Talk:St. John's Seminary (California)

Non-consensus on deletion of section 2010-03-29
With what is going within the church, this section is more relevant than ever. Consensus on deleting it is not achieved or present. --Morenooso (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally - Today's deletion came from an editor that has only editted religious articles which suggests the neutral point of view is not being maintained. --Morenooso (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm not defending the edit particular, the logic that someone edits pages of a sort and therefor the edits are POV is a problematic one. After all, if Wikipedia relied solely on people who had no interest in a topic editing pages on that topic, it would not exist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, if you know you have an agenda, you built a pro and con. That's what great editors do. --Morenooso (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see what that last statement has to do with the earlier accusation I was addressing, that editing just on religious topics suggests that a given edit is POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid pushing a POV edit, great editors will develop a pro and con. If you don't know what pro and con are, then you are missing the over-all issue. As a regular editor and Watcher of this article, other anon IPs have deleted the section before without an edit summary. Just because you disagree with a paragraph, that does not allow an editor to willy-nilly delete a section that has been in a stable article. Wikipedia is not censored or will as per that wikilinked paragraph will not always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.--Morenooso (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, not seeing what that has to do with this statement: "Today's deletion came from an editor that has only editted religious articles which suggests the neutral point of view is not being maintained." Your attempt to not address the edit by a dubious denigration of the editing source is problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that I have no problem with an honest and frank discussion about the sexual abuse scandal of the Church. The problem I have is that this section is making the claim that 10% of all graduates from St. John’s Seminary are pedophiles. This is not substantiated. It’s not that I have a philosophical disagreement, I am wondering from where the number of 10% is coming. As you have pointed out…this is a hot topic. I am interested in keeping articles such as this one as fact based as possible. What I am asking is that there be some other verifiable, peer reviewed, scientific source, other that the “documentary” to substantiate such an explosive claim. This “documentary,” is a highly subjective and anecdotal source. That isn’t to say that it does not have a point to make or that it should not be used in a Wikipedia page about St. John Seminary, but there has to be more factual information about the seminary on the page. As it stands, this stub has issues with POV. Please respond to the 10% issue, if you would be so kind. Ljpgoodwin (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The number comes from the wikilinked article. If you like, you can watch it and see it. --Morenooso (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can do a google or yahoo search on St. John's Seminary Pedophilia and it brings up reports of priests who attended the seminary and reportedly molested students. Here is what the Yahoo search looks like. Believe me, I do this not out malice but because as per the wikilink above, WP:UNCENSORED - . . .some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Unfortunately, this controversary at this seminary may be more relevant than ever. --Morenooso (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with saying "The number comes from the wikilinked article" is that "Wikis, including Wikipedia ..., are not regarded as reliable sources." As for the new Ironic Times source, I don't think we can count a site with cover stories such as "Latest Poll Shows Californians Favor Legalizing Pot But for recreational use only" and "U.S. to Launch Security- Enhanced $100 Bill Each one password-protected" as a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are much better sources out there than the ones listed above. There have been fewer than 800 priests accused of sexual abuse in the U.S. out of 40,000 priests. As you can see, the math does not add up. Not to mention that there needs to be a distinction between pedophiles (sexual interest in pre-pubescent children) and ephebophile (sexual interest in teenagers). This stub claims that 10% are pedophiles. This is not to excuse any priest from inappropriate sexual contact, but we need to get the facts straight. This number of 10% is unsubstantiated. Wikipedia has a responsibility to report real substantiated facts on this topic and every topic; but this topic in particular at this moment. See: CARA http://cara.georgetown.edu/pubs/CARA%20Working%20Paper%208.pdf John Jay http://google.jjay.cuny.edu/search?q=priest+sexual+abuse+research&site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend These are repeatable research institutions. 216.56.80.50 (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the vague and inaccurately-repeated statement about the documentary with a more-specific statement about the L.A. Times. This statement makes it clear that we're talking about St. John's graduates specifically (i.e., that it's on-topic) and the claim is not generalizable to priests in general (so we're not smearing everyone here) and that seminary spokesmen pointed to reasons that might generate accusations particularly at a high level for those the research was studying (so it's balanced.) -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Although this is better, I still object to the fact that the seminary has been reduced to this one issue. The seminary has a 70 year history of education some of the finest theologians of our day. Also, the article you cite is 5 years old. Ljpgoodwin (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What I would encourage you to do, then, is to expand the article with further information on other aspects of the seminary. Ths issue of the problems that seem to arise from the seminary is not insignificant and should not be deleted on that regard. We already do feature the notable alumni, although I'm sure more could be named. I don't see how the age of the article is material, as it speaks to the seminary over its history and not to the specifics of it at a current moment in time. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. That section might have gone unnoticed by many. But now, with the current scandals and this talkpage discussion it becomes all the more relevant. --Morenooso (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sad thing is I found another article that lists five more distinguished graduates (all bishops who might one day be princes of the church) but the article would only serve to fan the fire. In good conscience, I did not add but chose yesterday to put one that acknowledged the 10 percent number mentioned in the documentary.


 * Be careful of what you wish for when you delete material.--Morenooso (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not opposed to a truthful, frank, up to date and objective (scientific) discussion of the facts. I happen to believe that this kind of discussion is the only way to becoming “fully human.” “The truth will set you free,” seems to be an expression well suited to this discussion. Unfortunately, I am in the middle of working on a graduate degree and don’t have a lot of free research time at the moment. Perhaps over the summer I can write something or encourage someone who knows the seminary better than I to write something. 216.56.80.50 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood - but also realize that you needn't tackle the thing all at once. If you find yourself with some free moments and want to cover some aspect or another, add a paragraph or two, feel free. After all, it's Wikipedia - it is always to be a work in progress. (But I understand that such spare time seems unlikely when you're in the midst of pursuing your degree.) At some point, I'll try to drive by the seminary and get a few quick photos; my photography skills are pretty weak, but some of the buildings there are quite lovely. (Alas, I'm not finding any existing free-to-use images.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AS folks may now notice, I've added a photo. I hadn't realized that the Seminary was gated, and wasn't feeling up to asking at the gate, so it's of the Seminary's public front. I may try to revisit at some point to see if I can get in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Morenooso, it is easy to find things written about the sexual activities of priest who have done bad things. The net is full of just such articles. What Wikipedia needs are thoughtful articles that try to help people understand what is really going on in a way that is constructive. One of the problems with churchy stuff is that because of the nature of the Church and God these things are mysterious. People who don’t have a mature or well developed understanding of churchy things are mystified by the lives of priests. Most people cannot articulate the difference between a monk (Thomas Merton) and a friar (Friar Lawrence in Shakespeare – Romeo & Juliet). That includes life-long Mass attending Catholics. It’s all a big mystery. So when things are not clear to people, they start to create what they assume the reality is. This dynamic is alive and well when it comes to the sexual abuse scandal. Again, I am not condoning any inappropriate sexual behavior of any public figure that has the trust of young people and parents. Sexual misconduct is reprehensible. What I am suggesting is that the mysterious nature of the life of a priest or a nun only adds to the confusion and people have a hard time staying objective. Ljpgoodwin (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is more than you suggest. It is your basic online encyclodia anyone can edit. All entries should be present in neutral point of view. There are plenty of great articles; however, every article can have good and bad content present. You either need to live with it or decide what floats your boat. Deletion just because you find a topic offensive would be akin to walking into the Vatican and destroying the oldest bible. How would you like that? Depending on your point of view, sometimes you find your heart's content here but must realize that these are real world articles with all its encumbent views presented. --Morenooso (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

65 "faced" charges...how many were charged and how many were found guilty? Ljpgoodwin (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say as several have resigned or died plus the L.A. diocese has stone-walled the investigation until a court mandated they turn over records. As with the current scandal, the number could potentially be higher. I believe NatGertler would somewhat agree to this as there are many other news stories out there. However, as per what I have written previously, I am not interested in fanning this. But, deleting what was there and continuing this discussion just keeps the story going (so to speak). NatGertler has editted that section nicely. Plus, Cmcnicoll has done a great job of fleshing out the article. I suggest in the interests of WP:COOL we let the issue die and the section remain as is. --Morenooso (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He is right to question the word "faced", as some may have died before the accusations surfaced. I have now reworded around that. As to how many were charged and how many were found guilty, I don't have that information, but if you have a quotable source for it, I encourage you to put it forth. However, since part of the ongoing story is that such accusations were often covered up or not even reported in the first place until after the statute of limitations was over or the accused was deceased, convictions cannot be presumed a more precise measurement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I suggest the article is now stable based upon recent edits. --Morenooso (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Rural?
First off, I'd like to thank User:Cmcnicoll for his strong efforts today on this article. As a minor point, I do question the description of the campus as "rural". While the campus itself is wooded, it lies right between significant housing developments (as Google Maps will show), so it's not exactly in the kind of isolated area that "rural" suggests (although that certainly may have been accurate earlier in the school's history.) Camarillo is a very suburban place overall. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I always enjoy adding to wikipedia, and this article was in desperate need of some basic facts. I wasn't sure what to put for campus type, but I think suburban is fine.  I was only thinking rural v. urban. I agree that Camarillo is suburban, or maybe semi-rural, now.  I'll leave changing it to you or another editor.  Cmcnicoll (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the finer zoning details, mixed-use comes to mind. That seems to cover suburban developments that are transitioning from one status, i.e.,rural to urban. --Morenooso (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, but I'm going to avoid mixed-use, because in context it would seem to be a descriptor not of the setting but of the campus itself, as if it's a mixture school/gumball factory, and on Wednesdays it plays host to the local roller derby league. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering when this page will be posted? At the moment, the very limited page still comes up when you search for St. John's seminary CA. Ljpgoodwin (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear on this question. This is the page which comes up when searching via Wikipedia with that string, and the first Wikipedia page shown for it on Google. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" title
I'm growing unhappy with the -title- of the Controversy section, as the section depicts no actual controversy, no dispute. As such, it's coming across as a polite way of trying to spin this as not a bad thing, only a (non-existent) dispute. Something more on topic ("Alumni molestation accusations") may be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)