Talk:NET Ministries

Discussion of Kolar abuse

Hello! I saw this page was subject to a dispute on WP:3O. I've previously provided a third opinion on three issues with another page involving the editors disputing here, and we reached a consensus on 2 of the 3, so I'm optimistic I can chip in here. This all said, the debate is currently featured on LinnCDoyle2's talk page. Rather than respond there, I've done my best to summarize the debate and the issues here, as I strongly feel that the discussion should be on this talk page, so it can be easily accessed by future editors.

The question is whether to include this content, which relates to abuse allegation against Michael Kolar.

To summarize the debate so far: @Arbitrarily0: opposes inclusion: He thinks there is an insufficient relationship between the allegations and NET. Arbitrarily0 draws a comparison between this page and the page on the U.S. Army, saying that, though there have been many instances of sexual abuse within the Army, those incidents are not notable enough to be on the United States Army page. @LinnCDoyle2: supports inclusion, and has provided a number of sources that generally discuss the abuse allegations and Kolar's connection to NET. LinnCDoyle2 also points out that Kolar is identified as the head of the "Catholic Youth Centre, which involved him overseeing NET Ministries," noting that, as stated on the Wikipedia page, NET began as part of the Catholic Youth Centre.

1. I think I disagree with Arbitrarily0's Army comparison, for two reasons.
   1. Obviously, Wikipedia is not constrained by the normal rules of a paper encyclopedia. True, summary style should be followed, but the United States Army page is significantly longer than this page—there's far more reliable information on the U.S. Army than on NET Ministries. Indeed, one of the reasons sexual abuse in the army isn't significantly discussed there is because Wikipedia has an entire separate article on sexual assault in the United States military. I think we can all agree that a separate article on sexual abuse in NET Ministries wouldn't be appropriate, but that doesn't mean that reliably sourced information on that abuse should be censored from Wikipedia.
   2. I'm also not sure this is an appropriate invocation of due weight. This article, though not quite a stub, is very short: If describing the abuse allegations creates undue weight, I would argue that the defect would lie in the other sections, which should be expanded. I don't think it'd be appropriate to censor information on abuse until the defective brevity of those other sections is addressed.
2. That said, there remains the question of whether NET is reliably tied to the abuse. According to one of the sources LinnCDoyle2 provided, Kolar was either the director of NET at the time that he committed abuse or at the time he was sued by two plaintiffs related to that abuse. Unfortunately, the text is, by my reading, ambiguous: it says that "[i]n 1991 [two plaintiffs] sued ... Kolar ... for childhood sexual abuse ... suffered at the hands of Father Kolar. At the time, Father Kolar was director of the Catholic Youth Center and NET." Further, I share Arbitrarily0's concern about this source and the others provided.
   1. As to the aforementioned source, it's a plaintiffs' attorney website, which really doesn't meet WP:RS. More troubling, that plaintiffs' firm appears to be the firm that represented the plaintiffs who sued Kolar. [1]
   2. Separately, LinnCDoyle2 provides a couple primary sources, which we should at least be cautious about.
   3. The best source that LinnCDoyle2 provides is from Minnesota Public Radio, but, unfortunately, it also contains the briefest discussion of Kolar, and it makes no mention of NET. Only three brief paragraphs discuss Kolar at all, and the only one that relates to his offenses is a single sentence: "Kolar, who had admitted sexually exploiting young women, said it wasn't until he entered treatment that he realized he had also been a victim."
3. I've done my best to look for other sources on this subject.
   1. This is a 2014 (pay-walled) article by the St. Paul Pioneer Press reporting on the lawsuit. "Michael G. Kolar, a former priest who directed the Catholic Youth Center in St. Paul, was kept in ministry even after officials learned he had sexually abused underage girls beginning in the 1970s, according to documents released Wednesday as part of a lawsuit."
   2. Here, is another (non-paywalled) Minnesota Public Radio article, but this one focuses on a Kolar document release. The nice thing about this article is that it mostly clarifies the ambiguity that I read into the attorney website, though only with regard to CYC: It makes fairly clear that Kolar engaged in the abuse while he ran the Center. ("Kolar, who ran the archdiocese's Catholic Youth Center, admitted in depositions in 1988 and 1991 to having sexual contact with young adults at the center in St. Paul and elsewhere.")

Despite the additional sources, I think there's a remaining issue that cautions in favor of exclusion, for now. None of the reliable sources I can find tie NET to Kolar or the abuse allegations. The argued ground for inclusion is that that Kolar directed the parent organization of NET. But, it appears to me, inclusion on this basis alone would be the equivalent to us saying, "Well, Kolar directed NET's parent organization, so reliable sources should be tying NET to his abuse." This is made all the more clear by the proposed section title: "Child protection issues". Who says that there are child-protection issues with NET? None of the reliable sources I could find. In other words, that claim appears to be a conclusion—one drawn from improper synthesis.

If this were an article on the Catholic Youth Center, I'd say that there's enough here to warrant inclusion. And I don't think we're particularly far off here: By my understanding, there doesn't necessarily needs to be an article directly mentioning NET and the abuse allegation, though that would, of course, be ideal. If a reliable source discussed the fact that Kolar was effectively in charge of NET or otherwise significant to NET, then that connection could be included with an additional sentence (not an entirely separate section) noting the abuse allegations.

I hope this is helpful! Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually there is no dispute as to whether or not Kolar was director of NET.

Kolar was director of NET.

This is reported in newspapers.

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Michael-Kolar-Hot-Docs_Part1.pdf

This document contains a collection of articles regarding Kolar (though published by the same publisher as the primary source - included within are collected secondary sources - news articles).

On page 37 is a copy of the Catholic Bulletin newspaper, Vol 78 No 16 April 21 1988.

See page 3 of this newspaper copy - bottom right corner.

"Father Michael Kolar is director of the St Paul Catholic Youth Centre and President of the National Evangelization Teams".

To which @Arbitrarily0 responded that this source was satisfactory evidence that Kolar was in fact director of NET.

Rather the specific issue here is that:

- Kolar committed abuse while director of the CYC

- Kolar was director of NET at the time

Are confirmed in separate secondary publication.

@Arbitrarily0 believes that reporting 'Kolar committed abuses while director of NET' would therefore be synthesis - though I myself am confused as to what the original conclusion being drawn here is.

Does this information affect your opinion here - given that your key issue seems to be that there is no way to verify the primary source stating that Kolar was director of NET? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, I'd revise my statement as follows:

• I agree with Arbitrarily0 on the synthesis issue: I think the sources that I've discovered (linked above) establish he was head of the CYC when the abuse occurred, but we do not know that he was also President of the NET at the time. That is, the implicit assumption appears to be that the positions were concurrent, but that's not clear.
• I agree with LinnCDoyle that the information should be included, although not in a separate section. Rather, Kolar's leadership should be noted followed by a sentence on the allegations. The connection here isn't the strongest: There's no reliable source that discusses NET and the abuse allegations, and the only secondary source discussing Koler's connection to NET comes at the end of an op-ed that he wrote—and the coverage should, therefore, be brief.

Proposed text:

In 1988, Michael Kolar was the president of NET.[ref removed] [Or, if we could get a better source—something like "Michael Kolar was the president of NET during the time_range.] In depositions between 1988 and 1991, Kolar admitted to having abused young adults at the Catholic Youth Center in St. Paul and elsewhere; after being the subject of a lawsuit by alleged victims, Koler voluntarily left the priesthood.[ref removed]

I'll go ahead and add this to the article as a compromise--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems sensible - thanks for your input. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if you could also clarify for me the issue of synthesis.

The reporting of abuse shows the years covered by abuse.

The newspaper article showing that NET was directed by Kolar is within this time period.

Is it really synthesis to conclude that the two were therefore concurrent? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I have also amended your edit to "minors" not "young adults"

See https://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/07/23/kolar-document-release

"The claims against Kolar are well-documented from past lawsuits, and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis included Kolar in an updated list of those "against whom claims of sexual abuse of a minor within our archdiocese have been found to be substantiated," published on its website in February."

I believe in the context of that article, "young adults" refers to teenagers (ie, minors, legally speaking). LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We have to be careful when saying what he admitted to versus what was alleged—BLP applies here. However, I edited the statement to include that he was accused of child sexual abuse, to make it clear that the question concerned minors. As to synthesis: the real problem is we don't know whether abuse occurred during the year or particular time period that he was president of NET (the fact that he was accused for committing abuse within a time range doesn't mean that he was abusing kids 24/7 during that time range)—let alone the extent of the abuse (one victim during that time period? multiple?). Regardless, I think the current text addresses all concerns.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think the current text is suitable thank you.

The dates are well outlined in the Anderson Advocates collection of source.

So I do not think there is synthesis here - we do in fact know the dates of the abuse, and they are concurrent with the dates during which Kolar is reported as president of NET. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is the 24/7 issue. But since we both agree the current text suitable, I think we're all good here!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey—I noticed that you re-added minors. I added "accused of child sexual abuse" as a compromise edit, but we can't assume what he directly admitted to in depositions—we need a reliable source. Right now, the only reliable source says that he admitted to abusing young adults.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, you would need reporting of the actual content of the admission - not just reporting that the abuse was substantiated through kolars admission in a case about abuse of minors? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes—when it comes to saying exactly what he admitted to, it's better to be safe in light of WP:BLP. However, to show that the case did involve abuse of minors, I added "after being accused of engaging in child sexual abuse" to the article (compared to the text I originally proposed here)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I see - thanks LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)