Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego

Recent controversy
Information about recent sex abuse controversies should be backed up with more relevant sources. Also, the article about the diocese may not be the ideal place to insert such content, given that specialized articles such as Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese are perhaps better suited to handle these types of affairs. ADM (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On February 28, 2007, the diocese filed for bankruptcy protection after the diocese was unable to reach a settlement agreement with numerous plaintiffs suing over alleged clergy abuse. On September 7, 2007, The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego agreed to pay $198.1 million to settle 144 claims of sexual abuse by clergy, the 2nd-largest payment by a diocese, terminating 4 years of settlement talks in state and federal courts.


 * If it is not the ideal place, then a seperate article should be created and the content should be moved there. Outright removing it seems very biased. Also, there are many sources regarding the abuse in San Diego and I really fail to see how the San Diego Union Tribune is a not "relevant" source. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By more, I meant additional, not greater. Until we gather additional sources, it would be best to freeze the controversial text in the talk page until it can be integrated into a more specific article. ADM (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I still believe that this is a very biased removal considering that plenty of sources can be found online and in the archives. Since you bring up the idea of a seperate article and more sources, why are you summarily deleting it and have others do it instead? Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 05:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I could do it sometime soon, since I have found various sources on the topic. The reason for which it is perhaps better to tranfer the content is that the definition of a diocese includes everyone who is member of the Church, even the laymen and laywomen that have nothing to do with clerical pederasty. To put the content in the page about the diocese appears to imply that every layperson has some kind of connection to the pedophile scandal, which is certainly inaccurate (cf collective guilt). ADM (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The diocese is a legal business entity and as such, it settled a court case, and the settlement was reported widely by reliable sources. That information is an important set of facts about the history of the diocese and is appropriate for this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It may belong in the article, but as it appears now, it is given way too much prominence and is an example of recentism. The separate heading, as the first heading of the article, is particularly over the top here. --anietor (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me to move it lower in the article. I'll do so myself. But it needs a separate heading, because it doesn't fit in any other section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better than before. I'll also try to restructure the article and work on the headings. --anietor (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"St. Rose of Lima Parish in Chula Vista" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect St. Rose of Lima Parish in Chula Vista and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)