Talk:Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Victoria

40 suicides

The reference given to back up this number, a newspaper article which itself provides no references and gives no names or other information is insufficient. A better source is desperately needed. Is there no official report to refer to? As it stands, this is no more than gossip. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This article is sorely lacking in basic documentation. Where is a link to any internal church report confirming newspaper reports which themselves lack any verifiable sources or confirmable facts, or any public legal documents? Vague allegations of wrongdoing in the press without verifiable sources do not amount to neutral documentation. The facts implied by this article may be true, but as it stands, all one can garner is the notion that according to the press, something sensational has happened. This is an epic wikipedia fail as it stands. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A link to church documentation, while valuable, is not necessary if the sources are high quality. I'm not sure what you mean by the newspaper reports lacking "confirmable facts" - can you clarify? The allegations don't strike me as particularly "vague", however the WP editors have done the right thing by using the language "it was reported that".hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've located the official statement by the Archdiocese. It looks like the article is on solid ground. I'll add the source and remove the tag. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are great sources, thanks, Hamilton. The "40 suicides" is still very problematic though, since the Telegraph does not attribute it to any verifiable authority, but just asserts it. I will refrain from adding back any tags to the article, but this shocking claim needs a much better source. At this point it should be worded "according to an unconfirmed claim in the Telegraph", which is what I will do until we have a better source. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy with that edit. However, it does appear to be a reasonably well-established claim - we just need to trace it back. As you can see from this story in The Australian, the claims about suicides were made previously, and (according to the story) precipitated the inquiry. This ABC Lateline piece also refers to the suicides (though 30 is the number used here), and was aired in April 2012. I think the claim will turn out to be adequately verified (remembering that the statement we are verifying is "authorities received information that 40 victims of abuse within the state of Victoria had committed suicide" NOT that 40 such suicides occurred). hamiltonstone (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the qualification, having found three separate news reports on it, including one quoting the police. Let me know if you still think there is an issue. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's much better, but we still have the problem that none of these reports gives a source for the "dozens" "30" or "40" figures or attributes them to any individual in the state or the church. As it stands, I have added the minor qualification, "according to press reports" which is accurate at this point. Thanks for all the great effort. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Victorian police don't appear to make relevant media material available through the website, not that I've been able to find so far. Would this April 2012 statement from the Catholic Archdiocese meet your concerns? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the best source so far. The only issue is that even in the text the bishop says according to "reports in the media". So at this point we can't remove the "press reports" qualification. But we could say something like, "Citing press reports of some 40 suicides linked to abuse by clergy, Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said he thinks "that Victoria Police should give the report to the Coroner. There needs to be a proper investigation of any suicides." Great work, Mr. Stone! μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did a version of that, but reordered the paragraph. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In general, the changes, and especially the added sources are excellent. I have made some more minor changes, and removed the refernce to pell entirely, since he was cleared by an independent arbiter the accuser accepted, and including the charge amounts to the synthetic implication that he was actually guilty of something to do with this scandal. μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see your point in removing the Pell stuff. One suspects it may not be long before that incident / investigation / etc becomes associated with the current subject, but it is the right move at present. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)