen worldwide. In the US alone, there are 39 million people who have been abused as a child. Therefore, all the presidents (past and present) in the USA ought to be sued? 71.191.26.127, if you ever become a leader of any institution, you also ought to be sued. joo (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not know what you age is, but I assume you are 12-13 year old person?--71.163.232.225 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you really concerned about child sex abuses or only when there's a Catholic angle to it? If you are really concerned about child sex abuses, you should denounce the leaders of all nations as well, especially the US president(s). The Pope is the leader of over 1 billion people worldwide and so far there have been around 11,000 alleged abuse cases worldwide (and mostly in the US). The US president is the leader of around 300 million people and around 39 million people have been abused as a child. But it looks like you're more concerned about attacking the Church than anything else. joo (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that this article is about 'catholic sex abuse' discussing anything else in detail would be off topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole Richard Dawkins thing is a ridiculous publicity stunt with no credibility anyway. Even if anyone other than God had authority over the Pope, capturing him and imprisoning him would be likely to start a war and would obviously never be carried out by England in the first place. This whole thing comes down to Richard Dawkins seeking attention. I would suggest keeping it out of the encyclopaedia. (Huey45 (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
I support the removal, or at least put into context their stupid publicity stunt - how Dawkins consider the definition of crime against humanity a difficult legal question. joo (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Noone is going to go to war with the UK if he is imprisoned in a free and fair trial - its nonsense to suggest otherwise. Europe was far too damaged by WW1/WW2 to do anything like that again, and in WW1/WW2 people were invading other countries.
That said unless they actually try and have the pope arrested when he comes it probably should be clarified as they may well not have enough of a legal case to actually do it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Many of the people in Britain seem to have gone awry from the corrupt and unruly Parliament to ordinary clowns like Dawkins. Is it possible to have a fair trial in the UK? Almost 50% of people believe at least half of all MPs are corrupt, a BBC survey commissioned in the wake of the expenses scandal suggests. 62% said they believed MPs put self-interest ahead of the country and their constituents. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8078159.stm joo (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's only because the British are all cynics ;). If you can't have a fair trial in the UK you aren't going to get one anywhere in the world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you British and not cynical of the court system? joo (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How to report misbehavior

71.163.232.225 has been behaving in an atrocious manner, adding his own viewpoints at various points in the article and removing other people's relevant points. The latest is his removal of the entire section of discussions among editors on the Homosexuality Theory. How do we report him/her? Why hasn't he/her been blocked yet? Do Wikipedia admins actually endorse what s/he's doing? So much for Wikipedia's non-negotiable nPoV rule! joo (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANEW. You need to submit a report sticking to the facts and cite edit DIFFs using the article page history URL [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358516218&oldid=358502692 randomDIFF] which appears as:
That noticeboard can take a while to resolve and because of the controversial nature of this article will draw attention to it. --Morenooso (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've reported him here.(Huey45 (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Civil society

What is the purpose of this section? What is "civil society" supposed to mean? There are duplicate material with the Criticism of Secrecy Among Bishops section. Should be merged. joo (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's just repetition and some speculation. It should be removed. Xandar 00:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a misleading statement in this section with a false reference: joo (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As of April 2010 no members of the Catholic Church at any level had been prosecuted for being an accessory to abuse by covering up, or for moving offenders to locations and situations where they could reoffend.[118]

The reference given is "National Catholic Reporter - Credibility gap: Pope needs to answer questions, 26 March 2010 'no bishop held accountable for actions taken on their watch'" joo (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
But the fuller quote actually says "...the prelates unveiled what came to be a 'Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.' It was intended to protect children from molestation, establishing a "one strike and you're out" policy for offending priests. It did nothing, however, to hold accountable individual bishops who engineered the cover-up." This is not the same as 'no bishop held accountable for actions taken on their watch'. joo (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest removing this statement and merging the rest. joo (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Right message from right man

From abuse crisis, Germany's Roman Catholics seek reform

Mr. Sturm says he "is in the church because I believe Jesus Christ's message from 2,000 years ago." Last week at a sprawling Catholic school and sports complex in a Munich suburb, Sturm called, along with some 150 other lay Catholics, for church leaders to fess up clearly.

"I want them to stand in front of the people and say it doesn't matter how much pedophilia there is in the secular world, or in families, or by soccer coaches. I want them to stand and say this crisis is our responsibility and we admit it. It is the only way to ever be credible again," he told one smaller group.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me you're around 10 years behind time. The Church has taken up responsibility and put in place SOPs since 2002. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Church_responses But nothing seems to satisfy you. All you want to do seems to be keep posting hate stuff about the Church. joo (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
To be fair the pope still hasn't apologised for his role. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Roman Catholic church (along with you and all other its sycophants) is in the Middle Ages. The above text is not mine. It reflect omnipresent distrust to and disgust with the Roman Catholic clergy which even do not follow universal Ten Commandments--71.163.232.225 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your caring and sharing comments. Afterwriting (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And I have now discovered that you are an anonymous sockpuppet of a blocked user. What a complete surprise! Afterwriting (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of who bought this up can this be added to the article? It seems relevant and interesting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted Eraserhead1's addition because I think it focuses excessively on one "little" protest headed by Sturm, a member of a lay council. I think we should step back and paint the broader picture rather than on one little news piece. To me, the broader picture is that a scandal which most Catholics had hoped was dealt with and done with has returned because the scandal is not as localized as they had hoped it would be. The scandal started in the 80's and 90's in the U.S., Ireland and Canada and then spread to Australia and other countries. However, until this year, the scandal seemed to be limited to mostly Anglophone countries with a "few" cases in other countries. It is perhaps too early to determine whether the media frenzy over the latest allegations has legs but it does seem that the scandal is not yet history but continues to spread as allegations continue to surface. IMO, that is the addition that we need to this article. --Richard S (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I assumed it wasn't controversial, I'm happy to continue discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Nothing is too early here. What Sturm says is already echoed many times in the USA, Canada, across Europe and Latin America.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Horrible!

This is for all those complaining against 'unjust' media and those who are not being able to see really criminal behaviour ot the top officials of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jeffersonville man speaks out about priest abuse

The 44-year-old, who moved to Jeffersonville two years ago and lived, prior to that, in New Albany for four years, said the abuse dates back to his childhood in Tennessee where he was an altar boy at St. Dominic Catholic Church in Kingsport.

He claims that the Rev. Bill Casey, 76, sexually abused him from age 10 to 15. He said it started with fondling and progressed to “everything you can imagine.” He said he was molested at least 50 times.

Casey had been in some kind of romantic relationship with Tucker’s mother and used that to gain access to him, even taking him on trips, Tucker said.

“[My mother] thought she was giving her son opportunities he would have never had otherwise and with a man of God,” he said.

Tucker said he originally kept quiet because of the shame and humiliation he felt.

--71.163.232.225 (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You obviously need to read the following Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Afterwriting (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
How can we use this information to improve the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This article can be used as a starting point to replace sex abuse by more correct child rape, for example. Or 'crime instead 'sin' i.e. put article in the state worth of reading.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Context section

Should this be removed? As I'm not convinced that http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/change_in_vatican_culture/ is a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Monica Applewhite is one of the foremost experts on screening, monitoring and policy development for the prevention of sexual abuse and risk management for those with histories of sexual offending. She has spent the past 16 years conducting research and root-cause analysis in the area of sexual abuse in organizations in order to assist organizations in developing best practice standards. Formerly with Praesidium Inc., she helped create an accreditation system for the Conference of Major Superiors of Men to hold them accountable to the highest standards of child protection. She has worked with more than 300 organizations that serve children and youth, including 28 Catholic dioceses, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Jesuit Conference, and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of the Apostolic Life in Rome. Now director of Confianza LLC, a consulting firm specializing in standards of care and the dynamics of abuse in educational and religious environments, she resides in Austin, Texas. joo (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
With this expert opinion, all that hullabaloo made by NYT and gang suddenly looks just like hullabaloo, doesn't it? joo (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What specifically are you objecting to? joo (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm questioning whether the National Catholic Register is a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Why so? Please remember that this is the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. Anyway, what Applewhite said about the criminal justice system sending offenders to treatment instead of prisons is corroborated by Chapter 2—An Overview of the Criminal Justice System: "Until the mid-1970s, rehabilitation was the dominant goal of American corrections. Indeterminate sentencing structures, with their emphasis on "corrections" centers and institutions, and reliance on parole boards to determine when an individual was "ready" to be released (that is, cured) were at least partially based on a rehabilitative model of sentencing." Source: National Library of Medicine (government site) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssamhsatip&part=A33880 joo (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The point is whether the National Catholic Register is likely to be neutral on the matter or whether it is bias towards catholics and whether another, ideally secular, mainstream-media source could be found to backup these claims. Obviously that source doesn't have to be a US source, if it has founding I'm sure there'll be European media coverage saying similar things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively maybe something from a peer-reviewed journal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Remember that this is the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. If you disqualify Catholic sources, you're effectively trying to remove a major part of the criticisms. Anyway, as mentioned above, please read "Until the mid-1970s, rehabilitation was the dominant goal of American corrections. Indeterminate sentencing structures, with their emphasis on "corrections" centers and institutions, and reliance on parole boards to determine when an individual was "ready" to be released (that is, cured) were at least partially based on a rehabilitative model of sentencing." Source: National Library of Medicine (government site) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssamhsatip&part=A33880 joo (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember too that over 50 perecent of the priests accused had only one reported allegation against them AND only one in four allegations was made within 10 years of the incident that gave rise to the allegation. Half of all allegations were made between 10 and 30 years after the incident and the remaining 25% were reported more than 30 years after the incident. Given this situation, it's not surprising that the psychologists, bishops and even criminal justice staff involved actually thought that treatment was an appropriate response. joo (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think you're being reasonable here, the reporting rate for sex crimes is usually pretty low, and I'd expect it to be especially low for cases involving children. Even with grown women only 10-15% of them reported rape to the police according to the British Crime survey (see page 5, figure 6 of rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is: What would the reasonable man do in the situation, especially in the 1950s - 1970s when "rehabilitation was the dominant goal of American corrections"? He won't automatically assume that the person with just one allegation about an incident long past is beyond rehabilitation. It is a reasonable point. joo (talk)

Re the National Catholic Register being a reliable source. I think Eraserhead1 misunderstands the nature of what a "reliable source" is. The most critical component of being a reliable source is that it not be self-published i.e. that the stuff that is published went through some sort of editorial review. This keeps out the truly flaky stuff from self-published websites and blogs. Being published by a reliable source doesn't mean that what was published is true or accurate or NPOV. Far from it. Many reliable sources publish from a particular POV. As Joo points out, the purpose of the "Criticism of media coverage" section is to document a particular POV, not to establish the truth of that ciriticism. If there are opposing, balancing viewpoints that refute the criticism, those should be presented per WP:NPOV. However, we cannot dismiss viewpoints simply because they represent a particular POV. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "No POV", it means providing a Neutral presentation of all significant POVs. --Richard S (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Richardshusr, what about the many references which Dvd-junkie deleted (see the Homosexuality Theory section) based on what he perceives as biasedness? It's a theory section, isn't it? It's also about interpretations and PoVs. Dvd-junkie's coming from a "no anti-gay info allowed" angle and started discounting the researchers as anti-gay and therefore unreliable. joo (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop your deletions. Please discuss your reasons.

Haldraper: Please discuss the reasons for your changes. You are removing important and relevant information again.

  • Applewhite's comments pertain to context and NOT inaccuracies.
  • Jenkins' comment pertain to inaccuracies in the way liberal media used the term "pedophile" extensively and yet most of the Catholic abuse cases do not involve pedophilia but pederasty.

Why are your edits (or most accurately, deletions) confined to only the Criticisms of Media Coverage section? Why do you keep deleting important and relevant criticisms of media coverage? Are you from one of those media or sent by them? joo (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Joo, please calm down. Reviewing Haldraper's deletions and his edit comments for them, I can see that he has a plusible rationale for his deletions based upon an editiorial vision of what the scope of the "Criticism of media coverage" section should be. Now, I have to say that, while I understand his argument, I am not fully convinced and I think this question should be discussed and resolved here instead of via edit-warring. In brief, the problem is whether we should cover all "criticism of media coverage" or just the complaints of a media feeding frenzy based on an urge to kick the Catholic Church because it's fashionable. The problem is that some of the criticism of media coverage is based on actual substantive issues such as the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia or the argument regarding whether homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. Haldraper's point seems to be that these substantive issues don't belong in the section on "Criticism of media coverage" but rather in some other section of the article. I'm not sure that I agree with him but I think it's a valid argument and we should weigh the pros and cons of his argument rather than just assuming that he is deleting stuff without a reasonable rationale. --Richard S (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But the main point is discuss before deleting referenced material. Xandar 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Richardshusr, this is not the first time Haldraper tried to delete relevant information from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. The last time he deleted quotes by Charol Shakeshaft, Wiegel and a host of other people. And he did it repeatedly without discussion, even after a warning from Eraserhead1. Discussion only happened much later. Just search above for Charol Shakeshaft. joo (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, Haldraper moved Applewhite's criticism (which is on the context) to the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' criticism (which is the indiscriminate way the term "pedophile" was used to describe the Catholic abuse cases). I think that 1) The context section should stay as it is, and 2) As you've put it, "...criticism of media coverage is based on actual substantive issues such as the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia or the argument regarding whether homosexuality is linked to pedophilia." joo (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole attempt to add a section 'putting into context' the media's coverage of the Catholic child sex abuse scandal smacks of OR/SYN. Applewhite's comments clearly refer to the issue of non-reporting rather than media coverage and Jenkins' are attempting to make a distinction between paedophiles and priests who abuse teenage boys. Haldraper (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper, you have deleted again what we're supposed to be discussing without waiting for us to respond to your comments. I've just reported you here. joo (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Read Applewhite's quote properly. She was criticizing media coverage for omitting (or not considering) important contextual information:

"I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet. It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

"We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison. At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode."

Her statement on the criminal justice system in the 1970s is supported by the "Overview of Criminal Justice System" page on the National Library of Medicine website. (See reference on the article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talkcontribs) 11:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Applewhite's quote is not about Inaccuracy

I've read the quote again (along with your unnecessary italics and bolding). The only words that can be construed as in any way relating to the media are the first four which are merely by way of introduction: she is clearly defending the Church from the non-reporting charge rather than discussing the alleged overemphasis or inaccuracy in media coverage. Haldraper (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, she isn't discussing overemphasis or inaccuracy. Why did you move her quote to the Inaccuracies section earlier then? She kept talking about the 1960s and 1970s and "the historical context of any given episode". This is certainly about Context. She didn't mention anything about "non-reporting". Where did you get that idea from? joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
So then it probably should be in "Debate over causes" or something, not criticism of media coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
One could mention this criticism of media coverage in the Debate Over Causes section. She was talking about media coverage as in "newspapers articles criticizing..." without "consider[ing] the historical context". Why are you so keen to get her quote out of the Criticism of Media Coverage section? joo (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's the media who criticize the Church for "not reporting". joo (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet", see the History section of Child Protective Services at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services#History and http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1377/Reporting-Child-Abuse-CHILD-PROTECTIVE-SERVICES.html - "Partly funded by the federal government, child protective services (CPS) agencies were first established in response to the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA; Public Law 93-247), which mandated that all states establish procedures to investigate suspected incidents of child maltreatment." joo (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Have just added more references: "discovered it caused real harm in 1978" (KC Meiselman (1978). Incest. Jossey-Bass Publishers.) and "realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s" (http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm from the Institute for Psychological Therapies). joo (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
More support from the Institute for Psychological Therapies article, Sex Offender Treatment by sex abuse experts Wakefield & Underwager at http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm joo (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Treating people with disordered behavior patterns as morally defective and requiring a change in moral commitments has a long history (Siegler & Osmond, 1974)... Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989) note that for those convicted of sexual crimes, probation with mandated treatment and perhaps some jail time is the most common disposition. Also, a person accused of sexual abuse may be offered a choice of therapy in place of punishment. The offer may be made in criminal court or in juvenile and family court.

Stop further deletions. Please discuss

Haldraper, stop hijacking the article. You're not the only one who edits it. Changes like yours are meant to be discussed here on the talk page. (Huey45 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
Look, Haldraper. You put an OR notice in the Context section demanding verification and more references. I added more relevant references such as the following: joo (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet[1] [2]. It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

"We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978[3], and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s[4]. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison[5]. At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease[4]. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode."

The references are from reliable sources (as defined in Wikipedia), such as: (1) Pecora et al. (1992), p. 232; Petr (1998), p. 126. (2) Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 232-3; Petr (1998), pp. 126-7. (3) KC Meiselman (1978). Incest. Jossey-Bass Publishers. (4) http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm (5) more references within the History section of the child protective services article and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act article within Wikipedia.
And now you think further references are unnecessary (writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation") and you have just removed ALL of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493
And again without discussion! Please explain your reasons for going back and forth and for deleting more things AGAIN and AGAIN. joo (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this OR?
The Context section is NOT placed under the United States section. Why did you write: "OR/SYN again: no evidence that Applewhite's comments refer solely to US"? However, do note that (a) Applewhite studied in the US, did her research in the US and lives in the US. (b) Majority of the reported cases are in the US. (c) Child Protective Services (CPS) is the name of a governmental agency in many states of the United States that responds to reports of child abuse or neglect. (d) Since the US is supposed to be a world leader, it's possible that its laws for child protection are ahead of the rest of the world. joo (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for editorial help here joo (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Joo, your comments after "However, do note..." are a classic example of WP:OR/WP:SYN.
Rather than keep running for 'editorial help', I suggest you read - and get a proper grasp of - these policies before you continue editing Wikipedia, although looking at your contribution history this seems to be the only page you have any interest in: perhaps per WP:COI you could clarify what exactly your interest is? Haldraper (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper, what we are writing on this page is a discussion and not a highly referenced encyclopedia. Why are you quoting encyclopedia policies on a discussion? What's wrong with explaining my rationale with "However, do note..."? This section which you keep deleting stuff is a "Criticisms of Media Coverage" section. Yet you keep deleting the criticisms. You should clarify your interest here. My interest, I've already stated in our discussion above. And you have not answered any of my questions, e.g Why did you ask for more references (claiming OR) and why do you delete them once they are given? joo (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
So in your latest revert, you claimed that you've "RV to non-OR/SYN version"? Then why did you put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why do you still leave the OR-section there? Stop contradicting yourself left, right and centre. Just what are you trying to do? joo (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I've changed many other sections (including the Vatican Responses, Criticism of Secrecy, etc.) In fact, earlier I re-organized more than half the text in the article. Ask Morenooso or take a look at my talk page. You are the one who has been doing nothing on the article except delete stuff from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. Please explain your interest. joo (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you thought the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases is the only page that I've edited? Look more closely in the earlier contributions. Then again, how do you manage to see my contributions? Why can't I see yours? joo (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop more deletions

Haldraper, you removed Applewhite's quote from Context and put an abbreviated (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section. And you've removed Jenkins' quote again. Explain and discuss your actions. Didn't you say above Applewhite's quote is not about inaccuracy? joo (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins of this page, please take action against Haldraper. Why aren't you doing anything? joo (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand now what could have been happening in so-called academic or scientific circles. joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

POV tag added: 2010-05-04

Too many deletions and reverts are taking place to this article. In addition, some edit summaries are not WP:CIVIL and approach personal attacks. Comment on text and not the editors, please. --Morenooso (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that there's no need to make personal attacks. However, Haldraper has been deleting (not even editing) lots of relevant information in the Criticisms of Media Coverage section repeatedly without discussing his reasons. I've tried many times to engage him in discussion but to no avail. Just citing OR/SYN cryptically and not listening or responding is NOT discussion. He just kept going with his single-minded deletions. These are aggravating factors. joo (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no objections to a tag on the article, but I'm pretty sure that a pov tag is not the right one. I can't remember what it's called, but I think there's one about the article subject attracting contentious editing. That seems like a better tag. Maybe we should get into an edit war over the right tag? :P Farsight001 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
If you mean PoV as in 1) Haldraper deleting relevant info (along with references) repeatedly without discussion, and 2) Dvd-junkie deleting references that he calls anti-gay from the Homosexuality Theory section, I would agree that WP:NPOV has not been observed. joo (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Farsight001, I know the tag you are talking about. The tags have recently changed. The POV still delineates that the article is DISPUTED and requires the tag being maintained until the dispute is settled. I will look at the tags again but POV should remain. --Morenooso (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I did not see the one I was thinking of and no others, except POV tags, require the tag to remain. --Morenooso (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso: I don't know how many Wikipedia admins are monitoring the changes in this article. And I don't understand why Haldraper's misbehavior (deleting stuff again and again, each time changing his reasons, going back and forth, asking for more references and then deleting more references, etc.) is not being addressed yet. joo (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My observation on disputed articles is that admins back off because 1)an edit by an admin could potentially be seen as "an official action or endorsement"; 2)the need or desire to remain above the fray in case the admin needs to take action whether it be at the article level or appropriate noticeboard; 3)even their actions are reviewable and could lead to the loss of adminship and 4)the desire just not to get involved with a dispute.
Be aware those are all my personal observations. I am not an admin just a Page Patroller. Now, with all that being said, any editor can go to WP:ANEW and submit a report. However, the caveat is all parties' actions are reviewable. That means if editor A submitted the report about editor B and C, if the reviewing determines A edit-warred, A gets blocked.
I will say that I am prepared to go to WP:ANEW. The edits are going against Wikipedia is not a battleground. There is no civility shown towards other edits much less editors. All editors need to treat one another with respect and observe the three revert rule. Neutral admins consider 3RR as a fine line. Edit-war even though an editor "feels I'm in the right and the other guy's wrong" or "I'm just reverting the disputed content" will be blockable if 3RR is met or exceeded.
And if you ask why I am not involved, is because when I realized that the article was flaring up, I did not want to get caught up in a 3RR situation. In fact, I requested page protection which was granted. I have attempted to remain neutral since but now feel that unless all editors are willing to be civil, something has got to change. --Morenooso (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of criticisms in the Criticisms of Media Coverage section

I'm amazed by:
1) The continual deletion of "criticisms of media coverage" in the Criticisms of Media Coverage section.
2) The support given by the odd editor.
3) The indifference shown by most others.

Could anyone enlighten me please? joo (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but I'm a bit more surprised how they get away with it. They do not give proper explanations on this page (at least from my POV) and "all" are more or less fine with it. Well, maybe that's because the article is about the RCC and not Barack Obama. I'm pretty certain that might happen there too, but than people would certainly care more about NPOV than here. What you're putting into the article does not fit into their Weltanschauung and even if you can source it properly there looking for ways to take it out and the most simple one is just delete it. Don't take it personal and keep on editing. Greetings from a non-catholic. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it has a reasonable amount of content to me. I guess the reason I don't get really deeply involved in everything is that I'm not that interested in the subject. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. I haven't deleted anything there. I have doubts about Bill Donohue as a reliable source. [1] He's head of the "Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights", which is a lobby of sorts. And the cite to the John Jay paper doesn't seem to support the Wikipedia content. The criticism section is mostly what Jenkins has to say. He's an academic, so we have to treat him as a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, John, for reverting the revert by Haldraper. I understand your comment on Jenkins. A little puzzled by your comments about the John Jay paper. Why doesn't the John Jay paper support the Wikipedia content? joo (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Treating Jenkins as a source who says the problem was created or exaggerated by the media seems to misrepresent his position. He's written a book, "Pedophiles and priests: anatomy of a contemporary crisis" [2]. He goes through the history of the crisis, using terms like a "general conspiracy of silence" (quoting Canadian bishops conference, 1992; p. 40 in Jenkins). What really created trouble for the Catholic Church were all the lawsuits, especially the ones that forced covered-up church documents into open court. He does mention a few media-driven events, especially the "Priest of Porn" debacle in New Orleans, where "large numbers of pornographic videos had been found in his rectory", including the priest's self-produced "pornographic videos depicting sexual encounters between himself and several teenage boys ... in the parish rectory". That got extensive coverage, as one would expect, even though the priest involved escaped prosecution and was transferred to City College of New York (!). Jenkins does discuss problems with other Christian denominations in an insurance context, but does not mention any organized cover-ups associated with them. --John Nagle (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Most (if not all) researchers have their positions (or Weltanschauung as Cyrus put it), don't they? If they didn't have one, by the time they have finished some major research studies, they would have one. I still wonder about your comment that the cite to the John Jay paper not supporting the the Wikipedia content. Ah, actually, Margaret Smith was speaking in her own capacity and her comment came from interviews with is not part of the John Jay Report. joo (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
John Nagle, Haldraper has reverted your revert. Can some admin block Haldraper please? joo (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
After 23 edits or so by Joo (talk · contribs) in one day, I have a hard time figuring out what anybody else changed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667 joo (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletions despite objections

Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of the Catholic sex abuse cases article:
a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
c. later proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

Here are some of the diffs: joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Removed i) Christian Science Monitor survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967

2. Removed quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

3. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

4. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

5. Removed Context section (Applewhite's quote). Moved Applewhite's quote to the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed ALL the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there?

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put it (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' quote again.

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

9. Haldraper removed "Context" subheading and the second part of Applewhite's quote where she stressed that "we must consider the historical context of any given episode".

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360524736&oldid=360515309

Points 1-4 have been resolved through the intervention of several other editors. Points 5-9 remain unresolved.

See discussions at
1. here

2. here
3. here <-- latest joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Read what other editors have written about Haldraper's edits so far: Cyrus at here and Huey45 at here and Farsight at here (scroll down). joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR advice

Per the previous section posted by me, several editors are approaching 3RR. --Morenooso (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

0936Z and 1333Z 6 May 2010 respectively are times two editors should keep in mind. Reminder, if you read WP:3RR, edit-warring is a bright line and that A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. As little as one word. General Template:3RR will be used initially. Depending on the editor's action, either Template:Uw-3rr3 or Template:Uw-3rr4 will be delivered to the editor's talkpage. A second violation of any template will be reportable for admin review at WP:ANEW. Editors involved in a content dispute should not issue warnings as that action could be viewed as retalitory or a WP:NPA. Neutral editors should be the ones issuing the substitute templates. --Morenooso (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if you're worried about being caught up in an edit war, here is some advice an admin gave me recently: (mindful of the as little as one word) in a content dispute or disputed article, think to yourself that you only have two reverts available but that any and all edits can be subject to admin/3RR review. If you (general advice usage) are working on a disputed article, I (the admin or WP:COOL editor) would say do only two edits on the article per day. Those two edits should be taken very wisely. --Morenooso (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I am not an admin nor claim to be one. --Morenooso (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso, Haldraper has reverted John Nagel's revert. Hasn't he reached 3RR already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talkcontribs) 08:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do address me as if I were an admin or the referee. If you have a problem, go to WP:ANEW. Additonally, since this article is under dispute, all editors must carefully consider all edits. Reverts are still going on and 3RR warnings will be delivered if and when edit-warring broaches it. --Morenooso (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA advice

Now is the time to review WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on the contributor. And, make all comments on content in a civil manner. --Morenooso (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Morenooso, I've checked WP:NPA and found that it is a personal attack when "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I'll post diff and link evidence of Haldraper's misbehavior above. joo (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I will take care of that. And, it's not limited to one editor either. --Morenooso (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso: Haldraper did it again. Removed Applewhite's quote and put it in the Inaccuracies section. He wrote earlier that she wasn't talking about inaccuracy. Yet he put it there. What will/can you do about this? joo (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do address me as if I am an admin or the referee. If you have a problem, go to WP:ANEW. --Morenooso (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cynicism and lies vs. sound mind

May I ask the flock of numerous defenders of the Wikipedia guidelines and rules, how it came that arrogance and cynicism like the one

The promoter of justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has however made it very clear that the condemnation has always been firm and unequivocal. or

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.

has its place in this article? This article is full of garbage as the one under Vatican responses where Vatican top hierarchy was full of words and no action.

I'd be glad to see in this article reflections of the thoughts coming from ordinary people like:

The Long Scandal: A History of Abuse

There has been much suffering and pain at the hands of the Church against the most innocent and defenseless in human society, children. Indeed, the numbers speak for themselves: in the last 50 years some 30,000 people in 25 countries have reported abuse committed by the Church's many workers. Considering that rape is the most under-reported of violent crimes (only one-third of victims report), this statistic is nothing less than horrifying. Tragically, the odds are quite high that there are children in the world this very day who will be sexually abused by their priest.

Where did Wilhelm get the figure "30,000 people in 25 countries"? I've just done a Google search and his article is the only source for this figure. joo (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The current Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, has stated (in a letter to the much-abused citizenry of Ireland), that part of the blame for the abuse scandals and their handling by the Church of Ireland was due to "rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society." This statement is not just morally offensive, it is logically fallacious. It appears the Pope was trying to place at least partial blame onto the modern world for the crimes, thus deflecting the Holy See from full responsibility. Additionally, by attacking recent changes in "modern society" he made the scandal modern, implying that this is a new difficulty for the Church.

This is a case of the Pope's interpretation vs. Wilhelm's interpretation. Please read WP:NPOV. joo (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Italy church sex abuse victims seek accountability

The case of the 87-year-old Don Cantini is one of the most explosive to have rocked the Italian Catholic Church. Victims who had stayed quiet for some 30 years emerged in 2004 to accuse him of creating a sect-like atmosphere in his Queen of Peace parish on the outskirts of Florence, where he allegedly subjected youngsters to sexual and psychological abuse.

As his punishment, Cantini was forbidden from celebrating Mass in public and hearing confessions for five years, and was forced to recite a lengthy psalm every day and make a charitable offering, according to Antonelli's statement.

(How much of an infantile cynicism, my God!)

Please read WP:NPA. Anyway, you cannot blame the majority because of the misbehvior/abuse of a small percentage of people. joo (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A fresh outburst of cynicism and lies came from a Brasilian cardinal: Report: Brazil bishop says kids spontaneously gay

Archbishop Dadeus Grings — a conservative priest who has made controversial statements in the past — told the O Globo newspaper at a Brazilian bishops conference that society's woes are being reflected in the sex abuse scandal enveloping the Roman Catholic Church.

"Society today is pedophile, that is the problem. So, people easily fall into it. And the fact it is denounced is a good sign," Grings told O Globo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.232.225 (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

--71.163.232.225 (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the soapbox of 71.163.232.225 back so soon? Haven't s/he been nominated to be blocked? joo (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't action been taken?

With all the disruptive actions against WP:NPOV and 3RR by Haldraper, why hasn't any action been taken against him?

With all the disruptive and soapbox actions by 71.163.232.225, why hasn't any action been taken against him?

Haldraper reported at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haldraper_deleting_relevant_materials_despite_other_editors.27_objections

71.163.232.225 reported at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#71.163.232.225_using_discussion_page_as_a_forum_for_unrelated_arguments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talkcontribs) 08:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what happened. I reported that guy for making trouble, but now the report has been archived even though no administrators had dealt with it. It's extremely frustrating, since I went to a lot of effort in finding out about the reporting procedure and writing that report. Here it is in the archive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#71.163.232.225_using_discussion_page_as_a_forum_for_unrelated_arguments

(Huey45 (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
This certainly looks strange. Is it possible that 71.163.232.225 has the secret support of some admin who decided to archive that report? joo (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:NPA. Comment on content, not the contributor. An article talkpage, whose article is under dispute is not the place to talk about a contributor. If that was not clear after yesterday, it will be clear after this post. If editor(s) have a problem with a contributor(s), take it to WP:ANEW. Article talkpages as per the talkheader are for improvement. Do not place an editor or IP address in headers and discuss them in this manner again. --Morenooso (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso, when there's good evidence of misbehavior, complaining about contributors is not NPA. That's written in WP:NPA. Is any admin going to take action against Haldraper and 71.163.232.225? joo (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F
Please change this header and use it to address content. --Morenooso (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Article's talkpages under dispute are not the place to discuss an editor

Let's be very clear about this: everyone involved please re-read WP:NPA. If you have a problem with an editor, discuss it at the appropriate noticeboard such as WP:ANEW. Talkpages are for article improvement. And, yes while they may be used to reach WP:CONSENSUS by discussing CONTENT, talkpages should not be used as forum to rant or discuss an editor. --Morenooso (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if you do take an editor or editors to WP:ANEW, you have a responsibility to notify them on their talkpage in a neutral manner that you took them there so they can defend themselves. The best way to do that is in a new section on their talkpage stating, "A discussion about you has been taken to [[WP:ANEW]] and provide the a URL with the DIFF of the posting. --Morenooso (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso is quite right. This isn't the right place to discuss editors. The sole topic of discussion here should be improvement to the article. Editors may be discussed on their user talk page or, if necessary, on a relevant noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

I've noticed that some of you took liberty to remove parts of the discussion they do not like.

  1. cur | prev) 06:27, 6 May 2010 Joo (talk | contribs) (163,030 bytes) (→Horrible!: removed soapbox of 71.163.232.225) (undo)

...

  1. (cur | prev) 03:12, 6 May 2010 Farsight001 (talk | contribs) (162,650 bytes) (→Cynicism and lies vs. sound mind: IP 71 - the talk page is for article improvement ONLY. It is NOT a soap box for you to report every story you find.) (undo)

Without a versatile discussion of many of us there will be no 'article improvement ONLY'. Please, respect others if wanting to be respected by others.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to respect others. However, per policy, ANY discussion (technically even this one) not directly pertaining to article improvement can simply be deleted. IP 71 was simply looking around the web, finding news articles and blogs, and blasting them all over the place. It is very obvious that he does not want this to be an encyclopedia article, but rather a hard-hitting expose on how evil he thinks the Catholic Church is. Does he ever have a suggestion for where to add the news articles he posts? Or why he thinks those blogs are WP:RS? how to insert them into the article without placing undue weight or getting to specific? Of course not. It is the very definition of a WP:SOAPBOX and may certainly be removed without "mercy".Farsight001 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Concur with user:Farsight001. Wikipedia is an encyclopia vis-a-vis WP:RECENTISM. It's a fine edge how an article is editted towards including recent events that provide or compliment the long-term perspective of an article. Thoughtful posts that logically detail how the article can be improved both negatively and positively should be considered by all editors and backed by verifiable third party citations. Even the regular editors are debating content on this talkpage and in the article. All need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS and not let this be a battleground. --Morenooso (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You two are forgetting the most basic fact: your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules is not mandatory to others. You are also forgetting the existence of the Fifth Pillar. Moreover, no one selected you two to dictate what is discussion and what is not. I did find that removed sections are appropriate here and are serious enough to be considered as pointers leading to the article improvement.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, the article talk page is for improvement to the article ONLY. If you are not going to try to help improve the article, then your comments can be removed. Please bring forth suggestions for improvement to the article. As I already mentioned, even this discussion is technically off topic and subject to potential deletion.Farsight001 (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Farsight and Morenooso. WP:CONSENSUS says Consensus is one of a range of policies concerning how editors work with each other. There is general consensus on this talk page that the edits of 71.163.232.225 (now 166.32.193.81?) in the article has been disruptive and the comments on this talk are like those of a soapbox (WP:SOAP). Afterwriting has proposed and Huey45 has reported 71.163.232.225. Even Eraserhead suggested, "See WP:AIV if you want to" joo (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You three lost touch with reality and common sense. You pretend to be prosecutor, judge, and jury at the same time. The defense has no right to say anything. Calling upon a consensus is yet another nonsense. Whose consensus and which consensus? DO you count in me and others? If I have right to say anything here, then there is no consensus ever with the prosecutors, judges, and jury like you.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you think there is something wrong with what we are doing. We have explained that policy restricts the talk page to article improvement only multiple times. We are simply enforcing that rule. What, specifically, is wrong with us enforcing the rules and policies of wikipedia? You are very good at complaining about us, but as of yet have been able to give good reason, based on policy, for opposing our actions. Again, if you are just going to complain about us instead of try to improve the article, this discussion can be deleted. (at this point, probably archived, but that is little different)You speak of concencus, but this does not even remotely apply here. It does not matter if 50 people are having an off topic discussion. The one can simply delete it for being off topic.Farsight001 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Why not just leave the off-topic discussions on the talk page? They don't really do any harm... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Occasional off-topic posts are harmless, but it seems to have become the norm on this page. The only relevant topic on this page is improving the article. Threads on the subject itself or on the behavior of editors are both off-topic and such discussions lead to greater discord. Going forward, everyone should limit themselves to discussing the material in the article and how to make it better. To the extent possible, I suggest that editors try to avoid referring to each other by name for a while.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
IP editor, if you want to discuss legitimate changes to the article, then go right ahead. It would be a welcome change to the recent whining from your friend, User:71.163.232.225. The sections that were removed from the talk page related to the topic, but not the article itself. (Huey45 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Not sure what is going on with all these reverts, but. . .

Basically, unless something horrendous or that does not improve the article or talkpage are the only reasons for reverts. An admin is monitoring this page now. And, while the next comment is meant in a good vein, this zebra suited referee has already acted on this page. Every editor, including me, do not need to give him ammunition or reasons to visit our talkpages. --Morenooso (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, address content not editors. See the section concerning No Personal Attacks which is WP:NPA policy. It's happening again, and I wouldn't be doing this if I valued non-visits from admins on my talkpage (except for when they want to say hi and I'm doing a great job). --Morenooso (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet that the DYK front page once had, DYK you can get a 3RR edit-war warning for reverts on a talkpage? If not, it could appear TODAY as a result of all these reverts with some terrible edit summaries. --Morenooso (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Did over 30 bishops resign?

In the "Resignations, retirements and defrockings" section, it's stated that "over 30 bishops, who were directly responsible for abuse, or who had participated in the cover up, have also resigned or retired". But the reference given does not have the word "retire" and its only mention of the word "resign" is not about bishops but this:

"So far, five of the seven priests who received the letters have resigned rather than submit to monitoring. One priest has moved into the retreat house, and the other is on his way, Mr. Zwilling said."

joo (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this line or the reference ought to be deleted. joo (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove it if it isn't backed up by the source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Coverdale's Opus Dei membership

This should be in the article along with that he's a law professor as being a member of a fairly extreme catholic organisation is relevant to his views. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that the Opus Dei is hardly extreme. It's kind of a basic rule in reporting that you only use descriptors relevant to the issue at hand. Don't mention that a guys is black unless his race is directly relevant, like if he was beaten by half a dozen white cops. Likewise, we really shouldn't bother mentioning that he's opus dei unless there is a direct and obvious connection. I don't really see the relevance of his membership. Being a law professor identifies him as knowledgeable to the subject, but being opus dei? How is that related at all?Farsight001 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Because he's a member of a catholic organisation described on its wikipedia article as "the most controversial force within the Catholic Church" which might cloud his judgement on issues relating to the catholic church. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Though in fairness that Wiki article does also say its reputation is unfair, meh. It could go either way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not that big a deal to me. I just don't see the relevance.Farsight001 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a question of not misleading the reader: the words 'law professor' on their own give the impression of academic disinterestedness whereas as a member of Opus Dei he is clearly far from being an impartial observer of the Church. Why do people want to hide this fact from the reader? Farsight asks how is Opus Dei 'related at all' to an article discussing the actions of the Catholic Church? I suggest he reads its page... Haldraper (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I suppose being black also clouded MLK's judgment in fighting for civil rights? And being atheist clouded Richard Dawkin's impartality when writing the God Delusion? Are no opus dei members capable of impartial reporting on an issue of the Catholic Church? And should we then be sure to note the opinions on the Catholic Church of every author of a source used in this article? - being sure to mention exactly which source authors have been abused, are a Catholic, were a Catholic, doesn't like Catholics, etc, etc?
Like I said, I don't care much about it's inclusion, but your reasoning for it is shitty and your assumption that because he is opus dei, he is DE FACTO biased is not even remotely fair-minded.Farsight001 (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To be fair there is a difference between being a straight catholic and being a member of Opus Dei. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Farsight demonstrates how thin his case is: no-one portrays MLK or Dawkins as impartial observers of the black civil rights movement or the God debate by baldy describing them as a Church pastor or university professor rather than what they are, campaigners for their causes, just as Coverdale is for his. Haldraper (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
lol. You missed the point entirely - that you automatically assume that he is a campaigner for his cause. If we are to make such an assumption for him, we necessarily must do it for everyone, and yet, looking at the rest of the article, we clearly do not see this. Every Catholic to you seems to be labeled a campaigner or bias by you, and yet everyone else is not. And you think I'M the biased one? Wow. Farsight001 (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
By saying he's an Opus Dei member doesn't automatically mean that he is bias, it just raises the possibility that he's bias with the reader. Haldraper really has a point here I think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Farsight. Coverdale's membership in Opus Dei is irrelevant. My views are similar to his and I'm not a member of Opus Dei. joo (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we remove the comment about him being a law professor too? That would be an acceptable compromise to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Because the law professor part identifies him as a content expert, which makes it relevant.Farsight001 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
But so is him being a member of Opus Dei, you wouldn't describe Dawkins as just a University Professor, it would be dishonest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you perhaps explain how being opus dei makes one an expert on legal issues pertaining to sex abuse?Farsight001 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It doesn't make him an expert but it might make him not totally neutral on the matter which is useful to readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Which brings us right back to my point above - that this article doesn't seem to make such an identifying moniker for people from the other side. If we're going to identify him as opus dei because it might color his perspective, then shouldn't we identify others as, for example, former sex abuse victims, or ex-Catholics, or anti-Catholics because that might color their perspective too? Farsight001 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to identify detailed church group membership for every Catholic who speaks up, perhaps to be fair, we should also identify detailed "other group" membership (e.g. member of a liberal support group, e.g. for LBGT rights, Planned Parenthood, voted for Democrats, etc. which are against Catholic teachings) for every non-Catholic who speaks up? This is tedious. joo (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that's fine by me, I'm not in favour of hiding things from the reader. As Eraserhead says, it's dishonest. No-one would write "Science professor Richard Dawkins" in an article on God, they would write "Well-know atheist". Coverdale's motivation in writing articles defending the Pope surely stems from the fact he's a member of Opus Dei rather than a law professor, it's slightly ridiculous for people to insist we mention the former but not the latter.Haldraper (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I would thank that Coverdale's motivation in defending the Pope stems from the fact that he's Catholic. Same goes for ex-Senator D'Amato. Likewise, I'm here because I'm Catholic and proud of it. Then again, that fact doesn't suggest in any way that they (or I) would try to distort any facts. joo (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
No, he is clearly a completely impartial academic source who approaches this subject with the same open mind as you. Haldraper (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Now that I would have to agree absolutely. We certainly won't (1) delete important relevant information just because we don't like them and (2) refuse to discuss properly. joo (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitting is not sex abuse

I agree with Farsight: "Hitting is not sex abuse." None of us should be adding incidents that do not involve sex abuse on the "Catholic sex abuse cases" page. joo (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I originally added it, but I agree with Farsight's removal of it from the article - it was a mistake to add it in the first place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

An explanation of the numbers in the Scope and Nature section

I've made a series of edits on the numbers in the In the United States section based on statistics from these three reports:

  • Reese, Thomas J. (2004-03-22). "Facts, Myths and Questions". America. Retrieved 2009-07-29.
  • "Executive Summary of "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States"". John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
  • "Draft survey: 4,450 priests accused of sex abuse". CNN. February 17, 2004.

This is the agreed stat: 10,667 people in the US had made allegations of child sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002 against 4,392 priests (from John Jay report / JJ).

6,700 were investigated and substantiated (from CNN report based on the Draft survey) against 1,872 priests (JJ), and another 1,000 were unsubstantiated (CNN) against 824 priests (JJ).

3,300 allegations were not investigated because the priests involved had died. (CNN) The allegations were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests (JJ). In other words, around 2,000 priests died by the time of allegations.

Police were contacted regarding 1,021 (JJ) of the 1,872 (JJ) priests who had substantiated allegations. Of those who were reported to the police, only 252 (20 plus percent) were convicted and 100 (about 10 percent) jailed. This fact is consistent with Monica Applewhite's observation that "...when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison."

The remaining 850-odd priests (around 46 percent) who were not reported to the police... they were probably suspended and sent for treatment (this is supported by the stats in the JJ report and tabulated in the Diocesan Responses section). joo (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But strange, how can a dead priest (with a credible allegation) be sent for evaluation? The numbers given by the John Jay Report are quite confusing... unless the survey was filled up someone who reported on what was done with the priest while he was alive. joo (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Now this makes sense since JJ reported that the dioceses knew about one third of the allegations before 1993. Someone might say this is OR:SYN whatever. But with this logical explanation, the apparently conflicting/confusing numbers from the same report finally make sense. joo (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright notices in Ongoing investigations

Can the copyright notices (placed in comments) be removed? Don't think the info and references violate copyright. joo (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Off the top of my head, it depends. However, based upon that policy that that is labeled "legal considerations", I'd say yes 99 percent of the time. --Morenooso (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance tags in an article Under Dispute - don't remove them

There are several maintenance tags on this article for good reason. The article is Under Dispute. If you have any questions, please see Template:Uw-tdel1. --Morenooso (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Morenooso, I'm surprised that those who have not logged in are apparently allowed to edit the article again. Is the article not on semi-protected mode anymore? Given the controversial edits that have been taking place on this article, the edits on the article should remain in the semi-protected mode. joo (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see just one of the 'good reasons' here (i.e particular to Criticism of secrecy among bishops subtitle). All I see that some of the contributors are along the strict line of Roman Catholic Church damage control. That was actually reason for tagging the section talking about Ratzinger's crime cover-up as POV. Now, here is from another author about the Ratzinger's accountability for the crime cover-up: Governments must step into priest sex abuse cases by Terence McKiernan, the founder and president of BishopAccountability.org, a library and Web archive of the Catholic sex abuse and financial crisis

    Through news reports, we have learned that in 1980, when Pope Benedict XVI was Archbishop of Munich Joseph Ratzinger, he approved an order to move a priest named Peter Hullermann into the diocese of Munich, Germany, for therapy after parents complained that the priest had had sexual relations with their children. Hullermann soon resumed his pastoral duties, while Ratzinger was still archbishop. Shortly after Ratzinger left his Munich post in 1982, Hullermann was moved to a church in Grafing, nearby, and was convicted, four years later, of sexually abusing children there. Yet he was kept in ministry until a few days ago.


    On the same line with McKiernan is the Arizona prosecutor, who put eight cassocked pedophiles in prison, former Phoenix DA Rick Romley, who stated:

The secrecy, the obstruction that I saw during my investigation was unparallelled in my entire career here as a prosecutor in Phoenix, Arizona. It was so difficult to obtain any information from the Church at all. In fact, we knew of certain meetings that had taken place, and yet no documentation was ever produced to be able to show that that meeting had even occurred. You know, when we started looking at it, it was really interesting. We came across in the Canons for the Church there are supposed to be secret archives where this information is to be kept, and not given to the civil authorities, no matter what the circumstances. There was an instruction from the Nunzio, because of his ambassador status, to shift all of this incriminating information to him, because under the law we could not subpoena that information from him, because of his ambassador status. I think that is really the story — the Church's failure to acknowledge such a problem, but not just a passiveness, it was in an openly obstructive way of not allowing civil authorities to stop the abuse within the Church. They fought us every step of the way.

--71.163.229.106 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

71.163.229.106, (1) Haven't you read that the parents of the child abused by Hullerman did not want to have the case reported to the police? And that this special request is in the case documentation. (2) Why don't you log in and be identified properly (even under a pseudonymn)? What's holding you back from a simple task like this? joo (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
@joo, he doesn't have to be a member. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
While he doesn't have to be a "member", I don't see why we should respect an anonymous editor who is constantly - and apparently intentionally - violating various important policies. As far as I'm concerned, anonymous editors who keep acting in this way forfeit the rights that other editors are entitled to. Afterwriting (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • @joo It's surprising to me that I shall be asked (1) question. Here it is possible to hear about the Roman Catholic Church pedophiles' victim and his parent intimidation in Brasil. In the Hullerman case, both Ratzinger and the hierarchy of German Roman Catholic Church along with the victims' parents shall be charged with obstruction of justice and brought before the court. I only could assume that, in the Hullerman case, the victims' parents were intimidated as it was case in Brasil.

    About the obstruction of justice in the Woytyla's times read Pedophiles and Popes: Doing the Vatican Shuffle by Michael Parenti:

When Pope John Paul II was still living in Poland as Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, he claimed that the security police would accuse priests of sexual abuse just to hassle and discredit them. (New York Times, 3/28/10). For Wojtyła, the Polish pedophilia problem was nothing more than a Communist plot to smear the church.

By the early 1980s, Wojtyła, now ensconced in Rome as Pope John Paul II, treated all stories about pedophile clergy with dismissive aplomb, as little more than slander directed against the church. That remained his stance for the next twenty years.

Today in post-communist Poland, clerical abuse cases have been slowly surfacing, very slowly. Writing in the leading daily Gazeta Wyborcza, a middle-aged man reported having been sexually abused as a child by a priest. He acknowledged however that Poland was not prepared to deal with such transgressions. "It's still too early. . . . Can you imagine what life would look like if an inhabitant of a small town or village decided to talk? I can already see the committees of defense for the accused priests."

--71.163.229.106 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

IP71 - for the umpteenth time - the talk page is for discussing improvement to the article ONLY. If you are not going to suggest improvements, which it is blatantly obvious that you have no intention to do, then kindly GO AWAY. You are wasting yours and everyone else's time here. To everyone else, I suggest WP:DNFTT and that we simply archive further posts by IP71 until he decides to comply with the purpose of this encyclopedia.Farsight001 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
On the principle of "Don't feed the trolls", can I suggest that we try to just ignore this anonymous editor from now on and not reply to his/her comments. It's usually a waste of time and energy to reason with people with fixated personal agendas. Afterwriting (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please archive the issue (vs article) dicussion per rules or I will delete the issue dicussion

 First warning.

Sturunner (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)sturunnerSturunner (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Which section? Stuff should be archived after 15 days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that the article is locked, can we talk about stuff?

I have little doubt that one editor in particular will simply pick right back up with the contentious editing the moment the block ends, but for the rest of us, can you please bring up particular issues here? Like elaborating on things in the lede that is not in the article, or using Philip Jenkins as a cite, or inclusion of the call to prosecute the pope.Farsight001 (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not exactly one editor at fault here - I can see a large number of different editors edit warring, so I think you should assume good faith. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I find it strange to have details of sex crimes in the lead because (1) the very definition of sex would include such details, and (2) the "Statistics on offenders and victims" section gives a much more accurate picture of what was really involved. As for Jenkins, he was professor of Criminal Justice and American Studies at PSU, 1980–1993. Quoting him regarding how the media shifted its focus to sexual abuse committed by Catholic clergy is definitely appropriate. Regarding the inclusion of the call to prosecute the pope, I have no objection other than to put it in context of an ongoing series of strident anti-religion acts by Dawkins & Hitchens. joo (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Normal mode of address vs Honesty

Haldraper: Why do you consider it honesty (instead of "NOT normal mode of address") to include the Opus Dei membership of barrister Coverdale, and YET not normal mode of address (instead of "honesty") to include "Distinguished" for Professor Philip Jenkins? Please explain your line of reasoning. Hope you'll be consistent. joo (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed "Distinguished" from before Jenkins name because his title or form of address, presumably, is simply "Professor" - whereas "Distinguished Professor" refers to his particular academic position and is not a title or form of address. To use it as a title would be considered "vulgar" useage by many grammarians. Afterwriting (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The usual standard of Wikipedia is not to use academic titles at all. Instead of "Professor John Smith", we should say, "John Smith, a professor". In subsequent uses, we'd just refer to him as "Smith" rather than "Professor Smith". See WP:CREDENTIAL.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Afterwriting, looks like you have removed more than "Distinguished". The word "professor" disappeared altogether. Why so? joo (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed "Professor" as a title in accordance with WP's policies on the use of academic titles. I intend to add information on his current position - which is no longer that of a "distinguished professor" in any case according to the WP article on him. Afterwriting (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Professor Philip Jenkins is more than a professor of humanities. His fields of expertise include Humanities, history, religious studies, criminal justice, American studies. Just putting Humanities is very misleading. joo (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It certainly ISN'T "misleading" - that's what his current position is. Interested readers can find out more at his WP article. Geez!
His current position does not reflect all his fields of expertise. Yes, read his WP article. It gives more information on his background and not just his current position. joo (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Just how much irrelevant and unecessary details do you expect articles to contain about people who are referenced in articles? If you applied this argument to everyone else then articles would just get ridiculously detailed. It's a non-argument. Afterwriting (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Its fairly standard practice to include something like "member of Opus Dei" including Distinguished is just decoration as we already respect him greatly as he's a University professor. Obviously if they are an abuse victim and they are slamming the church that should also be made clear as they are likely to be non-neutral too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that his membership of Opus Dei has some useful relevance. In itself it is entirely neutral. How readers react to it is their problem. Afterwriting (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
May I ask why this isn't in the article? There seems to be a strong consensus for it to be in the article, and that was true before full protection started. Can that be discussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If Opus Dei membership is relevant, all the more relevant is "Distinguished" for a distinguished professor is the crème de la crème among professors. btw, what strong consensus for "Opus Dei"? Eraserhead and Haldraper are for it. And only now did Afterwriting speak up. Farsight and I are against it. So what consensus is there? Just by the numbers 3 vs 2? joo (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
How many times do you need to be told that "Distinguished" is not a part of his personal *title*? It was only part of the *previous* academic *position* that he held. He no longer holds the position of a "distinguished professor" regardless of how personally distinguished you believe him to be. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding these things? Read the WP article about him and cease this irrelevant argument. On the other hand, a person's membership of an organisation such as Opus Dei is not without some significance. Afterwriting (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
My mistake on their being a strong consensus I thought only one person was against the inclusion of Opus Dei, sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:SACC

{{editprotected}} Hi. Based on discussions at Template talk:SACC, I'm changing the SACC template from an infobox to a navbox format. Accordingly, it will then break the layout of this page, as there will then be a navbox at the top of the article. Would it be possible for someone to move the SACC template from the top to the bottom, to jo--Noel Olivier (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)in with the other two navboxes? The change will happen fairly soon, but it seems it would be better for layout to have an infobox at the bottom for a few minutes than a navbox at the top. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph rewrite needed

I'd like to suggest removing completely or significantly reducing this portion of the lead paragraph

In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. The promoter of justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has however made it very clear that the condemnation has always been firm and unequivocal. In an interview, he stated the following "It may be that in the past - perhaps also out of a misdirected desire to protect the good name of the institution - some bishops were, in practice, too indulgent towards this sad phenomenon. And I say in practice because, in principle, the condemnation of this kind of crime has always been firm and unequivocal. Suffice it to recall, to limit ourselves just to last century, the famous Instruction Crimen Sollicitationis of 1922".[4] 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."[5] He also gave CDF a broader mandate to address the sex abuse cases from 2001.[6] In 2003, he declared again that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[7] With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers and, noting the preponderance of adolescent males (teenage boys) amongst victims of abuse, warned that a more searching inquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man;[8] and the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[9]

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.[10] Other commentators have said that the scandal highlights deep-seated problems with mandatory celibacy in the priesthood of the Catholic Church and how that institution deals with allegations of child abuse by its clergy[11] while some experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations.[12]

for being fallacious, declarative (no proper actions leading to effective protection of minors, legal support of the victims, or actions of the Church helping the victims to overcome consequences of the crime committed on them), and aimed to relativise (has been shown that the rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society) the crime of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) hierarchy (the popes and the cardinals).

This is an encyclopedia edition and, by no means, a RCC blog.--71.191.26.33 (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be rather too many "excuses" for the catholic church in the lead - far more that the content obliquely describing what the sex scandals actually are. Those paragraphs should be reduced in size. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am all for completely removing the quoted text above. And much more of the excuses in the article.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You want to get rid of the Catholic, and sometimes non-Catholic responses? And you think *we're* the ones pushing a pov?!Farsight001 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Where are the non-Catholic responses in the lead? And why are there any comments on homosexuality in the lead? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New lead

What about the following - I've removed references for now for clarity:

The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and scandals related to sex crimes (including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism) committed by some Catholic priests and members of religious orders, both under diocesan control and 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 widespread 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. Most of the abuse that has been uncovered occurred in the 1960's and 1970's.

In addition to the actual abuse, much of the scandal focused around the behavior of 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 unrepentant the opportunity to continue their sexual abuse. In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the time suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counselling. Members of the church hierarchy have also compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that similar or higher levels of abuse occur 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." Additionally with the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

1) This is far too brief. 2) Maybe "unfortunate unrepentent" should simply be "unrepentent". 3) The Church's responses is much more than what Pope John Paul II has said about the offenses. I'll look into this detailed rewriting of the summary later. joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
1) It may be a little brief, but I think its fairly balanced. 2) Done 3) Maybe we could get another sentence in, possibly with a sentence on the secular response as that hasn't been included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added some more comments on the catholic response, though it'd be good to get some comments on the secular response too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've now added this new version to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to erase completely this:

In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.

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." 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 similar or higher levels of abuse occur in other institutions.

Main reasons are:

The 'controversial actions' are the crime: obstruction of justice. Voytyla's 'spiritual nature of the offenses' is cynicism, not worth to be mentioned at all. The worst kind of their cynicism is this claim: 'similar or higher levels of abuse occur in other institutions'.

Moreover, please, read these excerpts from a number of articles:

Catholic cardinal accused of coverup

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn this past weekend accused Cardinal Angelo Sodano, a former Vatican secretary of state, of having headed off probes into the alleged sexual abuse by Groer, who had been Schonborn's predecessor in Vienna, The Times of London reported Monday.

Priests kept working despite investigations

The Catholic Church is accused of bungling sex abuse inquiries, with at least two priests continuing to work despite church investigations into the cases.

A Sydney priest, Finian Egan, was found to have groped two girls over many years in the 1980s, yet he was praised at a public Mass in Carlingford last year for 50 years of service.

A Melbourne priest, Patrick Maye, twice celebrated the annual Mass for Victoria's Irish community, despite being banned from acting as a priest after church investigators found that he had committed serious sexual abuse in 1973 by forcing himself on a 31-year-old woman when she was in a vulnerable state.
...
In a statement to the Herald, the Bishop of Broken Bay, David Walker, would only say it would not be appropriate to make any response that could jeopardise the balance of trust that is placed in the church's process of healing.
...
Archbishop Hart also acknowledged the pain his victims would experience on learning of the priest's actions, but has been unwilling to publicise Father Maye's name to ensure he can't act as a priest.
...
One victim said: Dealing with the church itself was a hell of a lot more traumatic than dealing with the abuse.

Hartford Archbishop Urges Parishes To Fight Legislation On Child Sex Abuse Cases

A proposal to extend the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse cases could have a "devastating financial effect" on the state's Catholic dioceses, Hartford Archbishop Henry J. Mansell wrote to pastors this week, urging them to include a letter opposing the bill in parish bulletins this weekend.

Governments must step into priest sex abuse cases

Cardinal Brady, back when he was the Rev. Brady in 1975, swore two little boys to secrecy during a church investigation into their abuse by the Rev. Brendan Smythe. In the ensuing 18-year silence, Smythe went on to abuse dozens of other children in Ireland and the United States. He died in Irish prison in 1997.

Vatican's Top American Has Mixed Record on Abuse

"He said, 'Father Conley, you do know what wrestling is, don't you?'" Conley recalled. "And I said, 'As a matter of fact, I do know what wrestling is. It's usually in a gymnasium with all the lights on. It is not a 60-year-old man and a 14-year-old boy in a hallway."
The archbishop is now Cardinal William Levada, the highest-ranking American at the Vatican and head of the office that defrocks pedophile priests.

Bottom line: it's immoral and cynical to have the Catholic Church 'responses' in the leading paragraph.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This anononymous editor is a persistent troll hiding behind various IP addresses. Please don't feed the troll! Afterwriting (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, how the catholic church has responded is an important part of it. I also believe that: "In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling." can be sourced reliably - if not, then it should be removed as well.
Some further content on the victims might well be appropriate in the lead along with the responses from the church. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This has been sourced reliably and Haldraper removed all the references that I had added to Applewhite's quotation on 1) no child protective services then, 2) particular behaviors involved not criminalized yet, 3) "We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s", 4) "discovered it caused real harm in 1978", and 5) "realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s." 6) "During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison." joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet[6] [7]. It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

"We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978[8], and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s[4]. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison[9]. At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease[4]. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode."

The references are from reliable sources (as defined in Wikipedia), such as: (1) Pecora et al. (1992), p. 232; Petr (1998), p. 126. (2) Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 232-3; Petr (1998), pp. 126-7. (3) KC Meiselman (1978). Incest. Jossey-Bass Publishers. (4) http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm (5) more references within the History section of the child protective services article and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act article within Wikipedia. joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, read a much fuller list of academic research references compiled by Applewhite on her Facebook page at http://apps.facebook.com/files/shared/4erf0droty joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
PS your 'Moreover, please, read these excerpts from a number of articles' section looks a little off topic, do you mind if I collapse it so it is hidden from view by default? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Nothing above is off-topic, please! What I counted above is the true response of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy to the crime committed by their priests: damage control and lack of any support or care for their victims - children. What you try to 'source' means to support leveling down and taking out of the public focus the crime committed, which might not be your intention and which is true intention of the RCC. I am all on the side of innocent children. We have to follow the high ethical line no matter whether some of the RCC defenders might see it as POV. These innocent children, victims of the heinous crime, are true Christians, not Ratziger, Levada, Sodano, Law, and Woytyla.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
First, the lede, per policy, is to be a summary of the article. If there are Catholic responses of significance in the article body, then the lead paragraph definitely needs something. Second, you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what has been going on with the sex abuse cases around the world. The Church is, in fact, taking quite a bit of action to stop what's going on. To say that we as Catholics are simply defending our own despite their heinous crimes is ridiculous.Farsight001 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
@96.231.80.99, we all know the catholic church has behaved badly, but the issue does need to presented in a neutral fashion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Farsight. The lead is a summary of the article. Catholic responses should be represented there. Eraserhead, some members and leaders (bishops) of the Catholic Church have behaved badly. You cannot accuse the entire organisation for the misbehavior of a small percentage of their people. Whatever your viewpoint, WP:NPOV must be observed here. On the other hand, as I've uncovered in recent days, (1) Most offences reported took place in the 1960-1970s when casual sex was the order (or disorder) of the day. (2) The practice of sending sex offenders for psychiatric evaluation and treatment is commonplace even within the criminal justice system then. (3) As mentioned over and over again, only a small percentage of Catholic clergy were involved (only 4 percent accused and not all substantiated or credible). (4) Why do the media accuse the Catholic Church only then? The learning curve about how best to treat sex offenders applies to everyone - Catholic or not. joo (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, why do the most strident voices against the Catholic Church on this article and this talk page persist in hiding behind IP addresses and not logging in as a proper Wikipedia member? joo (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

|}

I'm not doing anything of the sort, I'm just shortening the lead and removing some of the content. To reply to your specific concerns: 2) I kept that in my version of the lead: In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.. 3) and 4) These are also addressed in my lead 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 similar or higher levels of abuse occur in other institutions. - maybe that could be reworded to be clearer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
PS On 1) we could add something to clarify that the abuse largely took place in the 1960's and 1970's, I've added something to the first paragraph of my new version of the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • @Eraserhead1 Neutrality you are talking about is violated by you by following the defense line of the Roman Catholic Church: "Members of the church hierarchy have compared", "media coverage" etc. The church hierarchy (with a few honest exceptions) deserved to be jailed for all their "controversial actions" and "prevailing psychology". I do not like your "neutrality", I'd like to see strong morality and voice of those who suffered from that heinous crime here in the lead paragraph. This is not a RCC chat room and all above I quoted and you marked off topic (who gave you the right to do that?) is about the true response of the RCC: honest and highly moral ('Cardinal Christoph Schonborn this past weekend accused Cardinal Angelo Sodano') coming from the church hierarchy, or disturbing and raising further questions (One victim said: "Dealing with the church itself was a hell of a lot more traumatic than dealing with the abuse.")--96.231.80.99 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
1) This is not your prosecution soapbox. 2) There are over 1 billion Catholics and over 400,000 priests worldwide. The priest offenders comprises only a small percentage (2-4 percent). You cannot blame the majority and the entire Church for the sins of a minority. joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
While the RCC deserves some blame there needs to be a balance between blame and accepting their response, otherwise we aren't being neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Could everyone please stop feeding the anonymous troll editor. It is a waste of time and energy. You are only encouraging his campaign of vilification and falling into his trap. Trolls should just be ignored. Afterwriting (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Throwing troll accusations around isn't likely to stop the edit warring when the article is unprotected. And regardless of the IP going a little far and bringing up some off topic comments (which I attempted to collapse) he does have a point that the current lead is overly long-winded. Maybe rather than criticising IP editors you could help improve my new lead above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Going a little far"? Have you actually been following his contentious editing history, ignoring of BLP and other policies and the use of various IP addresses? Regardless of any valid points he may have his behaviour is classic troll behaviour and should no longer be tolerated or encouraged. Afterwriting (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Eraserhead, you do know that IP96 is the same user as IP71, right?Farsight001 (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've now added this new version to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

John Coverdale's comments from a reliable source?

How about the tendetious text I've just discovered claiming that John Coverdale's comments are from 'a letter to the New York Times'. If you follow the link, you'll see that the NYT declined to publish the letter and it was actually released on someone's blog. This seems to me an attempt to dress up a non-reliable source as a reliable one. Haldraper (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you give the source here? PS I've broken your comments off into a new section I hope you don't mind. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It's from the Just B16 blog: The NY Times and the facts of the Kiesle case. Haldraper (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Well as its a blog its not a reliable source for the article, however I think its reasonable for the New York Times themselves to be sourced for the letter to show its been published, rather than the Daily Telegraph. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Coverdale's comments were published in the Daily Telegraph. Read the reference given. Anyway, this is an opinion piece (a criticism). As Richard S has pointed earlier, so long as "it not be self-published i.e. that the stuff that is published went through some sort of editorial review." joo (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The blog btw is on MercatorNet which is a magazine which has been online since 2004. With regards to reliability, are you questioning that Coverdale ever wrote the letter? Or the reliability of Coverdale's criticism? If it's former, Coverdale would have spoken up by now having given publicity in Mercator and Daily Telegraph. If it's the latter, the reference stands since this a criticism (just as most of the media pieces are criticisms) and Wikipedia's NPOV policy clearly stated that reliable sources are not about truth but verifiable sources. joo (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If the Daily Telegraph has published the letter say that - its dishonest to imply that the New York Times have published the letter if they actually haven't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and the Telegraph hasn't published the letter: one of its columnists quoted from the blog on which it appeared. We should either make this clear or cut it. Haldraper (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I'd count: [3] as publishing the letter. I don't feel that strongly though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well it depends how you word it (and it obviously needs rewording if it is to stay). I wouldn't say "in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph" as readers will assume it was accepted by the editors for the letters page rather than a blog quoted in a comment piece by a columnist. Whoever wrote "in a letter to the New York Times" was clearly intent on misleading the reader. Haldraper (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't know if they were intent on confusing the reader, but that was the result IMO, I think "in a letter published by the Daily Telegraph" would be enough - as I can't think of a better description without getting pedantic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It was a letter to the New York Times. And it was mentioned clearly in both MercatorNet and The Daily Telegraph that NYT didn't publish it. You're certainly free to add qualifying statements that NYT didn't publish it. So what if NYT didn't? This letter is highly critical of NYT (Laurie Goodstein especially) in the first place. However, if you delete it, you'd be removing a key criticism written by a law professor (who presumably understands that what he writes mustn't make him liable to be sued later) from the Criticism section. I strongly oppose this. joo (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It could be worded as "in a letter to the New York Times that was later published in the Daily Telegraph instead". joo (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you want to continue deceiving the reader: it wasn't published as a letter in the Daily Telegraph, the blog on which it appeared was quoted by one of their columnists in a comment piece. We either say that or cut it. Haldraper (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper, you are making an unwarranted personal attack. Now you need to read WP:NPA. What's so great about NYT? Its propensity for sensationalism and the errors (to the extent of stating the opposite) in the defective English translation that it held as "holy grail" for attacking the pope? Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Inaccuracies in full yet? Who's deceiving indeed? Good gracious! Daily Telegraph quoted it IN FULL. If that's not publishing, what is that? That's enough for me. joo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the fuss over "a letter to New York Times". It was a letter addressed specifically to NYT. One could just add that it was not published there but in the Daily Telegraph instead. Stop being so upset or paranoid, for goodness sake! joo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In quick succession joo advises me to read WP:NPA and accuses me of being "paranoid": Physician, heal thyself? Haldraper (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Joo, whats wrong with saying "in a letter published by the Daily Telegraph"? Mentioning the New York Times just makes it more long-winded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
What about "in a letter published by the Daily Telegraph criticising the New York Times" as a compromise? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Thanks, Eraserhead. And alright, I'm not going to feed the troll. joo (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA say joo before calling me "paranoid"; now he accuses me of being a "troll". Time you looked in the mirror I think.

For the third time, Coverdale's comments were not published as a letter by the Daily Telegraph: they were published on a blog and then quoted from by a columnist. Clear? We either say that or cut it. Haldraper (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph publishes their website, so they have published it. To be honest the whole argument really is over a pretty minor point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Putting the facts before the reader rather than twisting words to mislead them isn't a minor point. I suggest:
"In his column in the Daily Telegraph, Damian Thompson quoted law professor John Coverdale as saying:" Haldraper (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done its in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Church responses and Criticism of media coverage

These two sections together are more than half of the whole article. The intention of those who contributed content of these two sections is to provide 'proofs' that the scandal is actually not a scandal and that Roman Catholic Church did a lot to prevent their own abusers of innocent children to do what they already did and what they kept doing for decades. As it can be read here Admitting failings fills ‘God-sized’ gap with a chance for holiness

The recent scandals in the Catholic Church are even worse. They actively profane faith because of the bad behavior of certain priests. These priests have their own desires and insecurities and somehow manage to justify to themselves terrible behavior. Compounding the priests’ abuse of children is the hierarchy’s ongoing willingness to cover up the bad behavior and move the offending priests to other places. All the parties involved know the behavior to avoid; a great opportunity for holiness is destroyed by this failure.

This article must drop excuses, big words of the Roman Catholic clergy, and the pope's crocodile tears. The Church hired 'independent researchers' who with their statistics, all which are obsolete, inaccurate, and coming from nowhere, serving the purposes of the commissioner so clearly explained in the quoted text.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a fair point, though how much content should be removed/changed is going to need a fair bit of discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • @Eraserhead1 Thank you for this response. We have to pay attention to so-called 'neutral' experts. In the same article, Thomas Plante is referenced twice but the question: Who is Thomas Plante? is answered: Thomas Plante, a member of the National Review Board on abuse policies for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The source is an opinion piece by a non-expert. It does not meet criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, in reading the whole article, I find the quoted section deceptively misleading without the context of the rest of the article.Farsight001 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The article is not here to adopt a single opinion or to express a judgement. It is there to provide information, and context, and to describe the major relevant schools of published opinion, including those which consider the Church has been unfairly pilloried on this issue. Xandar 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • @Xandar I am telling you that the content of 'unfairly pilloried' is excessive, wrong and biased. I never advocated 'a single opinion', rather moral and accurate opinions.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
96, per your past editing suggestions and constant soapboxing, we all know quite well that what you just said about your motivations is not even remotely true. You tried to get all positive wording, and all defense of the Church removed whole-sale from the article multiple times. Do you really expect us to believe that you actually want an accurate representation after moves like that?
And to others who may be familiar with the user, does IP96/IP71 remind you of Giovanni33?Farsight001 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not only is this anonymous editor a persistent troll but he is also a persisent sockpuppet as a little research has demonstrated. I really don't understand why some editors are continuing to feed the troll - it's a waste of time and energy and only encourages his continuing abuse of policies and intimidation of other editors. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. So many of us have complained against the troll-like actions of IP 96 and 71 (most likely the same person using different PCs). Yet they continue with their antics on the article and on the talk page, not barred or blocked at all. joo (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1983 Canon Law

In the article, section 1983 : "The legal force of Crimen Sollicitationis as an "instruction" expired in 1983 with this revision of the Canon Law.". According to Thomas Doyle, "Crimen Sollicitationis" didn't expire with the revision of the canon law in 1983. The instruction was to be reviewed when the new canonical Codes were promulgated. The instruction was still in force until 2001, according to Ratzinger. See Thomas Doyle [Nov 2006, n°5] : -Under ordinary circumstances Crimen Sollicitationis would have ceased to have legal force with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of canon Law. This was not the case however, and the words of the subsequent document, commonly known as De delictis gravioribus, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, clarify this issue: "At approximately the same time the Congregation for the Faith, through an ad hoc Commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts, both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, in order to determine "more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments" and in order to make special procedural norms "to declare or impose canonical sanctions," because the Instruction Crimen sollicitationis, issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16,1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical Codes were promulgated.- --Noel Olivier (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain what you're trying to say here?Farsight001 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is the talk page of the article "Catholic sex abuse cases". In this article, there are differents sections. One of these, number 6. 3.2, is about Crimen Sollicitationis and the 1983 Code canon law. The information in this section is false. As you can see in the citation above, Joseph Ratzinger himself wrote in 2001 (De delictis gravioribus) that "Crimen sollicitationis" was in force until 2001. So, could anybody change this section at the end of the protection. Thank you. I Hope it's more clear like that.--Noel Olivier (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
So the section Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#1983 should be removed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It should be completed, with more precisions.--Noel Olivier (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph again

Off topic content

In addition to the actual abuse, much of the scandal focused around the behavior of 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.[3]

who did not report the crimes to civil authorities reads who shall be charged with obstruction of justice.

In defending their controversial 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.[4]

people could be cured of such behavior through counselling - criminals are criminals! The Church never paid for psychiatric treatment of the victims, nor initiated their legal protection. So, until the Church was not pressed hard against the wall of justice, the Church did not do anything to protect the children. It was interested only into the damage control and the scandal cover-up.

Off topic content

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."[5] 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.[6]

How come that Woytyla discovered this truth

"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."

in the year of 2001? Was it not clear to every Roman Catholic Church priest at the very first day of his priesthood?

The cited text, as written, is too ugly and immoral and deserves its immediate removal.

I could go from one RCC defense paragraph to another paragraph in this article. Let us start with the lead paragraph because its ugliness and the harm it causes to the overall quality of the article. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following after people could be cured of such behavior through counselling: "- in contrast no such help was provided to the victims." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously why was this section removed? It may be a little long winded, but 71.163.237.120 is making a valid point here. Its really rather annoying for talk page discussions to get removed when serious changes to the article have been suggested. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Because it's soapboxing. You seem to be the one and only editor who does not see this, which frankly, makes me wonder a bit if it's just you logging out (only a bit. I find it quite doubtful). The anonymous editor is a troll, plain and simply, and you are feeding them repeatedly. Again, everyone seems to see this except for you. He's not trying to improve the article. He wants it to be a scathing expose. The editing history makes this VERY apparent.Farsight001 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
If you think he's me I suggest you take a look at my contributions as they are on a wide variety of topics. There are three differences with me and other editors here, a) I'm not a catholic, b) I'm pretty relaxed about talk page discussions and think that everyone has a right to speak c) I just ignore all the ranting off topic content, as there is some good stuff as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Now back to the topic at hand, I do think that there is room in the lead for some content about the response from other organisations apart from the catholic church as currently the lead which I suggested only includes responses from the catholic church - and this does seem like a reasonable change. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I've also now hidden the off-topic content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done The change I suggested above has been made to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
And I undid it. In what world did you think the discussion was complete? Just because we're busy fighting off trolls doesn't mean no one's going to object to the change, especially since it was suggested by said troll in the first place.
To say that the victims got no help is wildly and ridiculously untrue, and even if not, we have no actual indication that they didn't get help. Lastily, it is also undue weight for the lede.Farsight001 (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I hate to go and post random links, but there is at least some evidence to back up these claims from a reliable source. For example in Ireland: "It found the Department of Education had generally dismissed or ignored complaints of child sexual abuse and dealt inadequately with them." (source) and from Germany "In one of the frankest admissions yet to come out of the scandal-battered Catholic Church, the head of the German Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, said help given to the victims of abuse 'had not been enough.'" (source). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to admit that inadequate help is certainly not the same as no help right? I don't mind a phrase about help being inadequate, though I feel like it would be awkward in that location.Farsight001 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see your point, I probably overreacted this morning sorry :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Ha. No worries. ^_^ Farsight001 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Making it easy for others to sue you?

opposing legislation making it easier for abusers to sue the Catholic Church.

Over 4,000 priests were accused, but less than 2000 had the allegations substantiated. And there're over 400,000 priests. That means less than 1 percent. Therefore, I truly wonder: Who in their right mind will help to make it easier for others to sue herself/himself or the organisation that s/he belongs to? Esp. when the offenders constitute only a very small percentage. Will you? joo (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This person apparently does not understand the quoted text. Looks like (s)he thinks that it is moral and legal to obstruct the justice. As to wishful thinking "less than 1 percent" - Philadelpia archdiocese counts 10% of all its priests to be accused for sexual abuse (read rape) of minors. Moreover in Sexual Abuse Survivor Calls for Legislative Reform in Maryland it reads: Studies show that only 10 percent of victims ever report childhood sexual abuse, and most who do wait until they are well into adulthood. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The cited article from the New York Times, "Bishop Avidly Opposes Bill Extending Time to File Child-Abuse Suits", more than backs up the statement. If you search for that phrase with Google, you can read the article without the NYT paywall. "Bishop DiMarzio has mounted such an urgent and aggressive sally into the political realm that some elected officials and community leaders have questioned whether he has overstepped church-state boundaries." --John Nagle (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
John, my point is: Does it deserve to be in the lead and be part of the summary of this article? It doesn't matter whether someone did say it or that the Church did oppose attempts to make it easier to sue the Church. Suing people is neither moral nor immoral. There have been false accusations. At least hundreds (if not thousands) of priests have been falsely accused and completely exonerated, according to the John Jay study. The people of New York City are against suspending the statue of limitation too. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/nyregion/28about.html joo (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a collision of powerful civic values: the need to provide justice to people who were outrageously injured as children and manipulated into silence, and the duty of courts to decide cases based on reliable evidence.

Suddenly, lobbyists and advocates for school boards, counties and small towns spoke out.

“Statutes of limitation exist for a reason,” said Bob Lowry, the deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents. “How can anyone go back 40 years and ascertain what happened? Witnesses, responsible authorities, even the perpetrator himself or herself, may have passed away.”

By the way, the wording is all wrong. "making it easier for *abusers* to sue the Catholic Church." Is there a typo? Shouldn't it be "making it easier for *victims* to sue the abusers"?
Oops. Yes, please change "abusers" to "victims" in the first paragraph. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)