Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks

Recent controversy

Information about recent sex abuse controversies should be backed up with more relevant sources. Also, the article about the diocese may not be the ideal place to insert such content, given that specialized articles such as Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese are perhaps better suited to handle these types of affairs. ADM (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In February 2008, the diocese announced plans to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, claiming inability to pay the 140 plaintiffs who filed claims against the diocese for alleged sexual abuse by priests or church workers dating from the 1950s to the early 1980s. The Society of Jesus, Oregon Province, was named as a co-defendant in the case, and settled for $50 million. The Diocese, which reports an operating budget of approximately $6 million, claims one of the diocese’s insurance carriers failed to "participate meaningfully".

I disagree very strongly with the need to create a spinoff article such as Sexual abuse scandal in Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks; such an article would be created under the terms of WP:SUMMARY. I also don't see a problem with these sources, two from newspapers and one from Catholic News Agency. Unless someone can make suggestions for improving this, I would like to restore this information. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I felt it might be appropriate to create such an article is that the Fairbanks scandal was perhaps among the worst in all the United States. There are some pretty grim sources that describe the local parishes as a kind of pedophile paradise, a deliberate dumping ground for sexually deviant priests. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is enough information, then this may be worth a freestanding article. The creation of such an article would not be reason to exclude this information from the article about the diocese. When I last looked, all I saw was sourced information being deleted from Wikipedia. If your argument is that this information is in fact very notable, then it should be kept.

Wikipedia is not a directory. The article on this diocese should not be just a staff list. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions, Why is the sex scandal the 1st section in the contents and not a footnote at the bottom? Why is the sex scandal the larger section of information of the article? The article is not as developed as the Archdiocese of New York, but the scandal shouldn't be the major part of the article. What does the scandal have to do with the institution of the diocese? I'm sure that it's not what the institution is all about. (If there was a sex scandle at McDonald's, or Coke Cola, would it be presented in the same way?)Iota 9 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you consider this article too short, you are certainly welcome to add more information to this article.

The scandal is obviously notable, arguably more so than the staff listing and single-paragraph history which make up the rest of this article. The proposal that this article should be limited in scope to the "institution of the diocese" (whatever that means), and not anything else regarding the diocese might make sense for a spinoff article about said institution, but not for a general article about the diocese. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The scandal is notable as a NOTE at the bottom of the article, with a link to Sexual abuse scandal in Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks, as was presented by ADM. But your bias and prejudice is starting to show. The "staff list" that you have mentioned twice shows your lack of knowledge about the Catholic hierarchey or a disrespect for the Bishops who were the leaders of this diocese. (Bishops who were not responsible or charged with any sex scandal). ARGUABLY, the scandal is NOT more notable then the leadership of the diocese. If a senetor is involved in a sex scandal, it is notable. But it is NOT more important then the leadership of the United States. That's why in history class, students learn about the presidents of the US, and NOT the sex scandals of the senetors. So why are we treating these institutions differently... it can only be prejudicial discrimination. By the way, I'll help you understand what institution means. Just click on the link. :)Iota 9 (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about the "institution of the diocese". If you wish to omit, minimize, or otherwise sanitize information not relevant to the "institution of the diocese", you probably want to start an article (or a wiki) about Roman Catholic Church institutional bodies. That is not this article, or this wiki.

Your comparisons of this article's subject to MacDonalds or a Senator's office are a bit skewed in terms of perspective. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks is more comparable to a municipal government office, or a large medical practice. While other pro forma aspects of the organization (major staff, service area, official history) need to be included, for the purposes of an encyclopedia one highly notable event will tend to be given much weight in the article. This is not "prejudicial discrimination", even tho mayors or head physicians will presumably will have careers outside the one event—from the perspective of Wikipedia's readers (and Wikipedia's policies), such an event will be more generally notable than the pro forma details of an institution, however august. It is neither desirable nor justifiable to reduce such an event to a "NOTE at the bottom of the article", especially considering how short this article is.

Furthermore, Wikipedia does not have freestanding articles for every MacDonalds branch. If the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks is notable for anything else, I would encourage you to add it to this article. Neither having a leadership nor being part of a hierarchy—the elements you consider important—are ipso facto notable, and these things do not for the purposes of this article trump the scandal. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The perspective is the same with municipality or a large medical practice. Just because an alderman or a doctor have a sex scandal doesn't mean everyone in the municipality or the hospital get labled with being sex perverts. Likewise, articles on these institutions would have notes of the scandals but it's not the major part of the article. I'm sure the municipality provides many good services, as do hospitals. Likewise, there are many good people working in the municipality, as well as the hospital. They deserve the respect of not being discriminated against, just because of a few bad apples. This article is about the "Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks". It is not about the "Sex Scandals of the Diocese of Fairbanks". ADM has tried to point this out to you and likewise, so have I. Your grandstanding is what is skewing your view on the issue. The scandal is not a card game. It doesn't trump anything. I'll give you one more example of how this article should be presented and how your article should be viewed... Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Stop discriminating against the laity and the diocese. Show some respect.Iota 9 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked ADM not to delete sourced information from this article, and not to create a POV fork. I am asking you not to censor this article.

The article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles does in fact contain a section on Sexual abuse affairs that was considerably longer and entitled Lawsuits about sexual abuse by priests until ADM removed much of this information, and did not restore it to the (rather clumsy) spinoff article Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles. I disagree on that section needing to be spun off—the entire article was less than 15kb—and it appears WP:SUMMARY is being used as a way to throw out sourced information that makes the church look bad. This is certainly not a good example of good faith editing.

Thank you for your contributions to this article. It looks great. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the complement. I would like to state that at no time have I censored your contribution. Out of respect I have left it the article as is, with the exceptions of removing bad citations (which I new you would fix) and removing a space to creat a full paragraph. I've even left it at the top of the article as I was developing the rest of the article. What I'm asking of you is that the section be moved down the article (in it entire form with citations) as presented in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, with a link to a more detailed article (as per ADM's suggestion) or add it to the History section by removing the title as per Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego. For anyone who wants to research sex scandals in religious institutions, the link & information is still there. The way the scandal is presented is not a neutral point of view when it is place as the #1 issue in the contents. It can't be more important the education or health care. It's not more important then providing for the needy, the homeless or the hungry. It's not more important then the providing support for the rejected members of society such as prisoners, prostitution, mentally handicap, etc. I've provide numerous examples to support my arguments. You've asked to develop the article, and I have (reluctantly). Please show some respect for those who do good works in this world. Catholic laity, doctors, or aldermen, just to mention a few.Iota 9 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC). PS thanks for the tip, i'll use it in the future.

Incoming references

• The "Pedophile's Paradise"

To be added when time permits. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politicom.moldova.org/news/diocese-of-fairbanks-plans-bankruptcy-95847-eng.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)