Talk:Ryan St. Anne Scott

Statement of the subject of the article
So ... let me get this straight ... you don't accept FACTS because they are not published in a tabloid ... yet you DO ACCEPT anyone else's personal opinion whether there be truth to it or not. Legal documents and Legal Statments DON'T count. Now I get it ... If I tell lies, half truths, inuendo's, personal opinions, libel and slander someone ... then it IS ACCEPTABLE to Wikipedia as GOSPEL ! Well forgive me ... but I have much better things to apply my time and energy than to someone or something refuses TRUTH and prefers to cause irrepperable damage to one's family and loved ones. And you still have NOT identified yourself ... IF you are so right and I am so wrong ... why is it that YOU REFUSE to be identified ? Obviously YOU have something to hide !--74.139.4.118 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

'''Bookworm ... Why don't YOU identify yourself and contact me directly ! You know how to reach me.''' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abbatia (talk • contribs).
 * If I or anyone else contacted you directly, they wouldn't be able to use the information you provided in the article under the rules of Wikipedia. "No original research" means that unpublished material -- documents, personal interviews, court records, what have you -- can't be used. You can, however, submit a personal statement to Wikipedia as you did before and that CAN be used. If the Chicago Tribune printed a correction to the article, you certainly could cite that as well. I removed some of the information in the article that you disputed, pending your submission of a personal statement. According to the Chicago Tribune article, bishops in those locales issued warnings saying that they didn't consider the Masses you conducted valid. If that wasn't the case or the locations are incorrect, you should certainly say so in your personal statement and make the necessary correction.--Bookworm857158367 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend that if you are interested in facts and truth - you contact the source ! We all know that newpapers tell their own "spin" on stories for the sole purpose of selling copy. That does not mean that what they say is truth or fact. If you would like the facts - please have the courtesy of contacting me directly - I would be more than happy to refer you to our Attorney's who can state facts for the record. How can someone "write" about someone else that they have never met or even taken the time to speak with or view facts, documents and records. Before "facts" are changed again - I recommned contacting the source ! Thank-you kindly ... Rev. Fr. Abbot Ryan St. Anne, OSB - 8-21-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abbatia (talk • contribs).
 * As I wrote on your talk page, I suggest you submit another personal statement to Wikipedia attesting to the facts of your life that you want included in the article, providing them with proof of your identity. Otherwise, it's too easy for someone to claim to be you and insert false information into the article. That's why Wikipedia requires that all information in an article about a living person be taken from a published source. If the article in the newspaper was incorrect, I'm assuming that you demanded a retraction and that the newspaper printed one or a correction. If so, cite the retraction when you make the corrections to your article. Otherwise, people have to assume the information in the article was correct. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. That includes personal documents such as the ones possessed by the attorney you have mentioned. --Bookworm857158367 13:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Abbot Ryan St. Anne Scott has, in an email to OTRS, issued a statement concerning various statements in this article which he considers untrue and potentially libellous (important per WP:BLP). As the OTRS agents are unable to check his (quite detailed) email, he has given explicit permission to re-post in on a public page, so that experts in BLPs and religion issues can have a closer look at it. His statement is now at /Statement. I'd appreciate any help on this matter, if somebody could check the article versus his statement and maybe also check the source (a printed newspaper article) which is the primary source and to which I do not have access. Thank you. --Mbimmler 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A summary of the Chicago Tribune article is here. The full text is here but I could not determine if it's genuine. AvB &divide; talk  19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After a preliminary read I would say that both the current version of the article and RSA's preferred version may have libel issues without reliable sources. Obviously unsourced contentious material leveled against RSA should be deleted, but it can't be replaced with equally unsourced accusations against e.g. the Catholic Church or other people, the latter introducing additional WP:BLP issues. This is also a problem I see with some of the assertions in the e-mail message on the Talk:Ryan_St._Anne_Scott/Statement page. AvB &divide; talk  20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary source I used in writing this article is the Chicago Tribune article, which I have seen. I have also seen other newspaper articles written about him from newspapers in Wisconsin and Minnesota that include the same material. As far as I know, the facts in the article are accurate.--Bookworm857158367 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstract of article at . -- Jeandré, 2007-04-02t22:05z


 * If someone pays for a full copy of the article, they will see that the text matches the full text of the article linked to at the Unity Publishing site above. I will add that if Scott or someone else wants to add further information to the Wikipedia entry clarifying or expanding upon the information -- provided it has been published somewhere and is verifiable, etc. -- I think that would be extremely appropriate. Looking at Scott's statement, it appears that he is not denying the main facts of the Wikipedia entry. He acknowledges having married, divorced, and given up a child for adoption; making a claim that he was sexually abused as a young religious; changing his name; being sentenced to probation for misconduct in public office; alleging fraud against the Shrine of Our Lady of the Prairies; establishing his Benedictine abbey at different locations, etc. He acknowledges that he believes in the Tridentine Mass and objects to the changes made after Vatican II. He simply objects to the terminology used to describe his particular movement and to the statements made in the Wikipedia entry that his claims of abuse, ordination, etc. could not be substantiated by the Chicago Tribune reporter. Note that the article does NOT say that his various claims are true or false, just that no proof could be found one way or the other. The explanations he makes in his statement, as well as the allegations he has leveled against the Roman Catholic Church in general, bishops, priests, his ex-wife, relatives of followers, etc., there don't seem appropriate to include in the Wikipedia entry unless there is a published, verifiable, reputable source that makes these same claims. When I originally wrote the entry, I read the claims on his web site as well as on the opponent's web site and didn't include most of them because I couldn't find anyone making the claims but Scott or the woman running the other web site. I included external links to both web sites to let people read more if they so desired. Everything I used in the article came from the Chicago Tribune article and the Matt Abbott article recounting Scott's statement at the 2002 press conference in Wisconsin. The Chicago Tribune in particular seems to me to be a trustworthy, reputable newspaper. If Scott has filed a libel suit against the newspaper in the past two years or if the paper has printed a retraction, that would certainly be reason to consider removing the Wikipedia entry. I haven't seen any report of such a lawsuit or correction. --Bookworm857158367 00:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stick with the reliable sources. Comments like the following give me little faith in the writer: "Keep in mind too that homosexual men are by their nature vindictive and revengeful. They are so inflamed with their own self-importance that they will stop at nothing, literally nothing, to accomplish their goals. So they seek to destroy those who threaten to expose their filth with their own lies." Additionally, the letter addresses a number of "inaccuracies" that simply do not occur in the Wikipedia article. The impression is that the writer envisions a grand conspiracy against him and that this, at least in part, a form letter he sends out. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with most of that. The situation is somewhat more complicated since we are allowed to cite information provided to Wikipedia by the subject him/herself (mainly about him/herself; info from the subject about others can prove the proverbial can of worms and should be dealt with conservatively if at all). See Wp:blp. AvB &divide; talk  12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are allowed to cite information provided by Scott, then I would say he should be allowed to provide explanations about the circumstances of his ordination and his conviction for misconduct in office. I wouldn't remove the present material, however. For instance, one portion might read, "Though a Chicago Tribune reporter was unable to substantiate his claims in 2005, Scott said in a posting on Wikipedia that these were the circumstances ..." Then elaborate on the circumstances, but it needs to be made crystal clear that the claims are coming from Scott in his statement of April 2 (or whenever the correct date was.) It is only fair to incorporate it into the article if it is allowed, but the information from the Chicago Tribune article really should stand. --Bookworm857158367 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading the policy on citing the subject as a source, I've changed my original opinion. I don't think some of Scott's statements meet the criteria, if I am reading the policy right. Some of the statements he makes could be seen as contentious or self-serving and he makes accusations against other people that cannot be verified independently. Everything I cited in the Wikipedia entry is sourced with the Chicago Tribune article. --Bookworm857158367 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed to both. I've gone through the article, didn't find true WP:BLP issues, changed a couple of things for better weight but that's my personal preference and up for discussion if someone disagrees. What's left to do is: (1) remove any WP:BLP issues from the posted e-mail (I'll do that next) and (2) see if we can accommodate the subject by adapting the article somewhat to his own story, within reason and rules. Would you or someone else like to take a shot at the latter? Otherwise I'll do so in a day or so. Thanks, AvB &divide; talk  15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably better for someone else to edit this who has a fresh eye. The edits you made look good. --Bookworm857158367 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) not sure how is relevant the priest´s life seems to be so sporadic
 * I've removed the "attorney" part of the statement since it relates to others than Scott so can't be used per WP:BLP. I've edited the article to reflect Scott's own version but retained everything sourced in reliable secondary sources rather than Scott's statement here, which is a primary source. Please review and correct where necessary. Of note is Scott's claim to be raised in a Catholic family where secondary sources say it was a Methodist family - this seems to contradict Scott's conversion. The Abbott is obviously also welcome to comment here on the talk page. AvB &divide; talk  20:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the referenced web-page, holyrosaryabbey.org. I am not a critic, I am a concerned daughter. My mother is one of his followers and a victim of his cult. Ryan has ensured that she and I do not communicate. She has no telephone etc. The only phone she does have is a cell phone provided to her by Ryan, so that he can see who she is calling when he receives the bill. I can provide documentation for everything posted on my site. I also have the Chicago Tribune newspaper containing the actual article about Ryan.

Bobbie Fleming

Image Request
Twillisjr (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)