Talk:2010 Vatican employee sex scandal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 Vatican employee sex scandal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

European Microstates: Vatican City

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Vatican City portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as Low-importance).

Italy

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Criminal history of the papacy[edit]

I assert that this is not a reliable source. It appears to have been published from "Nexus Magazine", and the same cover includes such headlines as "Time travel portals and weather wars", "The Secret UFO Agenda","9/11 deception", and "Global warming fraud". this is clearly a pulp conspiracy rag. The content attributed to this "book" should be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the blockquote is not from him, but appears to be taken from "The quarterly review of the American Protestant Association", from 1844, or possibly "The British Magazine" from MDCCCXXXVIII (sorry, bad at roman numerals, someone else figure that out.) Neither of these would I really consider neutral or reliable sources, especially considering the major religious divisuions and accusations hurled from one side to the other. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, the entire quote is not even on topic. "Prostitution in the Vatican City". The section is talking about the Council of Constance, which took place in Constance Germany. Based on the above arguments, I am going to remove that source and content as being unreliable, and not on topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the Nexus source, not the other though. There is even a monument commemorating the use of prostitutes at the event. I believe it is relevant to Prostitution and the Vatican issues. To not mention it would be silly.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is something that happened in germany relevant to an article about Vatican City? If you want to re-topic the article to be something about prostitution involving the catholic church, then it would be teneable I think, but not the way it is now? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Roman Catholic? Yes, I agree that it would be better suited to Prostitution involving the Catholic Church but I was trying to kill two birds with one stone. To dismiss that 1414-8 event as nonsense though is silly even if it isn't that relevant in this particular article. They even made the Imperia bust to commemorate it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. Born Greek Orthodox, Childhood non-denominational Baptist, now mostly agnostic. I am not saying that the history of sexual deviancy by the Catholic Church is not notable or interesting, or unsourced. Im just saying it is off topic for an article entitled "Prostitution in the Vatican City". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, regarding the statue itself, I was under the impression that it was a commemorative statue from the time of the event (or shortly after). However "The Imperia was put up in 1993 clandestinely at night. Before that, there was a lot of contoversy about the sculpture in the town council, there was a lot of criticism about the satiric way the pope and the king were depicted....The harbour area is owned hy the "Deutsche Bundesbahn" (German Rail). And the company welcomed the Imperia. ", so it seems more like Guerilla art from the 90s that became notable, a far cry from the way it was alluded to here. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but in future consider discussing any issues you have first before plastering tags and removing content to avoid potential conflict...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross post: Content Issues[edit]

This comment was cross posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution involving Vatican City

Comment: This article suffers several content issues that it cannot be accepted in its current form. The "Background" section strongly borders on original research/synthesis, as it suggests a connection between this particular scandal and the sexual abuse of minors. This connection is unsubstantiated by references, even though individual facts are adequately cited. The incident would otherwise appear isolated, and suggesting larger connections without sufficient documentation is inappropriate. As for the extensive quotes from the Catechism, these seem unnecessary. Of course the Vatican teaches that prostitution is immoral, this barely needs stating. Including the teachings regarding homosexuality are a bit more relevant, as this attitude is rapidly becoming less common. However, the extensive quoting, would seem to be an attempt to spin this as hypocrisy on the church's part, making this a "gotcha" article. It is more the case that the church has detailed teaching regarding appropriate behavior, such that individual violators, such as the ushers involved in the story, can be appropriately disciplined.

I would strongly recommend the "background" section be removed, with at most much shorter quote from the catechism regarding prostitution/homosexuality, in the interest of neutrality and reliable sourcing. Significant copy editing for the remainder is also required to make clear who the actors are, and their role in the Vatican. I might also suggest considering a more precise name for the article, as there are several competing sexual scandals involving the Vatican. Only if these content issues can be addressed would I support a Keep. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Importance???[edit]

Why is the activity of two part-time employees over four years ago of mid-importance to anyone? Mannanan51 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. changed to low. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A previous version, though of extremely poor quality, purported to discuss a topic of sufficient notability to have been ranked mid. Also changed ranking for Wikiproject:Sexuality. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Part time employees" accurate[edit]

Mr. Balducci, a consultant to the Vatican on major construction projects - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/europe/05vatican.html?_r=0

Ehiem, a professional chorister... lost his job - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/04/vatican-gay-sex-scandal

Both sources already cited in the article.

This Edit I inadvertently marked "minor - reference formatting error". There was formatting error when I hit "preview", rather than "save", and I had thought I was correcting the error in the saved version. This edit is where I added the details regarding the individual's employment. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Vatican City[edit]

Cross posted with: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution involving Vatican City

Prostitution in Vatican City (or a variant) might still be a viable article in its own right, if it were carefully written to provide a portal to both historic prostitution associated with the Papal States, as well as the handful of contemporary incidents in the modern city-state. Very careful attention would have to spent to avoid undue weight to minor incidents in such a mid-level importance article. The work of the closely related Holy See and other church sectors addressing sex work might also be briefly discussed. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation[edit]

The procuring of men for other men's pleasure is wrong and unjust. A majority of the men that were caught all worked as Gentlemen for His Holiness. Actions took by these men were unheard of and took people by surprise. One of the men that were caught was married and still decided to do something that would hurt his relationship with others. Although it is wrong to search for every little thing that is going on in the lives of people that work for you, people should be able to decipher whether or not their actions will hurt their opportunities elsewhere.--Lerb128 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]