Talk:Hans Hermann Groër

Number abused
Hi! I'm a tad uncomfortable with the claim in the lead that he abused 2000 people. There are two problems. The first is that it currently uses the Times Online article as a source. However, the Times Online seems to have a very strong POV, making me nervous about using it. It makes the claim that he abused 2000 people, yet the article has a whole seems to contradict other sources, and within the article there's no claim as to where the figure came from - which is problematic, as it also claims he was never investigated by the church, and presumably he was never prosecuted. The figure appears to come from a book published by Hubertus Czernin, in which he offers the 2000 number. Anyway, I'm mostly concerned that having that figure in the lead is a problem, given that it is not the result of an official investigation nor related to the number of people who made claims against Groër. Thus I've moved it from the lead for now. - Bilby (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2000 figure represents the balance of scholarly opinion however. Thus it is allowable where no definite figures are available. The subject is dead so we can be bold.
 * As for 'very strong POV', hey, it's about a defrocked paedophile! You want them to be kind to him? It's as balanced as any article on Hitler will ever be in a mass media publication.
 * Lastly, the number is important in establishing the subject's current notoriety. He didn't contribute to Austrians leaving the church in 'droves' by abusing 2 children. It was 2000 young men!! That's the situation and it should be established early. Would you prefer 'he abused hundreds, perhaps thousands' in the intro?? That seems incontrovertible. Malick78 (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this isn't a BLP concern. However, I'm not sure why you're claiming that it's the balance of scholarly opinion - do you have other scholarly sources supporting the 2000 figure? Or is it only Czernin offering that figure? My ongoing concern is that comparatively few people (compared to the 2000 figure, anyway) came forward to claim abuse at his hands, so the figure seems to have resulted from a single, unofficial, investigation by a journalist. But if other sources came to the same figure then I'm much happier with it. - Bilby (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times takes it at face value, so the figure must seem ok to them and it is probably generally accepted. You are questioning it without offering any reference to alternative sources. The Times, being one of the most respected newspapers in the world, deserves the benefit of the doubt without a alternative, contradictory source being presented. Malick78 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times article we're using makes a number of factual errors, sufficient so that I'm nervous about relying on it. But there's no question that he was accused, in 1998, by a journalist, of abusing 2000 people. What I don't know is the strength of that claim. All that seems definite is that "a number" of people publicly claimed to be abused by him, and that it would appear that the Church's investigation found some truth to those claims. If there's any additional support for the claim of hundreds or thousands of people being abused then I'd be very happy emphasising it - or, alternatively, if Czernin's investigation could be shown to be particularly reliable then I'd also be happy. Obviously it warrants mentioning either way, but the manner in which it is mentioned is what I'm uncertain about. - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Stripped of all duties"?
Malick78 has reverted two of my changes, so I hereby submit them to others for consideration.
 * Malick78 objected: that you changed "stripped of his duties" to "withdrew from public life". The ref actually says "the Pope stripped him of all church duties". I have returned it to the previous wording. Why, though, did you tone it down in such away that was not at all similar to the original ref? You also left no edit summary, which is frowned upon in WP. Please refrain from both the activities. Thanks, Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it because the wording in the reference is inaccurate according to canon law. The Independent is certainly not scholarly, but still, to write: "the Pope stripped him of all church duties. The Vatican sent him into exile near the German city of Dresden" is inaccurate, because Groer still had the right to say Mass and perform priestly duties. So he was not stripped of them. He was also not in exile in Dresden, but residing in the guest quarters of a monastery. I toned down the emotional wording because when he died soon afterward, Groer was buried with full honors, his successor Cardinal Schoenborn presided at the requiem Mass in Vienna, the next day Cardinal Meisner of Cologne, one of the most prominent German cardinals, presided at the burial in Roggendorf. The wording is misleading.--Melchior2006 (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC) ...and...


 * If you have better evidence, present it please. You changed the text but left the references intact. That's the biggest problem. Furthermore, the fact that you 'know the real truth' is neither here nor there. You have to present sources. Until that's done, the current text should stay (since so far it's only on your say so that it's 'wrong').


 * Melchior, your new refs from 'Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon' worry me. It doesn't sound NPOV at all to quote from something that I presume was published by his employers/related people. Am I right in assuming that? Malick78 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon is one of the most respected lexica of ecclesiastical biography in the German speaking world. Your question shows that you have litte familiarity with Germanophone theology -- do you read German? If not, you should tread a bit more softly in this area. --Melchior2006 (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Was not abbot
Groer was never Abbot of Roggendorf. There is no abbot there, since it is a priory. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As said above, if you have better evidence, present it. You changed the text but left the references intact. That's the biggest problem. Furthermore, the fact that you 'know the real truth' is neither here nor there. You have to present sources. Until that's done, the current text should stay (since so far it's only on your say so that it's 'wrong').

Plaques at the graveside
Now Malick78 notes (politely) that "answered prayers' is irrelevant nonsense" when it comes to a plaque that is visible in File:Groer sepulcrum.jpg. If the wiki article is a biography of a deceased churchman, would it not be relevant to note that people pray at his grave and that the grave has several plaques thanking Groer for his intercession? That is theologically relevant. Or did I miss something? --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronology
I find: "On 13 October 1994 he offered the Pope his resignation, but the pontiff refused to accept it." I see this statement as problematic in that it's placed just after the emergence of sex-abuse allegations, which here says 1995. I do see Oct. 13, 1919 as his date of birth, so the offer of 13 Oct. 1994 is just the routine offer that Cardinal Groer, with or without scandal, was required to make upon reaching age 75. Other sources (this includes Sexual abuse scandal in Vienna archdiocese article here in Wikipedia) say that Pope John Paul II had to remove Cardinal Groer from the Vienna see, and the official action taken to accomplish this was to accept that retirement offer, which did not have to be accepted immediately when it was made 13 Oct. 1994. Perhaps we only need to mention that 13 Oct. 1994 offer in regard to (future cardinal) Schonborn succeeding to the Vienna see. (This year, 2011, there have been 2 cases where a diocesan bishop was listed, in the bishop announcements from Rome, as "Removed".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(I have gone onto the "Sexual abuse scandal in Vienna archdiocese" discussion page to point out that it's not just dealing with the Vienna archdiocese.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will go ahead with the changes I suggested (will also refer to the coadjutor as archbishop, not as bishop, because Vienna is an archdiocese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hans Hermann Groër. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/cardinal-hans-hermann-groer-592499.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Placement of a sentence in "Sexual abuse ..." section
I find "He continued to work as a confessor in women's monasteries, received visitors and said Mass." It occurs to me today that this is placed after Pope John Paul's 1998 request, and needs to be reconsidered, because didn't Cardinal Groer leave public ministry at that point? Carlm0404 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)