Template talk:Sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church

Image
I have removed the image since it is not necessary to have one. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per 6th criteria at WP:GACR, it is all of preferred, desired, and recommended.ResignBen16 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The good article criteria refer to using images to illustrate articles, not infoboxes. Other than being unnecessary, the use of this image causes problems on articles such as Michael Ledwith, where the appearance of an image in the top right corner may cause confusion, as that is the normal position of an image of the article's subject. More generally, I'm not at all sure that infobox format is the correct one for this, especially as it seems to break the layout on some pages. A navbox format at the bottom of pages where it is warranted seems like a more suitable choice. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those criteria indeed apply, as templates -including this-, are part of those articles that we aspire to attain WP:GA or WP:FA. If we may all agree "that a picture is worth a thousand words", then regardless, reference to policy hardly is required for additional weight. I don't accept that is confusable with an infobox, for who may be deceived that article subreferences to such as 'Catholic Sex Abuse by Country' are part waystations of subtopics for the life story of Mr Ledwith? Further a WP biographical infobox is name-titled as such. I'm looking at the one for George Washington and, yup, there's his name first and formost. Whereas this is titled as a -series of articles- template about the non-Ledwith subject that it is about. We desire the value of our thousand words as widely as possibly, without the dubious 'may cause confusion' herring on at most perhaps a few bio articles. You would rather:
 * 1. Best: put the bio infobox in at its traditional (top right) location. Then no possibility of confusion, whether it bears the subject's image or no.
 * 2. Next to best: put the template below the lead or elsewhere in the article.
 * 3. Otherwise: footnote the template with further information about the image it bears .. information that would be found by just clicking on that image anyway.
 * Finally you need more than an 'I think' statement as to the type of template it should be. You need a WP policy reference and relating argument. In its current format it's accepted in the widest possible range of articles on the particular subject; just see it's 'what links here' link. That there's actually a -series- of article on this subject would be something pushed to obscureness and forgettability with another type of template. Moreover, removing the picture in the light of all above, fails the project's aims without replacement by an image that be even more emblematic of the subject matter. Got a suggestion? Though we won't have an image of actual Catholic sex abuse, we're fortunate to have one of the daddy-of-all and modern times world champion Catholic sex abusers.ResignBen16 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that navbox format more appropriate. The current presentation of links to related articles in present form is a distraction from the main article. RashersTierney (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What WP policy is that you're quoting??ResignBen16 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all editing is guided by policy. Guidelines, convention, consensus and whatever works are also various ways to guide the editing process. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, WP:IDL just as I thought. Which is already & everywhere & always trumped by WP:GA offered and explained above :) ResignBen16 (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This essay, Disinfoboxes, raises pertinent issues. RashersTierney (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read the prominent self-disclaimer at the top of it, and now I'm reading the rest of that person's opinion all the time eager to be informed of actual WP:POLICY that may be added into the policy and analysis i've already supplied above.ResignBen16 (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not that "I don't like it". Well actually I don't like it but it is because the image does not work in that context for a lot of reasons. Also, what do we do with the Brendan Smyth (priest) article? I don't like (!!) the two images. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a more emblematic replacement image above. Silence so far. To me, he above all people and all things embodies the subject matter. Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church was his life, moreso than some of the higher-profile permitters and panderers going right up to the First Citizen of the Vatican himself. Do nothing with his bio article, I reply. I do like it.ResignBen16 (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me assert that for Wikipedia to have an actual -series- of articles (9 listed + link to the expansive category) on this important contemporary issue is a matter of satisfaction and, dare I say, actual pride. The full dimensions of this .. scandal .. will get a proper airing, and for the benefit of the children of the future (whether you see that as to the greater glory of Wikipedia or not). So to shy away from exposure or existence of this template, image and presentation and formatting placements and links all, is distateful to what we are about and ought to be about which is to present information comprehensibly and easily about any given subject matter.ResignBen16 (talk)
 * Put simply, there is no need for an image at all - this would be better as a navbox, with no image. The image itself is unnecessary, and I stand by the earlier statement that it leads to confusion: while an experienced editor may be able to identify that the only - unlabeled - image on a given biography of a person is not of the subject, based on clues, a less experienced reader would have a fair bit of trouble. I'd also suggest that the label "A series of articles on Catholic Sex Abuse" is misleading: most of the articles thus tagged are not about Catholic Sex Abuse, but a particular person who is connected, in some cases fairly loosely, to the issue. Just skip the infobox format and things will work better - a standard navbox at the bottom of the page will provide the same functionality with fewer concerns, albeit with less prominence. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We've moved on from talking about mere 'need' to what is commended for the very best of WP articles of which templates, like this, will inevitably form a part. Go to where 'series' in the template links to ie. Category:Catholic sex abuse . Those are the article that this template has been put to, plus those that warrant to be included therein. Any article where this is put makes nontrivial reference to instance(s) of Catholic sex abuse, or the investigation or impact or spread or whatever of it. You're challenged to bring forward the counterexample of it. The rest of the things you say I rely upon already having replied at least once about above.ResignBen16 (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that some abusers are notorious in one place (e.g. Brendan Smyth in Ireland) but may be unknown elsewhere.Autarch (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading his article you'll under stand that Father Smyth got around a bit. Got a nominee for a more intercontintal worldwidely abusing priest of career longevity? Do share.ResignBen16 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Brendan Smyth certainly committed abuse in manny countries, though whether he is as well-known in, say, Boston, as Ireland, is another matter. As for other abusers who abused in many countries I think the Murphy report referred to one who committed crimes in three countries, including Japan.Autarch (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say a more widely recognisable figure is that guy Cardinal Ratzinger, but he didn't sexabuse he just smoothed the way for the odd fugitive perpetrator. Not as emblematic of the precise subject matter .. my opinion.ResignBen16 (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Two clear policy issues are becoming more apparent here as this thread develops - Consensus and WP:NPOV. RashersTierney (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's not 'neutral' about those nine articles being presented as a series? If its some suggestion that Catholic Church sex abuse allegations are all a crock, isn't that WP:FRINGE. There's been Commissions, Reports, and a Papal apology. If you don't accept the terminology, what do you propose instead? I agree that we should keep working to arrive at the consensus, then implement the relevant change(s)ResignBen16 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of a confusion above. My point wasn't that the articles in the navbox aren't connected to the subject, but that the articles in which the navbox are placed are also seemingly labeled as part of "A series of articles on Catholic Sex Abuse", when, in fact, they are not necessarily directly on that topic. I'd also add, once more, that GAN has nothing to do with images in navboxes - it's an odd reading of the GAN criteria. There is no policy that requires the use of images in navboxes, simply consensus in any given case. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)T
 * I agree with this reading. RashersTierney (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2010
 * Adding an image to a navbox is adding an image to every article that the naxbox is placed in, and the adding of images to articles is precisely what's encouraged by GANcri. Do you get it now? The series of articles is actually the whole category relating to the subject matter, not just the nine listed in the template. The nine listed in the template are just the most prominent and developed in order to measure down the size of the template. You can nominate more in or less in on that 'bestsellers' list. Do you want to?ResignBen16 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * I removed the infobox from an article about a South Park episode - it wasn't directly connected to the abuse scandal and diluted the focus of the infobox.Autarch (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:GACR does not apply here. This is not an article. The things that make a good article are not the same as what makes a good navbox (one need look a few lines below the GACR entry on pictures to see that lists are not good articles, and navboxes are lists.)  It isn't benefiting many of the articles it's being inserted into, as its not directly relevant to the material in the article itself, nor is it captioned (and nor would adding a caption make it more relevant.) Per Pictures, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." The photo doesn't add real information - if you don't know who this guy is, it means nothing, and if you do know who this guy is, you already know what he looks like. Let's remove it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you weren't to know who he is, click on his pic and all's revealed. No rocket science. Magic learning through wikipedia. Caption necessary?: fine, we'll have it just like Template:African American ethnicity. And how many times do I have to say that image placement in templates counts as image placement in articles, which is definitively a thing encouraged 'if possible'?ResignBen16 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Father Smyth's now named next to his picture in the template. Couldn't figure under, so I did over. The information at the article linked to is well sufficient to relate him essentially to the template's announced subject.ResignBen16 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many times you say "And how many times do I have to say that image placement in templates counts as image placement in articles", adding random photographs does not improve the article, which is why the policy is that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." There's one editor fighting to protect his own additions; policy and clear consensus in this discussion is against its inclusion. I'm removing it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As in the following examples, it is appropriate for this template to have a lead image. Nominations please.

ForKidz (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This template needs no image, there is no central symbology for catholic abuse, and it looks to be appropriately being turned into a navbox which should not have an image. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Nat Gertler. --Morenooso (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?
Do we have consensus that, in its present form, this means of linking is inappropriate across the relevant articles? RashersTierney (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly no. We're far from that. A number of claims have been put and singularly refuted putting us back at the originating status quo prior to the first talk comment. A case by case examination on each individual article, initiated at the talkpages thereof will address what you raise; not unnuanced or across-the-board general characterisation. It's never that peremptory, i'm sorry.ResignBen16 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd certainly support the claim that the current form doesn't work, as outline above. I'm happy to have a navbox along these lines, but the format would need to change. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let folks get back from Easter to pass comment. Give it a week and then some. Ask yourself too, were you aware of the series before this template's raising it to attention?ResignBen16 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If your intent is providing original research, that is all the more reason for questioning the indiscriminate application of this template. How many links do you envisage for inclusion? It is evident that from the contested 'terms of reference', potential size alone at the very least indicates the necessity for a collapsible format. RashersTierney (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From where'd you get those words 'original research' just put in my mouth by you? You'd better explain what the novel thesis is I'm promoting by displaying an article series with a template or retract it and your implication. Make that shit fly or eat it back up.ResignBen16 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like consensus: one editor believes these templates are appropriate on all articles in the category; n-1 editors (approx) believe they are inappropriate on articles which are not primarily about sexual abuse. PamD (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. RashersTierney (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - the conflation of a category with a series is not proper use of the category system. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - Misusage on articles when this only be a wikilink, see-also or See Main|Article link. --Morenooso (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The template is being misused in articles which are not primarily about sexual abuse. Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree It is clearly appropriate for some articles, and I can't agree with its carte-blanche removal from all articles. --Michael C. Price talk 14:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not aware that it is being removed from all articles. If that was the case the debate would centre on its deletion rather than targeted removal. (It currently links to over 100 articles, if I am not mistaken). However, there are already navboxes that may be more comprehensive and also less intrusive for these and which would better aid navigation to related articles. RashersTierney (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you removed it from Deliver Us from Evil (2006 film), where it was clearly most apros. --Michael C. Price talk 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so - it's only been suggested that it should be removed from articles which are not primarily about sex abuse. It would be appropriate as linking the articles which form a genuine series of articles on the topic, but should be removed from the other articles which are in the category, for which standard internal links and the category link are sufficient. PamD (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it from many articles, including several films. Where are we to draw the line with its correct application. The initiating ed., since blocked, threw his/her net quite indiscriminately. RashersTierney (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's no reason for us to be indiscriminate. --Michael C. Price talk 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any articles that from their titles were unambiguously dealing with the subject I left as was. eg "Sexual abuse scandal in...." or bios on individuals who's 'claim to infamy' is solely because of this subject. Articles on films are not so straightforward. Many of those previously linked deal extensively with the subject, some less so, but in all cases the article is about the film, not primarily the theme of the film. If this was too narrow a reading it was made made in good faith to avoid linking to such articles as an episode of 'South Park' and Song for a Raggy Boy which is much more nuanced on the issue of institutional abuse than this in-your-face template would indicate. RashersTierney (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Series template being misused
Where there are a series of articles on a subject, it's appropriate for them to be linked by a series navbox. But this template has been added to every article in a category. That's inappropriate - the category itself links all the articles. Each article is likely also to have internal links to relevant articles such as Catholic sex abuse cases, and it's just not necessary, or appropriate, for them all to show the series navbox template, with a confusing image. (He may be instantly recognisable to some, but only, I suggest, a small minority of WP readers). I suggest that the template should not be added to articles other than those which are listed within it: as I understand it, that's the normal way templates like this are used. PamD (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with PamD. The template should only be placed when necessary. For example: the template was unappropriate on Buckfast_Abbey, and so I removed it and replaced with a link to Sexual abuse scandal in the English Benedictine Congregation, which the latter page has the template and seems appropriate. Where the template needs to be removed, it should, if it is not already, replace with the appropriate link. Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Look closely. The word 'series' in the template, links to the -category- on Catholic sex abuse. Because of the sad circumstance of abuse that went on there, there's a case for the article on that school to befit that category and therefore also membership in the series, the nine most prominent articles of which are shown on the template's face. There is more than one view as to what you've deigned 'appropriate'.ResignBen16 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with ResignBen16; agree with previous two users. This template does not belong on articles. It should be a see-also or See Main link. --Morenooso (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Template creator
For someone new to Wikipedia, the template creator, ResignBen16, seems to be quite an experienced and adapt editor with Wikipedia, its talk pages and guidelines. I do wonder if it is a sockpuppet or a genuine new user. Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for that discussion. Please take it to Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical. Churchill said it best: Let them do their worst; we shall continue to do our best.ResignBen16 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I have put this template up for deletion. See Templates_for_discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why this template has been put up for deletion. Many of the people who are voting for deletion are doing so because the editor who created it was blocked.  I have searched through wikipedia and discovered that the reason the user was blocked was because the user name was disruptive.  This does not seem a legitimate reason to delete the template itself.  In the original template there was an inappropriate picture of a priest.  This picture is now gone from the template and the template has evolved since its creation.Mrbusta (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The proper place to discuss why the template has been put up for deletion is at Templates_for_discussion. There, you'll see that only one of the commentators so far has listed the blocking as their only reason for deletion. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes to template application
The the TfD over, I'm wondering how this template should be applied. The main question is what articles are suitable for it. My major concern is with people: should a) all biographical articles that mention sexual abuse by Catholics have the template, b) articles about people primarily known for sexual abuse issues should use it; or c) no biographical articles should use the template. As examples: The template is also applied to anti-sex abuse campaigners, and, previously, academics. The second question is whether or not a change to a collapsible navbox format would make this less of an issue. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kevin Short has the template, and Keven Short appears to be only known for being convicted of sexual abuse (which may lead to one event issues, but that's not my immediate concern).
 * Hans Hermann Groër did have the template (I removed it, but this can be reversed). He is well known as the highest ranked member of the Church to be accused of child abuse. However, he was not prosecuted, and would have been notable as a Cardinal without the abuse allegations.
 * Michael Ledwith uses it, although Ledwith seems to be notable independent of the abuse allegations, is not a member of the clergy, and was never convicted.
 * I'm not certain whether any biographies should use it; I tend to lean against it. However, if there is, I think there's a position between a) and b) that makes more sense - it shouldn't be about whether the sex abuse is the sole thing that makes the person notable enough to get an article. If Kevin Short were to win the next American Idol competition and gained a much larger article that focused largely on that (without making the article so large that it needs to split into separate topic pages), it would be no less relevant to include this as a sidebar by the section of his article that does discuss the situation than it is to include it in the article as stands. So I see the dividing line as this: would this person's involvement in the abuse situations itself be notable enough to support an article? (Of course, then you get into the WP:BIO1E question of "caninvolvement in such a thing being notable enough?") But I lean toward inclusion in articles where the topic is abuse rather than the reason for notability being abuse. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bibly's suggestion that it be changed from an infobox to a navbox. A few days ago, I removed the SACC Infobox from two book articles, Strong at the Heart and Altar Boy: A Story of Life After Abuse, and replaced with the Abuse cases Navbox simply because the SACC Infobox was difficult place in its current form. The SACC Infobox has also been removed from Hans Hermann Groër's page, as mentioned by Bibly above, which I've now added the Christian leader Infobox to Hermann Groër's page, but to replace the SACC Infobox would mean be to remove the Christian leader Infobox since both infoboxes won't fit at the same time. As a navbox, SACC can easily added back again at the bottom of those and any other artlices. Also as a navbox it would "less of an issue" that its current format. These are the reasons why I feel its current form should be changed. Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on navboxing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If SACC is made a navbox, it must be kept functionally distinct from Abuse cases Navbox. I was thinking that Abuse cases Navbox might be better split into 2 templates - catholic cases and non-catholic cases (as currently about 2 thirds of all the entrles are to do with cathollc). But if that happened a catholic specific abuse cases template might get confused with SACC. --Penbat (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that is absent from SACC is any statement about its purpose and usage. That documentation is essential or it will creep from its original purpose without consensus.
 * A navbox format would be good. It should be economical with article real estate, and remain entirely distinct from Abuse cases (some minimal overlap is inevitable). I am wary of proliferating multiple templates which address the same topic in a different manner. A navigational template must make life easier for the researcher, and multiple small templates make it harder. SACC has an excellent use for articles which describe the totality of the Roman Catholic Abuse without diving into individual cases. I feel it is on the right track and should not be deviated from it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I've thrown together an example collapsible version at User:Bilby/Current Template. I've used the current links and headings, but anyone is welcome to make changes as they see fit. If this is something we want to see, it can always be transferred here or used as a separate template. - Bilby (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I've added the navbox format to Roger Joseph Vangheluwe. You can see the infobox layout here, and the navbox version in this diff. Note that the infobox layout isn't the best example, as the combination of the two infoboxes was causing some layout issues on the page, which wouldn't always be the case. - Bilby (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with your version. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I too am happy the navbox version. Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll let things sit for a bit longer, as it is a big change, and thus rushing probably won't help. But if we end up changing it, I'll move the template to the bottom of pages at the same time, per standard usage (and otherwise ti will break things pretty bad). - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Based on the above and prior comments I'll try and make the change. Hopefully this is ok, otherwise I'll be spending time self-reverting. :)
 * I think that reflects general consensus. Go ahead. RashersTierney (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is done now. :) I've updated the template and moved the infoboxes to the bottom of their respective pages, per standard navbox format, bar one (which was fully protected - there I've requested an edit). - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename
I'm proposing a rename to Template:Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The shortcut SACC can still be used on articles but the longer name is clearer. Any thoughts? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me - I generally refer descriptive names anyway. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically isn't the Anglican church also Catholic? I'm happy to be corrected, but The Creed refers to it thus. This means that Roman Catholic Church is the correct term for the Vatican headed abusers, surely? I don;t think this change is the right change to make. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would Template:Sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church work better? - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That both reflects the title parameter as it is listed at present and is technically correct. Is it important to rename the thing, though? Isn't this just a task for the sake of performing a task? Having the template as a shorthand form (only) does no-one any harm. I'm not concerned about anything except the correctness of the long name if used. I genuinely don't care if you rename it to something that is accurate and correct, but I don't see the point of renaming it, either. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case where the title appears on top of the navbox, I admit there is less purpose. But generally the name of a template should accurately reflect its purpose and SACC means nothing to anyone. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)