. I'll add a hatnote for Sexual abuse#Positions of power. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Clergy sex abuse scandal }} → :Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clergy_sex_abuse_scandal&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-06&end=2020-09-04&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Clergy_sex_abuse_scandal stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Clergy sex abuse scandal|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Clergy sex abuse scandal closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Clergy sex abuse scandal|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Clergy sex abuse scandal closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Clergy sex abuse scandal|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Clergy sex abuse scandal closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Not synonymous, as "clergy" without any specification is ambiguous. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget - At this point I'm not sure where to retarget. Such a redirect is grossly inaccurate and misleading. There are more than a few documented cases of non-Catholic clergy who have sexually abused. The redirect makes the assumption that all clergy sex abuse cases are in the Catholic church, which is not only inaccurate, it's prejudicial. Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
::Retarget to Sexual abuse#Positions of power. Sundayclose (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that there are a number of other non-Catholic-specific redirects to the target page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. This is easily the primary topic for the phrase. Sure, it's theoretically ambiguous, but no actual ambiguity has been presented, and certainly not to the level of the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Tavix}} No evident ambiguity??? Are you denying that non-Catholic clergy have sexually abused? Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Of course not. All I'm saying is that no articles on such abuse have been presented to prove that the term is ambiguous enough to deny the current target from its current position as the primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
::::That argument evades the issue that not all clergy sex abuse is Catholic clergy sex abuse. I quickly found one article (Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse) and there could be others now and/or in the future. There are publicized cases involving other denominations. The fact that no one has written an article on them is not a valid basis for a misleading redirect. The reality is, no specific religion or denomination should be a target of the redirect because it is misleading. Another possibility is to redirect to Religious abuse, which is a more general concept but at least not misleading; that article contains links to related sex abuse articles. If an appropriate target can't be found, the redirect page should be deleted. So if "retarget" is not an option my !vote is delete. Keeping a misleading redirect because there's no other target is not necessary and is unencyclopedic. Sundayclose (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Tavix, but add a hatnote. On the first five pages of google 100% of the results for Clergy "sex abuse scandal"|"sexual abuse scandal" -Wikipedia are about the Catholic church. This is not denying that clergy from other religions have engaged in sexual abuse, simply reflecting the reality that nearly every who uses this search term is looking for information about the scandal of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. It doesn't matter why that is, just that it is, but "clergy" is not a term widely used to describe a specific group of people in the Jehovah's Witness faith (and it may even be incorrect to do so, I'm not sure) so anyone looking for information about sexual abuse in the context of that religion would be very unlikely to search using that word. Another factor to consider is that sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has been a much bigger scandal than has abuse by practictioners of other faiths. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::I must disagree that we maintain an inaccurate and prejudicial redirect just because of the particular terminology used by any other denomination, as well the fact that just because no one has written an article on other denominations is not a valid basis for a misleading redirect. Wikipedia should not be perpetuating such bias just because its editors haven't gotten around to writing or completing articles. That's unencyclopedic and would not pass muster in a quality encyclopedia with professional editorial control. Sundayclose (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
:::That we don't have articles about other denominations is not relevant. If we did though it would be very significantly less likely that someone using this search term would be looking for them than they would be for the current target and so it would still be appropriate - the other articles would be linked in a hatnote (either directly for via a disambiguation page depending how many there were). This redirect is not incorrect (the target is about a sex abuse scandal), and whether it is or is not prejudicial is not relevant (see WP:RNEUTRAL) given that it is just reflecting the reality that almost everybody using this search term is looking for the current target. Literally the only two things we are concerned about here are whether the redirect is a useful search term and, if so, whether the current target is the best one. The answer to the first question is a clear yes, based on the stats and the huge number of hits on google for the exact phrase. The answer to the second question is also yes, given that the current target matches the subject of every single one of the top 50+ google hits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
