This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
RTE Radio interview or talk show this refers to is unclear as to the particulars surrounding the fact checking and even the content of the show (apparently there is a sound file attached, but I was unable to open and listen to it). I've removed the link and the critical content it was sourcing per
WP:BLP as it appears to be poorly sourced.
Dreadstar
† 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well would it help to check Wikipedia for the entry Fr
Gerard McGinnity? Surely you can't argue over this source?
r011in 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You could also cite the
Ferns Report a copy of which you can find here
[1], now sir, please reinstate the facts, before I do!
r011in 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Would this source be suitable? [2] This organisation One in Four represents victims of abuse I believe. The founder Colm O'Gorman is a Senator in the Seanad. r011in 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Why had these been left out? 86.42.229.38 ( talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
On September 23, User:Greenagent completely rewrote this article, replacing it with a new version written from scratch. This was probably a good idea, as the old version was somewhat unbalanced and arguably violated our WP:BLP policy. However, the new version made no mention of the sexual abuse allegations which are part of the reason Mr. Ledwith is notable. (These are still mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as our article Ferns Report.) On careful consideration, I have re-added a brief section about this, with a reference to the RTE news report that was previously used; I believe it is well-sourced and worthy of mention in this article. Please discuss this here before removing it. Robofish ( talk) 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it fascinating to read this thread and my citing of newspaper reports and sections from McCullough and the Murphy Ferns report have also been subject to censor by self appointed editors. It is not at all to Wikipedia's credit that verfiable srouces can be subject to censoring by editors who remain anonymous and do not reveal their true identities. I note in the comments above that the versions of the Ferns report were quibbled - what a disgrace - I did not know that Wikipedia were so fussy about their verifiable sources, or sources from the National Broadcaster RTE, or for that matter the British Broadcasting Corporation who did their own investigation into the indiscipline of the Priests of the Diocese of Ferns. All of Msr Ledwiths actions reported are not allegations but matters of public fact and on the public record, whether it be State reports, reports of the Irish Parliament, newspaper reports in the Irish media. What more evidence do you people need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil80123 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now re-edited the text and merged our two texts into one coherent account. I have also completely changed the text of information taken from newspaper accounts, but note the RTE article is based on a statement issued by the Irish Catholic Bishops and considerable license can be used in quoting from this as it is based on quotation taken directly from the statement. I have also separated all the issues out to deal in detail with the child sex abuse charge, then the civil action by a former seminarian and finally the McGinnity affair. Finally I have read the Ferns report in detail and summarised its findings against Msr Ledwith and referenced this all in detail. The Ferns report tackles the 3 issues of the sexual abuse against a minor, the allegations of the former semanarian and the McGinnity affair in detail and I think it compliments the matters raised very well and is based on the findings of an Irish High Court judge. I have been neutral and fair to the subject, presented his side of the affair and also noted his considerable academic achievements, and left untouched your entry on his post-clerical career. On this basis I don't think there is anything in this article that can be complained about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil80123 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it would, overall, be better to omit the 1994 charge altogether in order to preserve balance as it is unsubstantiated. I will make the necessary changes now. I note that the article was considerably edited by another user who complained over citation of primary source material. I have quoted in my reversion the WP policy on primary sources. This article achieves a balance of primary and secondary sources and no attempt is made to manipulate the reports, particularly the Ferns report which contains hyper linking to the relevant passages of the report which are paraphrased in the article.
If editors wish to quibble about a lack of other secondary sources there are acres of newsprint available by simply conducting a google search on the subject, and instead of vandalising and truncating a carefully researched and written account, and replacing it with poorly written English they could contribute to the article by incorporating in further secondary sources. I will now support the primary research with newspaper articles from the Irish Independent and Irish TImes, the papers of record in Ireland. In this regard I am not directing my comment at Bilby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.218.163 ( talk) 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Michael Ledwith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think I need fresh eyes at Michael Ledwith, if anyone can spare some. A new editor, User:Neil80123, has been rewriting the article to focus on a series of sexual abuse allegations. Initially I was reverting due to the presence of extensive copyvio, although I also had concerns with undue weight and original research. The copyvio is now less of an issue after discussions on the user's talk page, but I suspect that the latest additions continue with reduced undue weight concerns as well as problems with what looks like OR, although the explicit commentary has now been removed. As a quick summary of the case, there are four points in regard to the abuse allegations:
Anyway, that's the background. As it stands the article now has extensive coverage of those issues, and I'm not sure what would be appropriate for the article. So it would be valuable if someone else could look into what the proper weight and tone should be. - Bilby ( talk) 13:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the criticisms into account and have balanced the primary source material with valid newspaper linking and backing them up. I have also take Bilby's critique into account and removed entirely the 1994 allegation of rape by a semanarian in order to achieve balance, noting that the charge was withdrawn by the complainant. I have also noted that no conclusions have been reached on Msr Ledwith's behaviour, but quoted the newspaper commentary and the account of the Ferns report, and recorded that Ledwith fully co-operated. I have rebalanced to say there are no conclusions, but the matter remains controversial in Ireland and have put in newspaper editorial on this. I think, in this case, it is very important to air the objective facts. I have also reinstated Bilby's section on his post clerical career and taken into account that this is necessary to achieve balance. On that basis I wpuld be wise that I am contacted directly before any further edits are made to this article, particularly the removal of the Ferns report section which throws light on the various allegations and is very balanced in its findings for and against Fr Ledwith. I think on this basis we need to leave these facts in as this report forms the basis for most of the newspaper coverage. Also in order to have credibility as a scholarly source then Wikipedia needs to incorporate primary source material, and I have, in my edits, noted the WP policy on Primary sources which have not been breached in this article. Finally this article needed to be substantially rewritten as that the facts were poorly listed and considered and it was the victim of the most god awful turgid prose I have ever seen. For God's sake if people are going to volunteer to be editors could they at least learn the skills of writing?
I am publishing this entry into the discussion forum of the article history.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Micheál Ledwith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2005_10_Ferns/ferns_5_4_response_diocese_ledwith_omega.pdf.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hamburgeruniverse.com/index.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hamburgeruniverse.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Micheál Ledwith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Micheál Ledwith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
RTE Radio interview or talk show this refers to is unclear as to the particulars surrounding the fact checking and even the content of the show (apparently there is a sound file attached, but I was unable to open and listen to it). I've removed the link and the critical content it was sourcing per
WP:BLP as it appears to be poorly sourced.
Dreadstar
† 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well would it help to check Wikipedia for the entry Fr
Gerard McGinnity? Surely you can't argue over this source?
r011in 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You could also cite the
Ferns Report a copy of which you can find here
[1], now sir, please reinstate the facts, before I do!
r011in 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Would this source be suitable? [2] This organisation One in Four represents victims of abuse I believe. The founder Colm O'Gorman is a Senator in the Seanad. r011in 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Why had these been left out? 86.42.229.38 ( talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
On September 23, User:Greenagent completely rewrote this article, replacing it with a new version written from scratch. This was probably a good idea, as the old version was somewhat unbalanced and arguably violated our WP:BLP policy. However, the new version made no mention of the sexual abuse allegations which are part of the reason Mr. Ledwith is notable. (These are still mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as our article Ferns Report.) On careful consideration, I have re-added a brief section about this, with a reference to the RTE news report that was previously used; I believe it is well-sourced and worthy of mention in this article. Please discuss this here before removing it. Robofish ( talk) 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it fascinating to read this thread and my citing of newspaper reports and sections from McCullough and the Murphy Ferns report have also been subject to censor by self appointed editors. It is not at all to Wikipedia's credit that verfiable srouces can be subject to censoring by editors who remain anonymous and do not reveal their true identities. I note in the comments above that the versions of the Ferns report were quibbled - what a disgrace - I did not know that Wikipedia were so fussy about their verifiable sources, or sources from the National Broadcaster RTE, or for that matter the British Broadcasting Corporation who did their own investigation into the indiscipline of the Priests of the Diocese of Ferns. All of Msr Ledwiths actions reported are not allegations but matters of public fact and on the public record, whether it be State reports, reports of the Irish Parliament, newspaper reports in the Irish media. What more evidence do you people need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil80123 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now re-edited the text and merged our two texts into one coherent account. I have also completely changed the text of information taken from newspaper accounts, but note the RTE article is based on a statement issued by the Irish Catholic Bishops and considerable license can be used in quoting from this as it is based on quotation taken directly from the statement. I have also separated all the issues out to deal in detail with the child sex abuse charge, then the civil action by a former seminarian and finally the McGinnity affair. Finally I have read the Ferns report in detail and summarised its findings against Msr Ledwith and referenced this all in detail. The Ferns report tackles the 3 issues of the sexual abuse against a minor, the allegations of the former semanarian and the McGinnity affair in detail and I think it compliments the matters raised very well and is based on the findings of an Irish High Court judge. I have been neutral and fair to the subject, presented his side of the affair and also noted his considerable academic achievements, and left untouched your entry on his post-clerical career. On this basis I don't think there is anything in this article that can be complained about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil80123 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it would, overall, be better to omit the 1994 charge altogether in order to preserve balance as it is unsubstantiated. I will make the necessary changes now. I note that the article was considerably edited by another user who complained over citation of primary source material. I have quoted in my reversion the WP policy on primary sources. This article achieves a balance of primary and secondary sources and no attempt is made to manipulate the reports, particularly the Ferns report which contains hyper linking to the relevant passages of the report which are paraphrased in the article.
If editors wish to quibble about a lack of other secondary sources there are acres of newsprint available by simply conducting a google search on the subject, and instead of vandalising and truncating a carefully researched and written account, and replacing it with poorly written English they could contribute to the article by incorporating in further secondary sources. I will now support the primary research with newspaper articles from the Irish Independent and Irish TImes, the papers of record in Ireland. In this regard I am not directing my comment at Bilby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.218.163 ( talk) 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Michael Ledwith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think I need fresh eyes at Michael Ledwith, if anyone can spare some. A new editor, User:Neil80123, has been rewriting the article to focus on a series of sexual abuse allegations. Initially I was reverting due to the presence of extensive copyvio, although I also had concerns with undue weight and original research. The copyvio is now less of an issue after discussions on the user's talk page, but I suspect that the latest additions continue with reduced undue weight concerns as well as problems with what looks like OR, although the explicit commentary has now been removed. As a quick summary of the case, there are four points in regard to the abuse allegations:
Anyway, that's the background. As it stands the article now has extensive coverage of those issues, and I'm not sure what would be appropriate for the article. So it would be valuable if someone else could look into what the proper weight and tone should be. - Bilby ( talk) 13:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the criticisms into account and have balanced the primary source material with valid newspaper linking and backing them up. I have also take Bilby's critique into account and removed entirely the 1994 allegation of rape by a semanarian in order to achieve balance, noting that the charge was withdrawn by the complainant. I have also noted that no conclusions have been reached on Msr Ledwith's behaviour, but quoted the newspaper commentary and the account of the Ferns report, and recorded that Ledwith fully co-operated. I have rebalanced to say there are no conclusions, but the matter remains controversial in Ireland and have put in newspaper editorial on this. I think, in this case, it is very important to air the objective facts. I have also reinstated Bilby's section on his post clerical career and taken into account that this is necessary to achieve balance. On that basis I wpuld be wise that I am contacted directly before any further edits are made to this article, particularly the removal of the Ferns report section which throws light on the various allegations and is very balanced in its findings for and against Fr Ledwith. I think on this basis we need to leave these facts in as this report forms the basis for most of the newspaper coverage. Also in order to have credibility as a scholarly source then Wikipedia needs to incorporate primary source material, and I have, in my edits, noted the WP policy on Primary sources which have not been breached in this article. Finally this article needed to be substantially rewritten as that the facts were poorly listed and considered and it was the victim of the most god awful turgid prose I have ever seen. For God's sake if people are going to volunteer to be editors could they at least learn the skills of writing?
I am publishing this entry into the discussion forum of the article history.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Micheál Ledwith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2005_10_Ferns/ferns_5_4_response_diocese_ledwith_omega.pdf.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hamburgeruniverse.com/index.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hamburgeruniverse.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Micheál Ledwith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Micheál Ledwith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)