Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 11

Removed text put back
Here is the text including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism removed by a person signed as Farsight001: (07:01, 24 May 2010 Farsight001 (talk | contribs) (140,165 bytes)) with the 'explanation': (removing unsourced and pov sounding changes. Yes, I realize that the lede is ideally without citation, but not if the info is controversial) I've put it back for, really, not being difficult to find many references supporting the removed text:

Irish State 'colluded with religious authorities to hide child abuse', report says, The Times, May 21 2009 “Acute and chronic contact and non-contact sexual abuse was reported, including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism in both isolated cases and on a regular basis over long periods of time,” the document states.

Catholic priests: it is better to marry than to burn (and beat up) by Tony Delamothe, deputy editor, BMJ

Half the witnesses reported some form of sexual abuse, including "vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism in both isolated assaults and on a regular basis over long periods of time." In general, it was a far greater problem at boys’ schools than girls’ schools. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a phrase that keeps getting added to the lede in parentheses, "(including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism)". Now I find myself adamantly opposed to such detail in the lede because it seems to be too much detail for a summary paragraph. In the article body, though, I have no issue with it. Except that I have to ask - is voyeurism part of this? The article is about sex abuse cases specifically. Voyeurism, while illegal and especially so when a child is involved, from what I can tell, does not qualify as sex abuse and thus is not within the scope of the article. Would someone with more legal expertise than me mind chiming in here, though?Farsight001 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given there are reliable sources to back this up it should be able to appear in the article. I'm happy for voyeurism to be excluded. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Such detail should *not* appear in the lead. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to present an overview of the article.  If such detailed information has a place in the article then it is elsewhere.  I am also opposed in principle to including any information added by such an offensive and edit-warring sockpuppet troll who constantly flaunts policies for his own ideological agenda. Afterwriting (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Same thoughts here. The term "sex crimes" already imply the details. The lead is supposed to be a summary. joo (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Full protection of the page
Can people seriously stop edit warring on this article? Its now locked again. If you feel that you need to discuss stuff it should be done on the talk page.

Do we need to get mediation to stop this dispute? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS It takes 2 to edit war - not just one, so if you've been edit warring you can't just blame other people, it doesn't matter which WP:WRONGVERSION is on the page in the meantime. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the edit-warring will cease when *you* stop encouraging the troll! Honestly, how many times does it need pointing out to you what - and who - the principal problem is with the edit-war?! His behaviour is completely unacceptable by any reasonable standard but you just don't seem to get it! Afterwriting (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Afterwriting. The problem here is the anon troll.  Without him around we could get stuff done.  The edit warring is a result of the troll's complete and utter refusal to discuss his article changes on the talk page or listen to anyone when we say his changes need a source or are a blp vio (which, by the way, edit warring does not apply to removing blp violations).  I like to go through old talk page discussion on all sorts of articles and read the bickering.  I have never seen anyone come anywhere close to the troll here.  He has at least twice as many warnings as I've ever seen on anyone else without being indefinitely blocked - and yes, that includes IP addresses.  I know wikipedia is reluctant about blocking IP's.  It is still, flat out, mind boggling why nothing has been done to this IP yet.  They obviously know what they are doing, so I must conclude that they are a logged out editor who otherwise uses a screen name, which makes this even worse.  I reiterate - the problem is the troll, who in refusing to discuss his additions which are often unsourced or blp violations, etc, he FORCES us to edit war with him and he knows it.Farsight001 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He cannot possibly force you to edit war, you can just allow the WP:WRONGVERSION to stay in the article for a bit and discuss the changes on the talk page. If the administrators can see thatIP editor(s) are the only one being disruptive then the article can be semi-protected, indefinitely if needed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you having such a difficult time understanding the problem here? All BLP violations *must* be be removed immediately - without any discussion first.  Removing contentious BLP edits doesn't constitute edit-warring.  There is no excuse for not doing this so your comments about allowing a "wrong version to stay in the article for a bit and discuss the changes on the talk page" are totally erroneous.  You really need to try to properly understand the BLP policies. Afterwriting (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the BLP policy states, but you also cannot edit war. Maybe instead of just removing the content several times you should take the case to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP and once appropriate sanctions have been given to then remove the offending content.

Besides if just BLP violations were being reverted the administrators who have fully protected this article wouldn't have done so as it wouldn't be a content dispute. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't understand the BLP policies. It is NOT "edit-warring: to remove BLP violations so stop falsely accusing responsible editors of edit-warring for removing them. Afterwriting (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pages don't get fully protected unless editors on both sides of the dispute are behaving in an unacceptable manner... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, Eraserhead, you have completely failed to understand the BLP policies. It is required to immediately remove all BLP violations without discussion and it's not considered edit-warring to do so.  Therefore removing BLP violations isn't "unacceptable" as you erroneously seem to think.  Again I must ask you why you are having such a hard time understanding this?! Afterwriting (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this section : [] of BLP policy says that the article may be protected to stop BLP violations. It also suggests raising issues at the BLP noticeboard, which was probably a better place for me to report anon at.  Oops. >_< Farsight001 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He can, in fact, in a way force us to edit war. Like I said, most of his edits to the article have involved BLP violations, which per policy need to be removed immediately.  editwarring and 3RR should never prevent a user from removing BLP violations.  So when he adds them, per policy, we are supposed to delete them.  But all he does is re-add them.  And thus we need to remove them again.  Hence, an edit war, albeit justified on the part of those trying to keep BLP violations out of the article.  Even if he wasn't adding BLP violations, he's a troll.  He'll add what he wants to the article and leave it there without discussing it.  If we sit back and wait to discuss, nothing will happen.  So we're just supposed to wait months for the IP to come to the talk page to discuss his edits with us?  You know full well he's never going to do that.Farsight001 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If after you've started a thread the IP editor doesn't defend his edits (even if they are BLP violations) then after a few days it is reasonable to remove the content again. Having to wait months is hyperbolic. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And we've actually done that. The moment we've waited a few days and then reverted, he pops on withing a few hours and reverts again.  After the last block expired, he was back to editing literally within minutes.  I have no doubt the same will happen here after this block is up.  He's still editing the talk page - continuously re-adding his off topic posts.  But is he actually discussing with us?  OF course not.Farsight001 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty straightforward to change your IP address, so how does blocking it stop someone returning with a different one?Obscurasky (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking that IP will at least make it inconvenient for that guy to edit the Wikipedia. The fact that he kept coming in from the IP suggests that it's a permanent IP for a PC that he uses very often. joo (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As his behaviour has such a distinctive pattern to it then it shouldn't be too difficult to recognise him using new IP addresses and to keep blocking them. Zero toleration is the only solution in this kind of case - not useless attempts at "discussion".  You cannot discuss complex issues with fanatics who are incapable of understanding how destructive their own behaviour is.  Just have a look at the pathetic  "complaint" that he has recently made against me and Farsight and his false claim that "several" IP users have been unhappy with this article when we all know that it's only him using different IPs.   There is no end to such behaviour.  He needs to be blocked for a long period with no excuses accepted. Afterwriting (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP Policy
For those who are having a hard time understanding the BLP policies the following excerpt should clarify things:

<< We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. >>

Afterwriting (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen the BLP argument a lot, and I have, perhaps, a stupid question. This isn't a biography, and it's not about a person, and the non-person obviously isn't living, so how could BLP apply?LedRush (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BLP policies actually apply to all articles - not just biographies. Therefore any comments about living people in any article must follow the BLP policies.  In this article the BLP violations by the multi-IP user have mostly involved the current Pope. Hope this help. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It does have to specifically be about the pope though to fall under WP:BLP rather than the catholic church generally. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead links and front pages and opinionated editorials
citations, there are some deadlinks and front pages and many opinionated editorials and such like. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any source (and its associated content) that clearly doesn't meet the standards for WP:RS (e.g. blogs etc) should be removed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
I see an ugly practice on this talk page which consists of removal of the posts or portion of the posts based on pure disagreement. If someone disagrees to someone's else point of view - then let him/her express it on the same page. Mutual respect here is mandatory.

As to the page content, my question is: why to have in this article such common sense conclusions as the one: "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."? Just for being said by a pope, or for the sake of some phrases like: 'Decalogue' and 'delictum gravius'? If a cleric rapes a minor, it is not a sin according to 'Decalogue' and 'delictum gravius', it is a crime for which a criminal can be sentenced to 14 year imprisonment according to in the Louisiana state law, the state where I live now.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As for your initial paragraph, talk pages are for discussion of changes to the article, not a forum for general debate on the subject matter. The article content in question helps illustrate that child abuse isn't somehow allowed by religious law I imagine. Falcon8765 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The posts are being removed because they are not here to help improve the article. You can search the talk page history and the archives and see us try to explain this to the other IP repeatedly.  Now its being removed because they guy is beyond trolling.  Any reasonable person can see the edits and realize right away that IP71/96 had/has absolutely no intention to "improve" the article, unless by "improve" you mean "turn into a scathing expose".Farsight001 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

EC.I see a lot of soapboxing and posting of content that has not chance of ever getting into the article or improving the article. This article is about the church so that is likely why that is there, the punishment in Louisiana perhaps belongs in another article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Falcon8765: As for my initial paragraph, it is the matter of mutual respect. Saying 'not a forum of general debate' means nothing to me. I did not find it that way and many others apparently did not. As to the content, I assume that you know that an encyclopedia is all about knowledge, not about a bizarre knowledge.
 * @Off2riorob I can see only your answer as 'soapboxing and posting out of content'; still I have no intention of removing it. The article is not about the Church, it's about the crime committed by the Church clergy. I tried just differentiate the 'sin' and the 'crime'. The 'sin' might be just a wishful thinking i.e. pope John Paul II re-categorized the crime to the lower stage, to the sin. Bottom line, the pope's point of view is a bit dishonest and, therefore, does not deserve place in the article lead.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Without direct links to the specific content being discussed, it's hard to directly comment on specific content. Having said that, part of the problem is that we cannot judge on our own whether an act was a crime. By wikipedia policies, only courts can do that. There is a very serious question regarding whether we can actively or passively describe some act allegedly committed by a living person, particularly if that individual has not themselves admitted it, as a "crime". WP:BLP may well be in play in that regard. If there has been no formal court ruling of guilt, then we cannot say or imply that a crime was committed. Also, unfortunately, there are different definitions of crime in different countries, some of which vary dramatically. On that basis, discussion of "criminality" might force us to expend too much space to the specific laws of the specific ountries in which the alleged incidents took place. Also, frankly, at least in a sense, I myself would have to agree the moral/religious aspects of a given action is more directly relevant in this case, considering that the individuals who have instigated such acts are themselves all, at least in this case, subscribers to a given set of religious principles which specifically condemn such actions. Matters regarding legality are probably best discussed in the specific articles on the specific instances,. For a more detailed response, however, please indicate the specific potential content being discussed. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * isn't child abuse illegal in every country in the world? That makes talking about the legality really quite easy... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @John Carter There is a very serious question regarding whether we can actively or passively describe some act allegedly committed by a living person, particularly if that individual has not themselves admitted it, as a "crime"?! (Please, fix the grammar of this sentence) This 'wisdom' means: committed crime is not crime if that individual has not themselves admitted it. Then By wikipedia policies, only courts can do that.?! Which policy? Who wrote it? A high post style of writing which did not pass test of common sense.--71.191.30.202 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are unfamiliar with WP:BLP, and apparently you are, that was the policy to which I referred. I suggest you read it. The only ways we can describe something as a crime are if the individual themselves has admitted to the action in such a way as s/he explicitly or implicitly recognizes it as being illegal or if the courts of that country have made a ruling that it was a crime. And, also, the definition of "child abuse" does and has varied pronouncedly over the years and in different countries, even today. And some of these cases, particularly those which might involve teenagers, deal with people who are, in at least some countries, counted as not qualifying under child abuse laws. On that basis, we are, more or less, in cases where the alleged action has not been acknowledged by either the perpetrator or the courts, bound by policy to not say anything beyond what the involved parties have stated themselves. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My dear friend, there is the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia which you have to read first then come back to discuss things. Therefore, please, avoid elevating yourself above others by suggesting what to read and how to understand it. I see that you have strong opinion and no knowledge at all about the subject under discussion, despite many phrases you have used here. So, My Lai Massacre, according to your explanation above, was not crime due to the 'fact' that 'the individual themselves has (not) admitted to the action in such a way' and 'the courts of that country (did not) have made a ruling that it was a crime'. Yet another example of crime that cannot be explained by your 'definition': a medieval witch hunt case. So, an innocent woman was sentenced to death and executed. Applying your definition what is the crime, (the courts of that country have made a ruling that it was a crime), the sentenced woman committed crime. Not the court of that country?--71.191.30.202 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, if you look at the My Lai massacre, I don't see the word "crime" used in the lead, although several other words are. And, again, if you look at that page, there was someone convicted, which, by definition, means that he committed crimes. Perhaps if your examples actually supported your comments they might be more applicable? John Carter (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are pushing ahead your frivolous way: you don't see "crime" and also you don't see "mass murder", "rape" which are the "crime" and which are there. Good bye.--71.191.30.202 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was pointing out the fact. "Crime" in this context would be basically irrelevant. More detailed descriptions of the actions, which are included, are both more relevant and less judgemental. To make it clear, my only real reservation is about the word "crime". Allegations of mass murder and rape, bad as they are, do not necessarily say anything about the nature of laws at the time. My objection is to using words like "crime", possibly "violation of human rights" (particularly before human rights were included in law), etc. And, clearly, if someone was charged with, say, rape, it is both clearer, less redundant, and less verbose to say "he was charged with rape" than "he was charged with the crime of rape" or anything similar including the superfluous word "crime". My reservation is about the fact that the word "crime" more or less demands an outline of the specific charges, not to a more direct, meaningful, description of the actions individuals were accused of. And, yes, particularly if no charges were ever brought against the alleged abuser, if BLP is involved, we would have to be very careful about what language we would use to describe his or her misconduct. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

MedCab mediation open
Hi, I'll be your mediator for a week or a month or a year or until Andromeda collides with us.

Please sign here so I can get the ball rolling. I'll draft a few guidelines after everyone has agreed to participate. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on a talk page, fercryinoutloud. If you don't like what someone says, ignore it. If it's a bunch of strawman, don't bat at them. Bikeshedding all over the place, I swear. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sturunner just removed a media criticism that I've posted on this TALK page for discussion. I've reinstated it. joo (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Agenda
Ed Koch, a former New York mayor who is Jewish and disagrees with the Catholic Church on practically all the hot-button issues including same-sex marriage and abortion [1][2], wrote in 'The Jerusalem Post': "'I believe the continuing attacks by the media on the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate..."

"'Many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice. The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce.'[2]"

[1] http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-a-more-honest-media-would-relentlessly-hunt-down-child-abuse-wherever-it-is-found-2140338.html [2] http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin
 * What does this have to do with directly improving the article? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That letter by Koch seems to be more about another issue. Koch wrote: "I am appalled that, according to the Times of April 6, 2010, "Last week, the center-left daily newspaper La Repubblica wrote, without attribution that 'certain Catholic circles' believed the criticism of the Church stemmed from 'a New York Jewish lobby.'"".  Koch's letter is thus a defense of the New York Jewish community, and was published in the Jerusalem Post. It's not really relevant to "Catholic sex abuse cases".  For a while, the Vatican was trying to blame others (media, the abortion rights movement, gay marriage, other religions, secular society, prosecutors, etc.) for their problems. On May 11, 2010, the Pope dropped that attempt at spin.  --John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I also must ask the relevance to improving the article. Also, I get the feeling that it was a stab at, not a defense of the Church.  He seems to essentially be saying "hey Church, we'd stop treating you unfairly if you'd stop being complete prats.", but that might just be me.Farsight001 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unsure why people believe this is not relevant to the article. While I concede it is better to post information with a clear suggestion on how it would be added to the article, this suggestion has clear relevance to me.  We already have a section entitled "Criticisms of Media Coverage".  This quote could go there.  To me, the quote is valid...I don't understand Nagle's theories about Koch's motives.  However, regardless of motives, we should take his opinions at face value unless there is strong evidence to suggest otherwise.  Despite all this, I still don't know that the opinion of one former Mayor warrants inclusion here.LedRush (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact is that, whatever the principal subject of the article, Koch is an example of a prominant non-Catholic who has made trenchant observations about the reasons behind some of the vituperative media coverage of abuse with respect to the Catholic Church. It is thus a very relevant comment to include in the Criticisms of media coverage section. It also speaks to the important issue of why and whether media coverage has unfairly singled out the Catholic Church for attack with regard to abuses that have occurred at least equally in other groups and institutions.  Xan  dar   21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, Xandar. joo (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see this persons comment about this as being notable at all. You could find multiple such comments from semi notable people. I don't think the criticism of media coverage is worthy of expansion at all. The media are not the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since most sources show that clerical sex abuse is LOWER than rates in non-clerical society, the media coverage focusing on the Catholic Church is a major part of the issue. Criticism of media coverage that infers Catholicism is particularly prone to sex abuse and covering it up is therefore very relevant to the issue, especially when such criticism is from notable unbiased sources.   Xan  dar   21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The % of priests who abuse is probably lower than those in comparable groups, I don't know offhand of  a serious scholar who says otherwise,  but the incidence is very high because abusers are serial  & often abuse many over many years.  Sturunner (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The incidence is very high and over many years among 149 priests (about 3 percent of the 4 percent accused, i.e. 0.12 percent?). joo (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Same thoughts again, Xandar. joo (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a strained point to blame the media for the troubles of the church. Surely the reality is that the media and the public do demand higher standards of those proclaiming a position of moral leadership. If someone wants to put some words together as a suggestion to improve the article in this area, go right ahead, but it cannot be a major point in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out before, even the Pope has given up on blaming the media.. Meanwhile, the cover of Time this week is "Being Pope Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry. --John Nagle (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your opinions on what the Pope thinks are rather suspect, Nagle. the simple fact is that many sources have "blamed" the media for overreporting, biased reporting and sensationalising abuse in Catholic contexts. This is an important area of opinion on the subject and should not be suppressed. The cover of "Time" merely reflects exactly what has been complained about - ie anti-Catholic reporting by elements of the media.  Xan  dar   21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Pope has been reported to have apologised for the issue so many times (although many have also reported that he was the one who did the most to address the issue). Isn't Times nitpicking and trying to be funny? What's your point, John? When the Pope didn't blame the media, he's right (and contrite)? When Times said the Pope didn't apologise, the Pope is wrong (and not contrite)? joo (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

10 Ways Media Has Failed to Protect Children
Tom Hoopes: "When reporters first began to pound Pope Benedict XVI, spuriously, on the abuse problem, the Internet news outlets of the biggest media companies in the world had to make a tough choice. What to feature: the slideshow of Tiger Woods’ latest porn-star mistress, available to all users regardless of age; the viral video of “Bombshell” McGee stripping before she met Jesse James, so popular with the middle-school crowd; or the hard-hitting critique of how careless the Pope is about children?" joo (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes we are most oblivious to what is most obvious. So let us describe the elephant in the room regarding the abuse scandals and how the biggest players in the media handle issues of sexuality, children, and abuse:
 * Media companies send sex images to your kids for money.
 * The media ignores today’s hurricane to report a stiff wind long ago.
 * The media looks the other way for predatory teachers.
 * The media shrugs at Planned Parenthood’s abuse cover-up.
 * The media suggests it’s dangerous to promote sexual morals.
 * The media rarely shares the solutions the Church has found.
 * The media isn’t even sure all child molestation is wrong.
 * The media celebrates child abusers.
 * The media won’t admit to the homosexual underage grooming problem. Cartor, Cimbolic & Tallon (2008) found that 6 percent of the cleric offenders in the John Jay Report are pedophiles (indiscriminate abuse of children/preteens), 32 percent ephebophiles (homosexual abuse of teens), 15 percent 11 & 12 year olds only (both male and female), 20 percent indiscriminate, and 27 percent mildly indiscriminate.
 * The media helps give pedophiles cover through selective attention to the problem.

More details in http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:the-elephant-in-the-room&catid=37:exclusive&Itemid=54

"The force of the media coverage of pedophilia has frightened people about the Church, where they are extremely safe, while enabling people to let their guard down in other places, where kids are less safe.

"What to learn from all of this? There is a giant and worsening problem in the world today. The notorious Ted Bundy said he discovered pornography in a dumpster and it launched his sex abuse career. Today’s media companies have put Ted Bundy’s dumpster in living rooms and laptops across America. Entertainment media objectifies sex, builds prime-time stories around sexual perversions, offers heroes to kids and then sexualizes them, lionizes abusers, and encourages sexual experimentation. The news media raises doubts about the fundamental assumptions of sexual morality, refuses to connect dots between abusers in favored fields such as public schools and abortion counseling, then writes scare stories about the one institution that has comprehensively addressed sex abuse.

"So next time the media complains about the Church—in between “celebrity sex tape” and “hottest redheads” slideshows—keep in mind that when it comes to sexual abuse and morality, you’re hearing the fox’s critique of the farmer’s ability to guard the henhouse." joo (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

==But what does your essay have to do w/the article? Apparently, my Edit summary didn't survive the edit process. This is your opinion & essay, & is not appropriate here, but might be in an article on media coverage. Sturunner (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a criticism of media coverage, including the exaggerated and selective media coverage of the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases and media non-coverage of a much higher incidence of abuses among educators and even teens referred to Planned Parenthood. And this information is on the Talk page. Our page mediator Xavexgoem wrote, "Stop edit warring on a talk page, fercryinoutloud." I don't understand your point on Edit Summary. Your changes on that article was removed? What has that to do with what's posted on this talk page? joo (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This (the talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the subject--see the qualifiers for the talk page. It is ONLY for discussions to improve the article--NOT for opinion about the issue.  Pls remove.  Thank you.  Sturunner (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is not a forum. this is for adding another criticism to the Criticisms of Media Coverage section in the article. joo (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sturunner, the relevance to the article is dubious at best, these criticisms apply generally to the media - not just this specific case. So making these kind of posts isn't productive. That said I don't think it should be deleted as that just causes issues too. I suggest the section is collapsed/archived. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that a specific recommendation be made for the article.LedRush (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Whither SNAP?
If the incidence of child abuse is so comparatively low as claimed by the "objective" coverage in this article, why has no one referenced the very high incidence of abuse reported by SNAP, the Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests? Why do they have only a disconnected mention down at the bottom? Why are they absent from any criticisms section? --StudiousReader (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, SNAP are a protest/agitprop group, and so not a reliable source for figures, especially when reliable academically backed sources are available.  Xan  dar   21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * SNAP is not in the business of providing stats readily available from the appropriate researchers themselves. Would both of  you provide links, please?  Otherwise, we should delete this section.  It contains no facts & is not relevant to improving the article.  Sturunner (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the section on SNAP. Has it already been removed?  If so, could you provide a link to a revision that includes that section?


 * I agree that any figures compiled by SNAP are likely less reliable than those conducted by organizations such as the John Jay College. However, the notability of SNAP as an organization makes the figures notable even if they are unreliable.  It would be better to provide the SNAP statistics and then provide a critique of those figures as made by reliable sources.  (i.e. it would be OR for one of us to construct a critique of the figures but it would be acceptable to cite a critique made by a reliable source)


 * Whatever you might think of SNAP's strong anti-Catholic rhetoric, it does seem to be the single organization of abuse victims with the highest profile. As such, it not only deserves mention in this article, probably as part of a paragraph or section about organizations of abuse victims in general.  I say this not because I endorse everything SNAP says but because it is so frequently mentioned in the press that to completely omit any mention of it from this article seems to be highly POV.


 * --Richard S (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that not only was the John Jay College study ordered and paid for by the United Conference of Catholic Bishops, the data on which it was based came only from surveys sent out to Catholic Church officials. They didn't poll Catholic church attendees. Other studies of crime which compare police reports with polls of citizens show huge underreporting. "Comparing the rates of victimization and crimes known to the police, the victimization data showed fifteen times as much assault, nine times more robbery, seven times the amount of rape, and, surprisingly, five times more motor-vehicle theft than reported in the UCR for the same period"   --John Nagle (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * John, I don't disagree with anything you wrote. However, unless you can cite it to a reliable source, it constitutes original research and synthesis.  Find a reliable source who makes these points and we can insert those criticisms in the article text. --Richard S (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See John's PDF citation. His facts came from the study itself, which we all accept as a reliable source. --StudiousReader (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky area of WP:OR. It's undeniably true that the John Jay College study was based on data that came "only from surveys sent out to Catholic Church officials."  We can state that fact and I'm sure we do that, if not in this article, then in one of the subsidiary articles.  What would be OR would be the assertion that the John Jay College study is therefore flawed because of the methodology used.  That assertion should be sourced to a reliable source.  Otherwise, it's just Nagle's opinion that the study is flawed for this reason.  --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps SNAP themselves would be the best source to query on all this dis-creditability...as long as we are so concerned about objective "reliability" :)
 * Also, the comment above that SNAP is a "protest/agitprop" group is CLEARLY a violation of NPOV. Or is this your OR? --StudiousReader (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, SNAP would be a good source for criticisms of the Church in general and the John Jay report in particular. I wouldn't want to say that it is the "best source".  SNAP is almost certainly going to be extremely biased against the Catholic Church.  I would hope that there might be more neutral sources that can provide an objective and detached analysis of the John Jay report.  SNAP has its own perspective.  It is important and should be presented.  However, we shouldn't take everything it says as "gospel truth".  We need to be critical about what is said and evaluate how much is "fact", how much is "opinion" and how much is exaggeration and distortion.  The same is true for Catholic sources.  NPOV demands that we not favor one POV over the other.  At the moment, this article probably favors the Catholic POV but we should not cant it to the point where it favors the anti-Catholic POV.  The NPOV "sweet spot" is hard to achieve but we must try.  --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can violate NPOV and OR on a talk page...those standards are for the information inserted into the article.LedRush (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, one should recognize when one is presenting POV, OR or SYNTH and accept that it has no place in the article unless it can be cited to a reliable source. SNAP is a reliable source for its pronouncements on the scandal.  However, its pronouncements are its opinions, not necessarily "facts".  We have to make sure to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions.  This is not always easy to do as some "facts" are susceptible to being characterized as biased or distorted (e.g. the claim on this page that the John Jay statistics are distorted by self-reporting from the dioceses).  --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course SNAP is a reliable source for SNAP opinions. That doesn't seem to be the issue here.  Also, my point was that StudiousReader should focus on the article, not on naming various wikipedia standards that may or may not apply here.LedRush (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It therefore continues to discredit this article that a commonly cited high profile organization like SNAP continues to be ignored. Also, it would seem the best place for criticism of SNAP should not be in this article but in their own wiki page, SNAP. And the opposition to prominence in this article clearly violates WP:NPOV, as stated.
 * As to the absence of "facts" suggested above, their |recent US archive page contains a multitude of relevant articles from reliable sources, too many to mention in this short article. They have separate archives for several countries. We would need to be selective to keep this article short. --StudiousReader (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "It continues to discredit this article..." - yes, I agree. "We would need to be selective to keep this article short" - also agree to this.  There are many subsidiary articles about the sex abuse scandal in individual countries and in many of the larger dioceses.  If you wish to compose a summary-level treatment for this article, please do so.  Also, please add more specific information to the subsidiary articles. --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a little late to this party, so please forgive my ignorance. I came here after seeing the ANI posting about issues related to this article.  While I am not any type of mediator, I find that it is sometimes helpful to have non-interested parties come in and give their opinions.  Could you please tell me what you're suggested change to the article is?  I must confess, I have seen the articles on the sex abuse cases in the major newspapers, but I've never heard of SNAP (I told you I was ignorant of these issues, after all).  Being able to place the specific recommendations in context may help me to analyze the situation.LedRush (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * SNAP is the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. URL is http://www.snapnetwork.org --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, though I figured that much out on my own...I am asking for specific recommendations.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never seen stats on SNAP's page. That's not the business they're in.  Sturunner (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. I've never seen anything quantitative out of SNAP.  Mostly it's been rhetoric based on anecdotal evidence.  I just figured that StudiousReader knew something I didn't.  For that matter, I should comment that statistics are a scarce commodity in this domain.  That's why the John Jay numbers, however flawed they might be, are quoted so much.  Does anybody know of any other relevant statistics?  I would think the two Irish reports would have statistics but I haven't been able to find them via Google. --Richard S (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See "Sexual Abuse in Social Context", . This is from the Catholic League, which is trying to make priests not look so bad.  They have data for priests, ministers, coaches, etc.  The data on priests is based on formal complaints known to the Catholic Church, while the data for Protestant ministers is based on surveys.  So Protestant figures look higher, but the numbers aren't really comparable.  No neutral party seems to have done a sound study based on interviewing a random sample of Catholics.  The US National Crime Victimization Survey (a Census Bureau project) doesn't ask questions in this area. "Sex in America, A Definitive Survey" (1994), which did in-depth interviews with several thousand people, didn't cover this.
 * That article does say "Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. ...  According to the Boston Globe, “Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims.  And the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male.”  The article should reflect that. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Irish reports do actually contain solid figures with respect to allegations. The figures need to be dug out of the reports themselves, since they are generally glossed over or exaggerrated in sensationalist coverage in some media. It is these sort of exaggerations that plague the issue and which mean that surveys and other unscientific matter produced by media or groups with an agenda can be used only with extreme caution and disclaimers as to their source and reliability.  Xan  dar   21:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Two problems
First:

There is a group of people strongly motivated in following the RCC paradigm: sin and forgiveness. Most of this article is strongly painted that way.

Second: No way to remove that group from this article.

--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please offer specific suggestions on how to improve the text of the article.LedRush (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

166.32.193.81 raises an interesting issue although the difficulty at the moment is one of original research. I've often thought that there are two different paradigms at play. The first views the abuser as a sinner who should be given a chance to repent and never sin again. The second, which is a more recent view, views the abuser as a criminal who should be taken through an adjudicative process both within the Church and within the criminal justice system. A "zero tolerance" policy does not give the abuser a second chance. The Church has been forced to abandon the first view and adopt the second view.

Without commenting on whether this change in view is right or wrong or whether the Church was justified in holding the first view during the 20th century, I think the fact that there are two views is worth mentioning. My problem is that I have not seen any sources who analyze the issue from this perspective in exactly this way although many articles kind of hint at it. Does anyone know of a reliable source who frames the issue in this way?

--Richard S (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard, I *think* IP166 is just complaining about the people editing the article.Farsight001 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know... however, I'm just sharing what my thoughts were when I reflected on the "sin and forgiveness" paradigm. I personally think too many people are using a secular criminal justice perspective and missing that the Church's approach is actually the Christian way to do things even if it turns out not to be practicable in this case.  I really don't think the Church intended to have priests abuse children.  It just was looking for ways to deal with the problem and failed.  --Richard S (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This crime is the crime, not a sin. The most abused words in this article are: alleged allegation, abuse. Bear in mind that 8,000 RCC priests are convicted and more than 6bln$ paid to more than 30,000 victims worldwide and to the courts handling these criminal case. As late French president F. Mitterand responded to some French RCC cardinal: The church must obey first to the civil laws then to the God's law. Here, in this article, must be predominant paradigm crime-and-punishment, which will not happen due to the presence and activity of those who are fervently embellishing the tarnished and dark image of the RCC and diminishing the crimes committed by its clergy. Roman pope keeps chanting further about 'forgiveness'. Here is (in the today's New York Times) a very good insight into it:


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/world/europe/12pope.html Pope Pleads for Forgiveness Over Abuse Scandal


 * He added that the church, “in admitting men to priestly ministry and in their formation we will do everything we can to weigh the authenticity of their vocation and make every effort to accompany priests along their journey, so that the Lord will protect them and watch over them in troubled situations and amid life’s dangers.” The pope did not mention any specific actions the church was planning to take to combat abuse, as some had hoped, and victims’ groups said Benedict’s remarks did not go far enough.


 * “The root cause of this horrific and on-going clergy sex abuse and cover up crisis remains the nearly limitless power of bishops,” said Barbara Blaine, the president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, in a statement.


 * “There must be a world-wide Catholic policy against clergy sex crimes and cover ups that is widely enforced. And we still don’t have it,” she added.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

-


 * The troll has returned. Please don't feed the troll! Afterwriting (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is the troll?! The above text is mine, forgot only to sign it.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the anonymous sockpuppet troll, of course. How many more anonymous IP addresses do you intend using in your personal campaign of vitriol and vilification? Afterwriting (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to go back to mediation? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only "mediation" that is going to have any effect is to permanently block the troll as he obviously has no intention of ceasing his vitriolic editing. Afterwriting (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the mediator: "If you don't like what someone says, ignore it. If it's a bunch of strawman, don't bat at them". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Afterwriting: "personal campaign of vitriol and vilification"? "You are the anonymous sockpuppet troll, of course"?? Good-bye!--166.32.193.81 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no specific suggestion for article improvement was provided, but rather just a gripe about Catholics in general, time for a hat?Farsight001 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is more than clear ... must be predominant paradigm crime-and-punishment ... instead sin-and-forgiveness. "rather just a gripe about Catholics in general"?!?! If you cannot understand the written text above, please, ask someone to help you out here.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific (suggest actual words, not ideas) and less condescending.LedRush (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright. Since I can't understand the text above, I'll ask someone - I'll ask you.  What, specifically, is the problem with the article?  What do you mean by "paradigm crime-and-punishment" and "sin-and-forgiveness"?  The individual words are quite familiar to me, but not in the way you are using.  In fact, I'm pretty sure almost no one understands what you mean by it.  Also - if you want changes made to the article, something far more specific than expressing a general distaste with the article is going to be needed.  Find a specific sentence, tell us what you think is wrong with it, and suggest a change to that sentence.  Telling people that find little to no issue with the article the way it is that the entire article has a huge problem is just not going to get us anywhere because those people are obviously not going to be able to see what you see.Farsight001 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see the point Richard is making - which is that the Catholic Church (and many others) operate under a basic logic that a sinner is always capabable of repentance and forgiveness. Therefore if someone who commits a sin says he is repentant, he should be offered a chance of forgiveness and, after treatment, counselling etc., a return to the fold - however bad the sin. Many secular psychiatrists also held the view that child abuse was a curable affliction, and that child abusers could be returned "cured" to regular work and society. In the last ten to fifteen years however, society has had a major shift in logic and now condemns child-abusers irrevocably. With admittedly some evidence, the view has become that child-abusers are basically irreformable and need to be reported as criminals, vilified, imprisoned, and then banned from all contact with minors for life. Much of the controversy about past actions of the Church results from modern-day attitudes being back-projected onto actions that took place in the 1970s and 1980s.
 * While many actions of Bishops can also be seen as self-serving, and in the interest of burying scandal, many would argue that the principle behind the Church's actions in many cases was that abusers should be helped to repent and reform - not be pilloried. In other words there has been a huge shift in how abusers should be treated, (inside and outside the Church) that is not reflected in the article. I think there is a case for introducing this theme to the article if sources can be found.  Xan  dar   21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Xandar accurately presents the point I was getting at. 166.32.193.81 sees this article as permeated with the "sin and forgiveness" paradigm.  Actually, I see the article as following the "crime and punishment" paradigm too much and I don't see the "sin and forgiveness" paradigm hardly at all in the article.  At the end of the day, I don't think it's a matter of choosing one paradigm over the other.  It's a complicated issue and both paradigms were in operation.  Yes, there may have been a shortage of priests and yes, there may have been a desire to avoid scandal and to "circle the wagons and protect the brother priest".  However, there is also the desire not to end the career of an otherwise dedicated servant of God for what may have been a momentary "failure of the flesh".  If alcoholics can be cured and rehabilitated, why can't sex abusers?  Even now, we should ask ourselves whether we are sure that abusers can't cured or whether that is just the conclusion that society has made at this point in history.  But...as Xandar and I have pointed out, this line of thought can't be inserted into the article unless we can cite it to a reliable source that makes the argument. --Richard S (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's like comparing apples to oranges – child abuse and alcoholism aren't remotely equivalent. One is a crime, the other isn't. And who is to say that the criminal justice perspective is unchristian? The question of whether pedophilia can be cured or not should be the subject of scientific research not of social experiments, however well-intended. Obstruction of justice cannot be an option.--DVD-junkie | talk | 09:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

- Here is a Tom Doyle's article about forgiveness. Dr Doyle is recognized internationally as the most experienced canon lawyer in the area of the sexual abuse by clergy.

I feel that content of Doyle's article can help in improving this article, when talking about sin and forgiveness paradigm. I took liberty of selecting, I would say, the bottom line of Doyle's article.


 * Churchmen or others who urge forgiveness intentionally misinterpret the doctrine of forgiveness for their own selfish benefit.  They also do not comprehend the depth of pain that comes from sexual abuse nor do they understand what re-victimization means.[13]


 * Beliefs about forgiveness quickly become toxic for the victim and for the institution as well. The victim experiences intense guilt over not being able to feel a sense of forgiveness. The institutional Church hinders its own painful growth toward pastoral authenticity by using forgiveness to push the whole issue into the shadows. Margaret Kennedy summed it up well: "Churches use the concept of forgiveness to short circuit the survival empowerment process…The Church cannot bear to hear about child sexual abuse, so the quicker a child forgives, the easier it is for the listener."[14]--Remind me never (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is from a SNAP website and convention. And all it tells us is that Mr Doyle of SNAP doesn't much like the forgiveness paradigm. Given their role and activities, this is unsurprising. However the fact is, even SNAP acknowledges the centrality of forgiveness to the Christian system, and that it is a major factor in the way many of these cases have been handled.  Xan  dar   20:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The website does not belong to the SNAP. Moreover, SNAP is a legal and respected US-based organization. Dr. Doyle does not like, as every true Christian does not, "intentionally misinterpret the doctrine of forgiveness for their own selfish benefit." His bottom line is thoroughly Christian and very powerful: "The Church cannot bear to hear about child sexual abuse, so the quicker a child forgives, the easier it is for the listener." --Remind me never (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian radio program
The following website link is to a recent Australian radio program on church-related sexual abuse:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/2906085.htm

The program can be replayed online and there is also a transcript with some other links.

Afterwriting (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to lead paragraph
I'm not happy with the changes made to opening sentence, which were made without consultation and give the impression that all sex cases are merely 'allegations'. I've reinstated the sentence as it was, although as a concession to those wanting to stress that not all cases are proven, I've brought the word allegations forward. I hope this compromise is acceptable to everyone. Obscurasky (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like the current version is overkill...how many times do you have to say what is essentially the same thing?LedRush (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Although it's a bit longwinded the latest change ( restoration ? ) is a more precise and suitable description of what the article name actually refers to and includes - some of the cases can only be accurately and legally referred to as "allegations" whilst other cases already have the legal status of crimes. Afterwriting (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I made simple changes to make the lead more clear but was immediately reverted. I wanted to make the opening list shorter so I removed allegations.  I wanted to make clear that the lawsuits were not all proven, so I added "allegedly committed" in addition to "committed" (thus making the list shorter and the language more precise).  I also removed "legally documented" because it adds nothing to the lead and is not technically accurate with the way the sentence is written.  Afterwriting (or anyone else), could you please comment on what is wrong with my revision?LedRush (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I wrote this, Afterwriting removed "legally documented". Thanks.  The other question still stands :) LedRush (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * I disagree and believe the grammar is fine. The problem with the current version is that as written, it assumes that everything listed in the beginning is a result of acts definitively committed.  This is, of course, not true.  My revision allowed for some of the things on the list to be the result of acts committed while others (like scandals) could be the result of acts committed or acts allegedly committed.  As it now stands, the lead sentence is just plain wrong.  My revision is slightly unwieldy (as is the whole sentence), but grammatically and factually correct.  If you don't like my revision, could you suggest a change to fix the current inaccuracy?LedRush (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the current revision implies that there are allegations and other stuff that isn't allegations...meaning that all the scandals and civil suits etc. are true. Furthermore, it affirmatively (and illogically) states that the allegations are based on sex crimes committed by the priests.  If they actually committed the crimes, they aren't [merely] allegations.  My revision fixed all these issues.LedRush (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your grammar may have been technically "fine" but the meaning provided by your edits certainly wasn't. The previous version was more accurate than yours.  Your second lot of comments are very confusing and I can't see why you think you "fixed all these issues" when it seems that you did the exact opposite. Afterwriting (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where we are having the miscommunication. Would you mind addressing my points directly?  ( I mean that much less rudely than it sounds).  I would like to get language in there that is accurrate.
 * Perhaps a summary would be helpful: 1. The current language assumes that all the scandals and civil suits are based on sex crimes that were actually committed...not allegedly committed.  2. By putting allegations in a list with scandals, lawsuits and prosecutions, the structure implies that scandals, lawsuits and prosecutions aren't merely allegations.  With successful prosecutions, this true.  However, with unsuccessful prosecutions, most settled civil suits and scandals, it is not true.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely the lead is only stating the simple fact that some of the "cases" have resulted in criminal convictions and others have the legal status of allegations?Afterwriting (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, no. My edit said that.  The current version says that the cases, scandals and allegations are "related to sex crimes committed by Catholic priests".  That means that the cases/scandals/allegations stem from actual crimes definitively committed by priests.  This is obviously not the case.  Some scandals, some cases and all convictions relate to "sex crimes committed by" clergy, but others are based on allegations of sex crimes.  That is why the term "committed" must be modified.LedRush (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I put "criminal convictions and civil lawsuits" at the beginning of the lede. That reflects reality.  This is way beyond the "allegations" stage. --John Nagle (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make any major difference what "order" the various kinds of cases are in. From what experts already know about these matters, some of the cases of allegations of abuse will actually be false. I know of some cases of allegations of sexual abuse which have, for various reasons, been established beyond any reasonable doubt to have been false.  Therefore the article needs to include "allegations" in the list of "cases". Afterwriting (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The next two sentences:

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

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

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

Bottom line, I took liberty to considerably reduce and make concise the leading paragraph as it was explained here.--Remind me never (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, by making the lede concise, you've introduced inaccuracy. You've conceded yourself that many accused are not guilty, but still say that the number isn't big enough.  Well, adding two words for accuracy is not a bad trade off in my book.  Also, your change incorrectly says that all the sex abuse cases revolve around sex crimes.  Many (most?) of the cases are civil suits, and therefore have no relation to "crime" in the legal sense.  I plan to revert your change, but suggest that for such a radical change, you post your changes here so we can comment on a way to address your opinions (concerning conciseness) while not sacrificing accuracy.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, how about deleting the following phrase, which doesn't really need to be explained until the body: "while under diocesan control or in orders which care for the sick or teach children".LedRush (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the mass deletions, I actually don't have a problem with much of that. However, I suspect that there are many others here who might.  I'll go on record as generally favoring the deletions, though.LedRush (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I did not introduce any inaccuracy. Claiming "Many (most?) of the cases are civil suits, and therefore have no relation to "crime" in the legal sense. " proves that you do not know what is the legal sense. Where did you learn that a civil suit cannot handle the crime? Does it mean that a crime is not the crime if handled as a civil suit? All in all, I do not see a valid reason for reverting the changes I did.--Remind me never (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I learned it in law school. Yes, if it is handled in civil court (in the US), it is technically (usually) a tort, not a crime.  People can sue in civil court for crimes committed against them, but they sue for a tort with the same underlying facts as would be pursued in a prosecution for a crime (as is very often the case with rape-and OJ even didn't commit the crime of murder, he committed the tort of wrongful death).  However, the torts and are not themselves, legally crimes, and therefore have different standards of proof and evidence than criminal (crime) cases.  Common usage may de different than the legal one, and I only speak for US law on this.
 * Anyhoo, your changes to the first sentence do introduce inaccuracies. As stated above, in many of the cases, no one was accused of a crime.  In many others, no one was convicted of a crime.  Your language does not allow for these possibilities and does almost nothing to address your issue of being concise.  Anyway, I won't revert tonight because even though I don't think my edits qualify me for 3RR, I have tinkered with this a lot today and some around here have quick tempers.  I do, however, suggest you discuss these changes specifically on the talk page, perhaps giving each suggested deletion its own section so we can focus correctly.LedRush (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Also, I remind you, and everyone, that this article is about abuse CASES, not convictions. That means that this article is about convictions, ongoing cases, and aquittals too. Your change to the lede created a statement that technically claimed that every single Catholic sex abuse case involved an actual crime, or in other words that every single case resulted in a conviction. This is far and away untrue. That they are cases in general, and not just convictions is an extremely important thing to make clear right away.Farsight001 (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to be a concise summation of the article, covering the main points. It is not intended that people cherry-pick out bits they don't like, or don't think relevant to their view of the article. The point of view of the Church as well as its detractors on this issue needs to be fairly presented. Overuse of language such as "crimes" and "Concealment" can also be POV. We need to state what Bishops actually did without opinionising or drawing conclusions of our own. I'm not sure where Remind me.. gets his figure of 8,000 convictions from. I certainly haven't seen it anywhere.  Xan  dar   20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @LedRush Here you are playing with phrases of a bad lawyer. Crime is not defined by whether it was handled by a court as a crime case, but by the law. Rape of an orphaned child is the crime, even if it was never a subject of a criminal prosecution, my dear friend. And even if the Roman pope chants about that as a devil's deed and a grave sin and, at the same time, prevents naming and prosecuting those who systematically raped hundreds of children in Ireland over decades. I do not think that a serious law school could teach anyone the way you pointed at here. Your 'accuracy' of the law notions is a bureaucratic one, not academic.--Remind me never (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that I have defeated you so thoroughly on the substantive points that you have nothing left to do than make a failing moral argument on a side discussion. However, even here you are mistaken.  The law is concerned with fact, not morality.  Crimes are only crimes when they have been proven in a court of law.  No American law school will teach that any differently.  Quite honestly, any contrary view goes against the basic principles upon which the US legal system was founded.
 * The sad thing for you is that you've acted like such a jack-ass that you've made making deletions to the lede more difficult for yourself. Congratulations.LedRush (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with the version of the lead I added? It was a suitable length and tightly written. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you remind me of your proposed change, perhaps in a different section? Tempers flare on this board, and changes are difficult to make without garnering consensus on the talk page first.LedRush (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added one small amendment to Afterwritting's changes; "scandals about sex crimes" doesn't really read too well, so I've changed it to "scandals relating to sex crimes". Obscurasky (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good grammatical change.LedRush (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @LedRush You tried to defeat very basic logic, my friend. The crimes related facts are given. Here is not issue that the crime has not been proven in a court of law, the issue is that the raped did not get chance to bring their cases to the court due to the state collusion with the RCC, here in the USA, in Ireland, in Italy. When justice is obstructed this way then your talk what is the crime and what is not simply does not work. The law is concerned with morality, too, for morality is a fact. So, "No American law school will teach that any differently.".The sad thing for you is that you've acted like such a jack-ass who kept throwing meaningless phrases of a bad lawyer being not capable of proving what you wanted to prove.--Remind me never (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to your other mistakes, you seem to be under the impression that every single member of RCC who has been accused of a misdeed is actually guilty. This is clearly and provably false.LedRush (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you slipped into lying, eh?! Somewhere above you can read my statement: As to the 'allegedly', it can be applied to only 300 priests out of more than 4000 accused and then convicted in the USA. These honest men cannot be mentioned, even indirectly, here. Their tragedy is in being defrocked and never acquitted of any guilt by the RCC nor their priest status was given back to them.--Remind me never (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At least you're using one of your actual account names at last instead of all those anonymous IPs. Other than that nothing has changed. Afterwriting (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @LedRush, "my" version of the lead is below - though it had been improved significantly by others as well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Version of the lead from the 1st June
The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and scandals related to legally documented sex crimes committed or allegedly committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders, while under diocesan control or in orders which care for the sick or teach children, that first rose to widespread public attention in the last two decades of the 20th century. Although awareness of the scope of these abuses first received significant media attention in Canada, Ireland and the United States, other cases were also reported in a number of other countries.

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

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


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

@.... In defending their actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counselling????????? Their actions are obstruction of justice, therefore the crime, too. Then, this shall be in the lead paragraph of this article?! --Remind me never (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That comment is already in the lead. And I presume that a reliable source can be found to back it up - it doesn't seem implausible. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Factually, (outside of murder), non-reporting by a third party (ie a bishop) of an alleged crime by someone else, has not been a crime. Reporting is the primary responsibility of the victim or their family. Hence no prosecutions of Bishops, secular teachers, secular social workers etc, who habitually did not report such matters during the 1990s, and used other methods to deal with such allegations.   Xan  dar   23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Obstruction of justice"!?!?!? Jeez... Making stuff up with strongly worded opinions does not increase their relationship to reality.  Does anyone have any intelligent comments on the abbreviated lede?LedRush (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, does the silence on this mean that there is consensus to take the more concise lede on a test drive?LedRush (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've been WP:BOLD and added the shorter lead to the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying the Vatican
The U.S. Supreme Court clears the way for suing the pope by refusing to hear a Vatican argument over international jurisdiction.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to directly do with improving the article? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

What is Bruni?
The references cite "Bruni, p.336" five times, but nowhere is this source identified. What is "Bruni"? - dcljr (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that content using that source is removed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is probably this book by Frank Bruni and Elinor Burkett. However, I will comment that the book has 336 pages so the page reference is almost certainly worthless. --Richard S (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to be God!
The criminals are definitely treated as criminals! Bravo Belgium!

This news shall be reflected in the article:

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

Belgian Catholic Church Offices Raided in Abuse Inquiry By STEPHEN CASTLE

BRUSSELS — The scandal over sexual abuse of children by priests continued to reverberate across Europe on Thursday when authorities raided the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium and the home of the country’s former archbishop, according to the prosecutors’ office and local media reports.--208.103.155.144 (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with improving the article? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @208.103.155.144 Your lead paragraph change lived barely one minute. Looks like the RCC hired some watchdogs here to delete whatever might displease them.
 * @Eraserhead1 You can, for example, insert somewhere in this article, that Belgian authorities started to treat the RCC as common criminals for the crime they committed. This is a positive step if compared to Ireland where the RCC is still untouchable. Some money is given to the victims but the Irish government shields the perpetrators: no one is jailed yet, even the perpetrators names are not public!--Remind me never (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the second point, fair enough. I'll do so in the next few days if noone else does. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At least the Irish state media have covered the Belgian inspection; see this.86.44.213.96 (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS the NY Times article didn't mention the 450 complaints. I guess that's reason for any police force to investigate, especially where internal documents about past transfers of priests just might go missing.86.44.213.96 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * "Vatican officials who criticize the Belgian police raid of the Brussels church hierarchy should be ashamed of themselves," Joelle Casteix of SNAP said in a statement Friday. "While Roman church officials talk about stopping abuse, Belgian police officials take action to stop abuse."--Remind me never (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a "Belgium" section, with properly cited material about the raid. --John Nagle (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sky News has video of the raid.. --John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored New York Times reference to raid. --John Nagle (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Belgian police brought in Cardinal Danneels and interrogated him for ten hours.. The Google translation from Dutch isn't too good ("Earlier contradictory statements about Roger Vangheluwe, former Bishop of Bruges, the investigators already strong in their belief that the cardinal knows more than he is."), but the general idea of "cover up" comes through.  Meanwhile, grumbling from the Vatican . --John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Identify Applewhite as paid by the Catholic Church.
Applewhite is a consultant to the Catholic Church in Ireland.. She had a company (Praesidium Inc.) that did various jobs for the Catholic Church. Here's their "Called to Protect" brochure for their training product for Catholic schools.. They also offer "litigation support services" ("John Doe 1, et. al. vs Name of Your Organization, Inc. ... If you're involved in litigation, use Praesidium's two decades of experience in institutional abuse to help your legal team prepare the facts.")

Her resume says "Since beginning her work with religious organizations, she has been involved in the development of four national programs for the prevention of child sexual abuse: two for the Catholic Church (one beginning in 1999 and another in 2003), one for the Episcopal Church, and one for the Salvation Army.  She assisted the Episcopal Church in developing their national policies for the US and mission work in other countries.  Beginning in 2002, Dr. Applewhite was instrumental in developing an education and accreditation program for Religious Orders and Congregations within the Catholic Church called “Instruments of Hope and Healing” which was designed to hold Catholic religious men to the highest standards of child protection and response.  This program has been adopted by the vast majority of religious institutes of men, constituting more than 15,000 Catholic priests and religious.".

So, "paid consultant" doesn't seem out of place. --John Nagle (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, but I'm curious to see what others think. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well she DOESN'T just work for the Catholic Church, she's worked for many different churches and other groups, so that should be made clear in any comment. There's a significant difference from being a Catholic Church employee and being a consultant engaged by many different independent bodies.  Xan  dar   22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Roeach
The book does exist:

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

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


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

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

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


 * I found some more reliable sources supporting the evidence in the blog of Alexandra Colen: http://archives.lesoir.be/un-manuel-de-catechese-qui-incite-a-la-pedophilie-_t-19980210-Z0EV3A.html and http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/archief/Artikelen/2010/4/29/Hartkwaal
 * Both confirm that the picture and alleged text is indeed in the textbook. The lesoir source also speaks of the reaction of Toon Osaer who admitted the incriminated images but tried to downplay them. However the the text in the article should be changed to give a more factual description, everyone can draw conclusions from that. In this case it appears ok to use the blog as source as the other sources confirm the most important information and the rest can be taken as opinion of the author who is notable as MEP. Richiez (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * @Xandar By calling something 'self-published', 'odd political group', 'some right-wing Flemish politician' you did not prove that the facts presented by Alexandra Colen, a notable member of Belgian House of Representatives, are false. Richiez just supported this author's claims by new sources and by other people. I myself, found this book available in the Tilburg University library --Remind me never (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not a body for presenting the views of certain maverick politicians. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, which obscure websites and unavailable books in flemish are not. The whole idea of this addition is to make an inference about an unavailable "catechism" or "textbook" and an illustration taken completely out of its context, and to build on this flimsy material by Original Research some wild allegation that Belgian Bishops had a "culture of sexual abuse"! This is the biggest load of nonsense I have read for a while. This violates wikipedia Biography of Living Persons policies, and cannot be in the article without firm, reputable English language reliable sources showing that this argument is being reputably made by mainstream sources.  Xan  dar   01:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of this, but if said catechism actually exists, there should be references to the book itself. If this was real, I'd expect major press coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @maverick, @xandar: if you have sound reason to believe that "lesoir.be" is an untrusted source please explain that a little bit. It may be borderline off-topic for this article but that is another story. Richiez (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * lesoir.be is a blog. I see no sources or indication that it has a reputation for good fact checking like, for example, the panda's thumb blog has.  Furthermore, it is not in English.  While it doesn't absolutely have to be, it is highly encourages - especially for potentially contentious and disputed material.Farsight001 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you check it? See Le Soir and the same article in French Le Soir and Italian Le Soir. It is certainly not a blog and I see no indication that it would be a substandard paper. Richiez (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked it. It's a blog, even if it doesn't label itself as one.  It's so obviously a blog I don't know why we're having this conversation.  In addition, I found some more problems with it - the author of the article is anonymous, going only by "C.L."  Who is this person?  What are their credentials?  What makes them notable enough to be cited on the subject?  Without this information, we really can't use the link even if it wasn't a blog.Farsight001 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

a) Blogs by major newspapers are considered reliable. b) Authors for the Economist are anonymous, and that is a very respectable source. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead, we're not talking about an article from The Economist here, nor, as far as I can tell, a blog by a major newspaper - which, btw, is not always considered reliable anyway. I don't know where you got the idea.  A news article in a major newspaper is always reliable, but op ed pieces and blog posts in that same newspaper are NOT.Farsight001 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Farsight001: are we both speaking about http://archives.lesoir.be/un-manuel-de-catechese-qui-incite-a-la-pedophilie-_t-19980210-Z0EV3A.html ? For me it shows the author name quite clearly - Christian Laporte. I can not follow your conclusion that this is a blog. From the article click the "blogs" button, go to one of those blogs and see what their blogs look like. Here is one for example http://blogs.lesoir.be/grammedheroine/ Richiez (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Also.. the article has the date 10.3.1998 (3/10/1998). For anyone who can remember that time - it was years before blogs became modern. I would guess the only blog that existed at this time was that of JWZ. Richiez (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can certainly see the author name now. Thanks for making that clear.  But still, it screams blog to me.  Remember - just because it doesn't say blog, doesn't mean it isn't.  I have a blog.  But nowhere to my recollection is it identified as such.  It's still a blog.  And again - an English source, especially for information like this, is quite strongly encouraged.Farsight001 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Christian Laporte. Richiez (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why to spend a single word arguing with these people (Farsight, Xandar, etc.)? They are pretending to guard quality of the article which is everything what comes from the RCC and nothing what might point at the true nature of the RCC crime. Belgian state was frustrated with that Catholic committee who keeps hundreds of cases in existence for over a decade, but for most of that time it dealt with only 30 complaints and took no discernible action on them. Within last eight weeks they received new 500 cases which just points at the tip of this crime iceberg. This Wikipedia article is not worth of reading--Remind me never (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been warned for your incivility in the past, as well as recieved a block to one of your IP addresses. Keep down this path and you'll likely lose the account too.  If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules, which is what we've been trying to do and trying to get you to do.Farsight001 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

In conclusion, this is a reliable source and anyone claiming the opposite should consult some French speaking wikipedians and ask them to give expertise here. Richiez (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why consult French wikipedians? They don't determine the usefulness of a source.  The source's reputation for fact checking determines the usefulness of a source.  In addition, as I already said above, just because you don't call it a blog, doesn't mean it isn't a blog.  Also for the second time - opinion pieces are typically not to be used either, even if they come from the most respectable source on the planet.  So again, the newspaper itself may be reliable, but I see every indication that the article itself is not.  Can you not find a better citation - especially one in English?  My other issue with it is even if it is a perfectly usable source, it has the appearance of one that is not, and so this problem you're having with me objecting is just going to continue with future editors that come to the page.  A respectable source that's actually in English would solve such a problem.Farsight001 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only actual reference I can find to such a book is this ad on a classified-ad site in Belgium. for a used copy of a pamphlet with "Roeach 3" on the cover. Is that the item in question?  The author name shown on the cover doesn't match. --John Nagle (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Farsight can you bring some evidence that Le Soir isn't a reliable source? It sounds pretty reliable to me. Opinion pieces and blogs in reliable newspapers are allowed if they are by a professional journalist - as in this case per WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces and blogs by professional journalists are RS, but only for the opinion of said journalist and not as fact. As for evidence that it isn't reliable - proving a negative is not how it works and I believe you know that.  The burden of proof is on the person wanting to use it and so far all we have is that it is the most popular French language newspaper in Belgium.  I don't understand why you're all pushing so hard for this exact source.  Surely there is another - one that is actually in English. Farsight001 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:USEENGLISH you don't have to use an English language source - its only preferable if there is one available. Given that non-English speaking newspapers have only recently had English language versions so it seems fairly unlikely for there to be an English language source from 1998. If you want to find an English language source to replace this one by all means put in the effort, but stop trying to obstruct this content which is backed up by a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UseEnglish is about article naming, not content. WP:SOAPS, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are more relevant here. Firstly most of this is irrelevant for the article, and an unreliable opinion piece. Second, There is no reliable source for this speculation on an unseen and unknown book. If there is no reliable english language source, the matter is clearly not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Even a single source in English does not fully establish notability and prominence for such a viewpoint, unless it is clearly held by a significant group. These safeguards are even more necessary where the reputation of living persons is concerned. As far as I can see this is the ramblings of some Flemish extremist politician on a tangential subject. And as far as I can see from the links presented, the theories complained off originated with American secular sexologist, Kinsey. Perhaps you should put this stuff on his page.  Xan  dar  00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By WP:USEENGLISH I meant WP:NONENG -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Regarding language, this is not some obscure language where you would have to search hard to find someone to verify content but one of the 2 official languages of the UN. Richiez (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not hard to find confirmation in English, then why have you not done so? Thus far we have this one and only one article, which most wikipedians will be unable to read, as a cite.Farsight001 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence on this to the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but why? Check this conversation.  We have 3 people against it, 2 people for it, and 1 troll for it.  How does that make this ok?  I've said repeatedly that we really need an English language source for a contentious statement like this.  In addition, I also submit that it lacks notability.  Some random clergy in Belgium say pedophilia is ok?  So what.  There's a priest in California who wears a clown costume at mass sometimes.  How is random Joe priest notable or important here?  If it was the pope, I might understand.  But a no-name priest?  Not at all.Farsight001 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because your argument before was poor and as Wikipedia works by consensus and not by democracy it doesn't matter on the number of !voters. Per WP:NONENG there is no reason that an English language needs to be found - I think on reflection, given its controversial, another reliable source - such as http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/archief/Artikelen/2010/4/29/Hartkwaal would cover it. Your latter point here is worth considering - however they contacted a Cardinal about this book and he ignored the issue which is worthy of criticism. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eraserhead appears to be correct; Per policy, it should be ok to add, so long as we can verify it (ideally by multiple editors). That said, due to the controversial wording of the proposed addition, it seems appropriate that we can reference multiple sources (and if possible, have a ref to something an English speaker can pursue). Are either of these possible? Jess talk cs 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Eraserhead, but did you actually just say that consensus is not a matter of numbers? What is it then?  And I will again question the notability - this one source is, as far as I can tell and as far as anyone else can show, the only source in existence that makes this claim - making confirming it or providing multiple sources for this contentious bit of info completely impossible.  And as the Verifiability guidelines that you cited, Eraserhead, we should thus not be using this information at all.Farsight001 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jess, there are two sources, http://archives.lesoir.be/un-manuel-de-catechese-qui-incite-a-la-pedophilie-_t-19980210-Z0EV3A.html and http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/archief/Artikelen/2010/4/29/Hartkwaal. And while its not ideal an English speaker can pursue them with Google Translate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * @Farsight I know this is frustrating, but please try to keep your tone professional. I'd hate to see this discussion become uncivil. There appear to be two objections raised.
 * The sources are not English. This appears to be covered by WP:NONENG. English sources are unnecessary, and therefore (per this policy) the language of a source shouldn't even be a point of discussion unless we also have an English ref. Is there a reason you can cite that this policy does not apply?
 * The issue is not notable. It directly applies to the article, and it's referenced in multiple sources (listed above), at least two of which appear to be reliable. I would say that makes it worthy of inclusion. Do you have any specific observations about the two links which show them to be unreliable? Jess talk cs 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * 1)Again, while English sources are not required, they are strongly encouraged. In other articles, for contentious information like this, an English source is often SO strongly encouraged that it pretty much becomes necessary.  The lede of articles also doesn't require citations.  However, we often put them there anyway because it almost becomes a necessity for some information.
 * 2) Applying to the article makes it relevant, but not notable. I am speaking of notability, and I don't think it even comes close to being notable.  A blip in two news articles out of millions about a couple of priests who have no notability of their own.  Relevant?  Yes.  Whether or not Hitler dyed his hair is also relevant to Hitler.  It's not notable though.  Nor is the personal opinion of a couple of no-names.
 * 3) One of my other points was that if we use these sources and put this info in the article, it's just not going to last. Way too many wikipedians are going to hate it far more than I because a source that can't be understood pretty much amounts to no source at all to most people.  They'll see the info, they'll click the link, and then they'll object to the info just as, if not more, strongly than I am.  If someone can conjure up an English source (which, if this info is actually notable, I'm wondering why no one has been able to yet), then it will make things a lot easier in the future.Farsight001 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * @Eraserhead Being neutral does not mean giving equal weight or time to both sides. I'm not sure blatantly adding "pro catholic church" ideas to the article just for the sake of it would be a good idea. Then again, I'd have to see the specific proposal to know how it applied to WP:NPOV.
 * @Farsight
 * WP:NONENG says English sources are unnecessary. You are still arguing that we shouldn't add information because the source is non-English. I don't know what else to tell you... this is an objection you should raise on the policy page, not here. Until it's changed, we have to follow policy.
 * There are two issues with notability:
 * If a topic is irrelevant. (i.e. not a notable topic to be placed in the article). This clearly is.
 * If a topic isn't backed up by reliable sources. (i.e. It's not notable in the real world) Until you can demonstrate these sources are not realiable, then we don't have a problem here either.
 * Think of it this way: Can you think of any other topic which is both relevant to the article and backed up by reliable sources which shouldn't be included?
 * Your expectations of how this information will be used or debated in the future is of no concern to its inclusion now. If other editors object later, then we'll discuss it later. Unless you can furnish reasons why the sources provided are not reliable, or why we should abandon wikipedia policy in a wikipedia article, then I move that the content should be added. Jess talk cs 22:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Xander Looking over the wording of the proposed addition, and in light of the fact that we currently only have a few references to the claims ( note I haven't even done a cursory google search myself ), I agree that we have WP:Fringe issues. I do not, however, think that the topic itself is a violation of WP:Fringe... just that until we see sources from mainstream news sources, the current wording is far too assertive. Something along the lines of "Allegations have been made that...", "Some sources may imply...", etc might be more appropriate. A single sentence in the appropriate section should suffice. Would anyone care to rewrite the proposed content? Jess talk cs 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * @Eraserhead If there is content which is relevant to this article which happens to be from the "Catholic perspective", then sure. For example, responses to allegations would be appropriate. However, I read your comment to mean that we should try to balance the amount of content on each side. (We added X things which were anti-catholic, so now we should add a few that are pro-catholic) If that's not what you meant, then we have no disagreement :) Jess talk cs 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jess I was saying the latter, and you're quite right - I retract the comment. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

English-language source covering the Brussels Journal story: Blog by Mary Ellen Synon on the Daily Mail website. Google books entry: I am not voicing an opinion on whether inclusion in this article is due or undue. Other English-language sources on the recent controversy in Belgium: As a general point of principle, foreign-language sources are absolutely fine when no equivalent English sources are available, especially for coverage of events in non-English-speaking countries. -- JN 466  23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Article in National Catholic Register
 * Article in The Guardian


 * 1)For the love of God. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.  I know English sources are not technically necessary.  That wasn't my point.  Read what I wrote again.
 * 2)This topic clearly is NOT notable. It boggles my mind that people think otherwise.  It's the opinion of a handful of complete and utter no-names.  Can we also cite MY opinion of all this?  I'm no less famous or notable than they are.
 * 3)The burden of proof is not on me to prove that the sources are reliable. It's on the ones trying to use it.
 * 4)No, I cannot think of any other topic off the top of my head. That is, however, irrelevant.  The perceived non-existence of a similar issue does not automatically make this subject notable enough for inclusion in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * @Farsight You're discussing 2 distinct things. One is relevance, and the other is scope of the sources. Hitler's hair color is irrelevant to his article. On the other hand, a book allegedly published by the Catholic Church supporting sexual abuse is very relevant to an article on Catholic sex abuse. As for scope of sources, we have numerous reliable sources, and your only apparent objection to them where you've given any specifics is their language. I understand perfectly well what your objection is with respect to their language, and it is directly opposed to WP:NONENG. A source's language has no bearing on its utility in any way. I'm having a hard time seeing how this conversation is ever going to get anywhere; As far as I can tell, a major part of your objection is in clear conflict with established policy, and I'm seeing strong support (backed up by policy) for the proposal. Jess talk cs 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since you're never going to understand my language objection, then try my other one - that of notability. I'll say it again.  This information is the personal opinion of a couple of complete and utter no-names.  It is not even remotely close to notable enough for inclusion in this article.  This is a point that has been utterly ignored in this conversation.Farsight001 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Farsight, if you really want to continue this argument I suggest you take it to some form of dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The principle is clear - it's up to those wanting to introduce information to the article to justify it. The material presented so-far is absolutely non-notable and is an extreme fringe viewpoint, sourced back to the one blog. The allegation is an extremely serious one, yet there is zero solid back-up or serious reputable comment and analysis to back it up. A copy of the offensive publication itself has not even been produced. I would imagine that if the "story" has any basis at all, that certain sex-education material of the type being forced on schoolkids in the Uk without much comment has been seized upon by certain individuals, and used in a rather far-fetched argument in an attempt to hurl mud. If this story is going to run, serious comment from significant sources will have to appear. Until then, it is a libellous non-starter.  Xan  dar   20:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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

@Farsight, given its only a single sentence and it is backed up by two reliable sources I don't think WP:UNDUE applies. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again its been at least reasonably well justified and is backed up by reliable sources. Therefore if you guys really wish to continue this take it to dispute resolution. Its completely crazy that we need to have a 6000 word discussion over a single sentence. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * And Eraserhead - would you please stop talking about reliability and relevance. They are not the only two criteria for inclusion in an article.  As I have had to say half a dozen fucking times now - notability is also quite important.  And this information just doesn't have it.Farsight001 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a fringe theory if its been published by the biggest French newspaper in Belgium which is the country concerned. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Being the biggest French language newspaper in a place like Belgium not being the least bit impressive aside, it really doesn't matter how big a source it is published in. People magazine, Time, or even another encyclopedia - The information itself is not notable because it comes from a complete and utter no-name.  It'd be like citing Obama's cooking tips in an article about flambes.  Who gives a crap what published Obama's cooking tips.  The problem is that the tips come from Obama - famous in his own right, yes.  But a no-name in the cooking world.  His opinion on cooking is thus completely non-notable.  Not worthy of inclusion in a cooking article.  Likewise, the info in question here is not even remotely worthy of inclusion.  It's completely speculative.  It's from a nobody.  And as Xandar said, it's borderline libelous.Farsight001 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you still think that and aren't prepared to compromise on the matter I suggest you take it to dispute resolution. There is no point in continuing this discussion otherwise as it isn't going anywhere. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not going anywhere because the issue is NON-NOTABLE. The concept of notability and Due Weight is based on the understanding that just having a reference, however vague or flimsy, is not enough to insert a topic into an article. Any number of things can be referenced. They are not however notable or due weight. This particular "story" is non-notable, it is not a major element in the international coverage of the subject of this article, therefore its inclusion is not Due Weight. In fact the objection goes further in that the viewpoint that some want to add is not only extreme, and unreliably sourced, but the epitome of WP:FRINGE, being held by hardly anybody and with no serious backing. There is no consensus to add this unreliable and scandalous material. So it has been removed  Xan  dar   21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which level of dispute resolution do you think would be most appropriate? Or are you prepared to make some form of compromise? I'm more than happy for the wording to be altered if that is an issue as long as the content isn't fully removed from the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * And let me say that your major newspaper analogy makes no sense. If the Vatican (a sovereign country just like Belgium) publishes an article in it's most popular newspaper that claims a link between breast cancer and abortion, does what they say suddenly make the breast cancer-abortion link idea NOT fringe?  Simply by virtue of the fact that there was an article about it in the most popular newspaper in a country?  Need I remind you that not all newspapers are actually reliable.  The dailymail is about the most popular news source in England, and yet I am constantly reminded by my British friends not to bother reading it because it's trash.  If popularity made reliability and notability, we would all be falling on every word of Perez Hilton, God forbid.Farsight001 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Popularity makes something non-fringe as it means that people believe it. And even though the Daily Mail isn't great if they publish something it isn't a fringe theory... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah and if something is sourced reliably, I'm not really clear on how WP:FRINGE could even apply... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A Fringe viewpoint can obviously be reliably sourced. The point about being Fringe is that no one of consequence supports that viewpoint. How many people are quoted in reliable sources as supporting the contention that the Belgian heirarchy was promoting paedophilia through education? That is the definition of fringe. And the story was not covered in the Daily Maily - but in a badly-researched personal blog on the website.  Xan  dar   23:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eraserhead, please check Fringe more closely. It really doesn't matter how popular a concept is, it can still be fringe.  Spend some time reading through the past talk pages on evolution related article.  The oft repeated objection to those articles is that there should be more information on Creationism and Intelligent Design in them because half of America rejects evolution.  Despite the objection, those articles are mostly devoid of pro-ID arguments.  Why?  Because ID is fringe, despite it's popularity.  And at least with Creationism/ID, it's half of 300 million people.  With this "pedophilia is ok" claim, it's just 2 out of a billion.Farsight001 (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Creationism isn't quoted as a sensible theory in any reliable sources - this is. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And "the Catholic Church believes pedophilia is ok" IS a sensible theory? Get real.  This was my whole point.  Creationism is not a sensible theory, being touted by a fraction of a fraction of a percent of scientists.  "pedophilia is ok" is even LESS sensible, with even a smaller percentage of Catholics promoting it than scientists promoting Creationism.Farsight001 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not notable, eh?
Belgian Bishops Ignored Parents on Grossly Sexually Explicit Catholic ‘Catechism'

The letters, which have been obtained by LSN, received much more favorable responses. Mgr. Clemens, Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal secretary at the Congregation of the Faith in Rome wrote, “Please be assured that this Dicastery will give your report all due consideration.” The Canadian Cardinal Gagnon said he appreciated “the just battle which you are conducting.” “The matter which you raised is very important,” wrote Cardinal Arinze from Rome. Colen also received favorable responses from Cardinals Meisner of Cologne, Wamala of Uganda, Vidal of the Philippines, Williams of New Zealand, Lopez Rodriguez of Santo Domingo, O’Connor of New York and Pio Laghi, Prefect for the Congregation for Catholic Education. Many of these promised to write to Danneels or help in other ways. --166.32.193.81 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you're quoting a website blog. And the Cardinals who replied to the letter Colen sent, were NOT making the point that certain people want in the article ie. that there are claims of support for paedophilia in the Belgian heirarchy. The point they were making, based on what was in the letter they received, was that this education text/programme was too liberal and non-Catholic. A different point entirely.  Xan  dar   23:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "current" wording is the following: "In 1998 it was reported that a catechism textbook called Roeach 3 had been made by Belgian clergy which allegedly promoted pedophilia as acceptable within the church." -what do you suggest instead? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think a case has been made that what is allegedly in this textbook is even relevant to the article. The clause "which allegedly promoted pedophilia as acceptable within the church." is just totally scandalous and unacceptable. Who is making this allegation? Is it a notable strand of opinion? No. Is any significant sector of opinion actually saying this? No. Is it even reliably sourced? No. The only solid thing that could be said about the matter is that a sexually liberal textbook aimed at teenagers, and based on Kinsey, had been criticised.   Xan  dar   23:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @166 I don't think that any of the addressed above RCC dignitaries will act against their Belgian brother. If it were Austrian Archbishop Christoph Schoenborn, then I wouldn't doubt. Here I see a number of those who are trying desperately to polish the dark image of RCC. I do not like anymore to hinder their zealous defense of the Church. Whoever wants the truth, certainly, will not go to Wikipedia to read the truth from this article. Let us do some other job. --Remind me never (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia should be doing is providing factual, unemotional, un-hyped and reliable coverage. This isn't a news agency or campaigning site. Everything here needs to be soundly factually based and weighted, without hype or opinionising.  Xan  dar   22:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read this article. What Roman Pope thinks is not factual; it is simply meaningless, but it is still in the article. This article is, certainly, campaigning site for Vatican Curia which is clearly visible from the existing content of this article (content) guarded daily by you and the likes.--208.103.155.30 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think both POV's should be included. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if both POVs are significant. And no evidence has been provided that the POV linking the textbook with child abuse is anything but a fringe one.  Xan  dar   22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, what you think is irrelevant here. Policy is what dictates inclusion, and fringe and notability most definitely apply here.Farsight001 (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)