![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
This article and Catholic Church abuse cases seem to cover the same material. Is there any reason not to merge these into one article? Clean Copy talk 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Zfish118, the above is not a move discussion. It's a merge discussion. One could have easily turned it into a WP:RfC for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: do not move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 16 be
renamed and moved to
Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases → Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church – It's a more appropriate title. There should be an article with that title, but it now just redirects to this. There is a template called Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but no article. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 19:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I have added a short verbatim quote, demonstrating the candour of the current Pontiff. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
When the media exploded with coverage of sexual abuse in the late 1990s the Vatican responded after years of media coverage by claiming that they would investigate. After years of this claim the media accused them of foot dragging. The Vatican responded that it was a wide ranging investigation that was uncovering a shockingly large amount of abuse and that they wanted to get it right. The Vatican continued to make that claim for many years as well. The media again accused the Vatican of foot dragging. The Vatican responded with the claim that the investigation was complete and that a report was being composed. That claim went on for several more years. The media again accused the Vatican of foot dragging. The Vatican then claimed that a synopsis of the report would be released. The media responded that was just more foot dragging in furtherance of cover up, and publicizing doubt that an investigation even took place. The Vatican responded that the synopsis would be released the following week. The following week the pope resigned, and the report has been forgotten since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.87.100 ( talk) 10:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Accusations of child sex abuse against at least 500 Roman Catholic priests and clergy members in Illinois have never been made public, a preliminary investigation by the state's attorney general has found.
That brings the total number of members in the Illinois dioceses who have been accused of sexually abusing minors to about 690, according to the report released Wednesday. The church had previously made public the names of only 185 accused priests, 45 of whom were added after Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office started investigating in August.
But it tries to quantify the enormous gap between the number of accusations made by victims who dared to contact the church, and the number of accusations the church deemed credible.
Three-fourths of the allegations against clergy were either not investigated, or were investigated but not substantiated by the dioceses, the report found, based on files that the dioceses turned over to the attorney general’s office.
Even worse: Cardinal admits Church files on paedophile priests 'destroyed' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.141.78 ( talk) 12:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Per Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 15#Raped, pregnant nuns and the #Merger proposal and #Requested move 31 January 2019 discussions above, I have removed the "Sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops" material that was recently added. As noted before, this material can easily and validly go in the Catholic Church abuse cases article. The "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases" article, however, is specifically about child sexual abuse cases. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
And regarding Cpsoper adding the nun material to the Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country article, an argument can be made that the material should not be there either since that article (with the exception of the nun content) is entirely about child sexual abuse and child sexual abuse is what that article is supposed to be about. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd welcome other comments on the removal of so much referenced material [1] on these grounds. Please try to address these two questions:
For now per suggestion I have added some of the deleted material to the alternative page. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC taking place at Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick regarding the possible restoration of three removed paragraphs if anyone is interested in participating. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is Croatia missing among countries? It had at least three cases and some currently listed only one or general accusation. -- 5.43.99.155 ( talk) 06:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this belongs:
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
This is, as it says, a new publication. Sullins is a Catholic priest. It's stated to be in a "peer reviewed journal" per the revert of my removal, but it was published in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, whihc is again a Catholic journal. The incentive for bias is very obvious. Google Scholar indicates that it has never been cited. There are a load of red flags here, and we certainly should not be presenting this striking finding unless there is compelling evidence of significance in the form of discussion in the non-religious peer-reviewed literature. Guy ( help!) 20:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
So, reading this article as a Roman Catholic, the article sounds to have a severely anti-Catholic tone. As a Roman Catholic, I recognize I may have biases and I abstain from making edits, so as to not let my devotion to the One true faith influence my editing here. But I just want someone to take a look on whether this article is anti-Catholic in nature. Reading this, sometimes feels like a rabid, undomesticated, abortion loving atheist screaming "how can you still be Catholic" to my face, rather than an informative article. Again, it could be my biases. I am abstaining from touching this article. I just want someone to reassure me that this is not a place where atheists get to badmouth Roman Catholic believers and endorse gay marriage, but a neutral article from a purely informative point of view. Atheists have slaughtered enough Catholics, I hope this isn't an article that is supposed to fuel their genocidal fantasies.
Thanks all -- GoogleMeNowPlease ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The lead of this article suffers from the awkwardness of trying to force the article title into the first sentence. The governing principle here is MOS:LEADSENTENCE, especially bullet 1, and the MOS:AVOIDBOLD "Mississippi" example. The first sentence at Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States has the same problem. There is currently a discussion going on about the first sentence of that article here; your feedback would be welcome.
In the case of this article, I would propose the following as the new first sentence:
Accusations of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, nuns and members of religious orders began to receive public attention[8] during the late 1980s.
This is a mashup of portions of the first sentence and the fifth sentence of the lead paragraph in the current version. Mathglot ( talk) 01:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clerical abuse. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29#Clerical abuse until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm ( talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I just finished cleanup. Since article has organically growup hapazardly, I organised alphabetised headings by grouping the sections. Calling for your help, this unmaintained article still needs the following cleanup:
No COI self disclosure: I am not a former, present or wannabe catholoic/christian. I am also not a victim or lawyer. I am not related in anyway. I randomly arrived here and found a messy article, ended up doing some clean up. Now it needs your help too. Please go ahead and make the changes. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 17:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Clergy sex abuse scandal. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Clergy sex abuse scandal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
22:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Sexual abuse by priests. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Sexual abuse by priests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Pedophile pope. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31#Pedophile pope until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Bangalamania (
talk)
00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Should the article Catholic Church abuse cases be merged into this article ( Catholic Church sexual abuse cases)?
|discuss=Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases#Merge discussion: Catholic Church abuse cases
(
diff) so that people are directed right here instead of to the top of the page.I feel like the lede starting with
"There are many cases..."
Reads sophomoric at best, and amateurish essay paragraph at worst.
Proper lede writing should cover the who, what, why, when and where within one or two sentences. The first paragraph should be much tighter and compact. Maybe a more experienced editor could take a look at it. 2600:4040:74F8:1700:E5E1:46B3:D84:DE97 ( talk) 00:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
This article and Catholic Church abuse cases seem to cover the same material. Is there any reason not to merge these into one article? Clean Copy talk 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Zfish118, the above is not a move discussion. It's a merge discussion. One could have easily turned it into a WP:RfC for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: do not move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 16 be
renamed and moved to
Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases → Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church – It's a more appropriate title. There should be an article with that title, but it now just redirects to this. There is a template called Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but no article. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 19:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I have added a short verbatim quote, demonstrating the candour of the current Pontiff. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
When the media exploded with coverage of sexual abuse in the late 1990s the Vatican responded after years of media coverage by claiming that they would investigate. After years of this claim the media accused them of foot dragging. The Vatican responded that it was a wide ranging investigation that was uncovering a shockingly large amount of abuse and that they wanted to get it right. The Vatican continued to make that claim for many years as well. The media again accused the Vatican of foot dragging. The Vatican responded with the claim that the investigation was complete and that a report was being composed. That claim went on for several more years. The media again accused the Vatican of foot dragging. The Vatican then claimed that a synopsis of the report would be released. The media responded that was just more foot dragging in furtherance of cover up, and publicizing doubt that an investigation even took place. The Vatican responded that the synopsis would be released the following week. The following week the pope resigned, and the report has been forgotten since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.87.100 ( talk) 10:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Accusations of child sex abuse against at least 500 Roman Catholic priests and clergy members in Illinois have never been made public, a preliminary investigation by the state's attorney general has found.
That brings the total number of members in the Illinois dioceses who have been accused of sexually abusing minors to about 690, according to the report released Wednesday. The church had previously made public the names of only 185 accused priests, 45 of whom were added after Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office started investigating in August.
But it tries to quantify the enormous gap between the number of accusations made by victims who dared to contact the church, and the number of accusations the church deemed credible.
Three-fourths of the allegations against clergy were either not investigated, or were investigated but not substantiated by the dioceses, the report found, based on files that the dioceses turned over to the attorney general’s office.
Even worse: Cardinal admits Church files on paedophile priests 'destroyed' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.141.78 ( talk) 12:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Per Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 15#Raped, pregnant nuns and the #Merger proposal and #Requested move 31 January 2019 discussions above, I have removed the "Sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops" material that was recently added. As noted before, this material can easily and validly go in the Catholic Church abuse cases article. The "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases" article, however, is specifically about child sexual abuse cases. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
And regarding Cpsoper adding the nun material to the Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country article, an argument can be made that the material should not be there either since that article (with the exception of the nun content) is entirely about child sexual abuse and child sexual abuse is what that article is supposed to be about. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd welcome other comments on the removal of so much referenced material [1] on these grounds. Please try to address these two questions:
For now per suggestion I have added some of the deleted material to the alternative page. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC taking place at Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick regarding the possible restoration of three removed paragraphs if anyone is interested in participating. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is Croatia missing among countries? It had at least three cases and some currently listed only one or general accusation. -- 5.43.99.155 ( talk) 06:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this belongs:
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
This is, as it says, a new publication. Sullins is a Catholic priest. It's stated to be in a "peer reviewed journal" per the revert of my removal, but it was published in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, whihc is again a Catholic journal. The incentive for bias is very obvious. Google Scholar indicates that it has never been cited. There are a load of red flags here, and we certainly should not be presenting this striking finding unless there is compelling evidence of significance in the form of discussion in the non-religious peer-reviewed literature. Guy ( help!) 20:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
So, reading this article as a Roman Catholic, the article sounds to have a severely anti-Catholic tone. As a Roman Catholic, I recognize I may have biases and I abstain from making edits, so as to not let my devotion to the One true faith influence my editing here. But I just want someone to take a look on whether this article is anti-Catholic in nature. Reading this, sometimes feels like a rabid, undomesticated, abortion loving atheist screaming "how can you still be Catholic" to my face, rather than an informative article. Again, it could be my biases. I am abstaining from touching this article. I just want someone to reassure me that this is not a place where atheists get to badmouth Roman Catholic believers and endorse gay marriage, but a neutral article from a purely informative point of view. Atheists have slaughtered enough Catholics, I hope this isn't an article that is supposed to fuel their genocidal fantasies.
Thanks all -- GoogleMeNowPlease ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The lead of this article suffers from the awkwardness of trying to force the article title into the first sentence. The governing principle here is MOS:LEADSENTENCE, especially bullet 1, and the MOS:AVOIDBOLD "Mississippi" example. The first sentence at Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States has the same problem. There is currently a discussion going on about the first sentence of that article here; your feedback would be welcome.
In the case of this article, I would propose the following as the new first sentence:
Accusations of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, nuns and members of religious orders began to receive public attention[8] during the late 1980s.
This is a mashup of portions of the first sentence and the fifth sentence of the lead paragraph in the current version. Mathglot ( talk) 01:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clerical abuse. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29#Clerical abuse until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm ( talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I just finished cleanup. Since article has organically growup hapazardly, I organised alphabetised headings by grouping the sections. Calling for your help, this unmaintained article still needs the following cleanup:
No COI self disclosure: I am not a former, present or wannabe catholoic/christian. I am also not a victim or lawyer. I am not related in anyway. I randomly arrived here and found a messy article, ended up doing some clean up. Now it needs your help too. Please go ahead and make the changes. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 17:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Clergy sex abuse scandal. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Clergy sex abuse scandal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
22:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Sexual abuse by priests. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Sexual abuse by priests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Pedophile pope. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31#Pedophile pope until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Bangalamania (
talk)
00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Should the article Catholic Church abuse cases be merged into this article ( Catholic Church sexual abuse cases)?
|discuss=Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases#Merge discussion: Catholic Church abuse cases
(
diff) so that people are directed right here instead of to the top of the page.I feel like the lede starting with
"There are many cases..."
Reads sophomoric at best, and amateurish essay paragraph at worst.
Proper lede writing should cover the who, what, why, when and where within one or two sentences. The first paragraph should be much tighter and compact. Maybe a more experienced editor could take a look at it. 2600:4040:74F8:1700:E5E1:46B3:D84:DE97 ( talk) 00:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)