Talk:Sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee

Murphy case

The Holy See has an statement: Statement of the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr Federico Lombardi, S.I., concerning the "Murphy Case". I think this should be included. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And this by Thomas Brundage, the top ecclesial legal official involved: http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601#more-601--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I read each of these with a view to including them in the article. The first one seems to offer authoritative empty words. The url as an IP address does not qualify as a reliable source so I question its inclusion until that statement is found in a reliable source. The text itself adds value to the article, but the sourcing prevents its inclusion currently.

The second appears to be a blog despite having some sort of official sounding title. I may be being fooled by the Wordpress-ness of it, but, if I am correct, then it is as worth including as my own blog - not!

I am simply setting out the reasons why I have chosen not to add them. I am not saying in any definitive manner that they should not be added. You may see my reasons as invalid. If so please go ahead and either add them or build a consensus for that addition. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Anchor is the diocesan newspaper; it is linked at the diocesan website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly that also looks like a blog. But if TCA is a reliable source feel free to add it as a citation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the page Abuse of minors. The church's response. from the Holy See (vatican.va) a reliable source? I think so. Then The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI: how it looks to an American in the Vatican by Cardinal William J. Levada and STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.J., CONCERNING THE "MURPHY CASE" (Federico Lombardi) could be relevant to the article. Do you agree?? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"In March 2010 it was revealed that Vatican officials, including Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, did not respond to credible allegations of serious sexual abuse of boys." The problem with this sentence is it fails to answer the most important question: SO WHAT? In doing so it portrays in a biased manner that the supposed failure to respond was a part of some conspiracy to hide the problem, avoid dealing with it, or ignore it altogether, when the facts of the case may be altogether different, and appear not to support such conclusions. The fact that the next few sentences answer the "SO WHAT?" and may show the NYT et al articles to be poorly researched and biased do not make up for the incipit sentence. I'm going for "In March 2010, an article in the New York Times stated..." This wording does not come across for or against the article, but merely states the fact that the NYT article said what it said. Caisson 06 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How about using the original documents to create a more informative page on this scandal? Really I'm surprised there isn't a more complete page on this terrific event -- it's as if someone or some organization were trying to hinder public knowledge of it...again. 06:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Pfoot

Murphy case dropped

The following might be of interest: Explosive Sex Abuse Lawsuit against Vatican dropped

Gugganij (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)