The lead sentence is point of view. The sentence needs rewording because there is no evidence presented that the handling of sexual abuse cases are a "major chapter" in the cases in Ireland and the U.S. Section "Forum on the abuses" quotes exactly from the SNAP website. Much improvement is needed in the article to make it neutral in tone.
The article might be better as a 'subchapter' in an article describing the topic on a USA or worldwide scope. The article may be encylopedic but it is not current. By including scandal in the title is is also point of view. A better title might be "clergy sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati" which would be more factual. Mfields1 ( talk) 02:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- My model article for this was Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese, which has a similar lead sentence and a similar title. The expression "major chapter" is perhaps questionable, since the expressions "episode" or "sub-chapter" are maybe better suited for the extent of the scandal. There is already an article entitled Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, but it is too vague to include the Cincinnati diocese affairs. It's not necessarily POV to include the word scandal, since a scandal is anything that provokes popular discomfort and disgust, such as these cases of clerical pedophilia. Also, all given scandals are scandalous, and while some scandals are more scandalous than others, the fact of being scandalous is what defines any scandal, even the smaller ones. The article is best described as historical because it had been current for a fairly long time. The sources could certainly be double-checked or improved, but bear in mind that they are taken from a period when the affairs were being covered by professional journalists and writers. ADM ( talk) 09:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the word scandal, I think that the oldest sense of the term is the one applicable here
- "Discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person.(Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary. "scandal" [Sense 1a]).
- We can easily see how the term sandal becomes POV. Has the reputation of the Archdiocese been so besmirched that it has lost authority? I think a good many Cincinnati Catholics would argue that its authority has not been discredited. It may has been tarnished, but there is still credibility left in the Archdiocese. Other people would argue that it is now a criminal organization and has zero moral authority left.
- If you want to quote someone who says that it is a scandal, that's fine. But by declaring it to be a scandal, the article takes a definite stand on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonPraises ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead sentence is point of view. The sentence needs rewording because there is no evidence presented that the handling of sexual abuse cases are a "major chapter" in the cases in Ireland and the U.S. Section "Forum on the abuses" quotes exactly from the SNAP website. Much improvement is needed in the article to make it neutral in tone.
The article might be better as a 'subchapter' in an article describing the topic on a USA or worldwide scope. The article may be encylopedic but it is not current. By including scandal in the title is is also point of view. A better title might be "clergy sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati" which would be more factual. Mfields1 ( talk) 02:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- My model article for this was Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese, which has a similar lead sentence and a similar title. The expression "major chapter" is perhaps questionable, since the expressions "episode" or "sub-chapter" are maybe better suited for the extent of the scandal. There is already an article entitled Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, but it is too vague to include the Cincinnati diocese affairs. It's not necessarily POV to include the word scandal, since a scandal is anything that provokes popular discomfort and disgust, such as these cases of clerical pedophilia. Also, all given scandals are scandalous, and while some scandals are more scandalous than others, the fact of being scandalous is what defines any scandal, even the smaller ones. The article is best described as historical because it had been current for a fairly long time. The sources could certainly be double-checked or improved, but bear in mind that they are taken from a period when the affairs were being covered by professional journalists and writers. ADM ( talk) 09:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the word scandal, I think that the oldest sense of the term is the one applicable here
- "Discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person.(Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary. "scandal" [Sense 1a]).
- We can easily see how the term sandal becomes POV. Has the reputation of the Archdiocese been so besmirched that it has lost authority? I think a good many Cincinnati Catholics would argue that its authority has not been discredited. It may has been tarnished, but there is still credibility left in the Archdiocese. Other people would argue that it is now a criminal organization and has zero moral authority left.
- If you want to quote someone who says that it is a scandal, that's fine. But by declaring it to be a scandal, the article takes a definite stand on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonPraises ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)