Jump to content

Talk:Micheál Ledwith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourcing

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This source does not appear to meet the requirements outlined in WP:RS and WP:BLP. Dreadstar † 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me why an official report commissioned by the Irish Government and written by a retired Supreme Court of Ireland judge which investigates the history of sexual abuse by members of the clergy in Ireland and which references directly the person this article is written about is not a reliable source?r011in 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself does not appear to be a reliable source, much less one that meets the strict requirements of WP:BLP. Surely there are other sites that you can find with the information that backs this up. I don't doubt the story or the ruling, but I don't think the sites provided are reliable sorces. A talk radio show broadcast that has no transcript or proof of fact-checking or a "your comments" section on the BBC website, or bishop-accountability.org that has absolutely no indication of who put the material on the page, who fact-checked it or other information that can help us see that it's a reliable source?? I don't think so. We cannot leave Wikipedia open to charges of libel. Find better sources and present them here on the talk page before re-insterting any of these accusations or claims. Dreadstar † 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, I will do exactly that and revert.r011in 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That will be great, if you find new and appropriate sources, then it won't really be problematic reverting or adding further BLP violations. Dreadstar † 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the new source below under a new headingr011in 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ferns Report

[edit]

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)[reply]

Isn't there an offical court site that will have the documentation? Dreadstar † 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless I pay for it, and then it's hard copy only. See here[3]r011in 20:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for more opinions on these sources. Dreadstar † 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it is important enough to warrant the trouble you're going to, and I do appreciate it.r011in 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding. I've made a request on the BLP talk page for more eyes on this, and may broaden the search from there. Dreadstar † 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps to clear up the legitimacy of the sources I've used, the Ferns Report article itself in Wikipedia uses this reference. [4], as does this article Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases. I think that my source at the One in Four website is probably a better one. The accusations are referred to at Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases, anyway, so it will just be copying information which is already on Wikipedia onto another page, albeit this one is a biographical page.r011in 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, it's the same questionable references. I've found a better BBC new link to replace the "viewers comments" one, but I haven't examined the transcript to see if it contains content sufficient to re-add the critical commentary on Ledwith. Messy, the sourcing for all these articles. Dreadstar † 23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing yet then on the BLP talk page? What happens next?-- r011in (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but you'll have to find a better source, that's all there is to it. Another editor has also questioned one of the sources on another article. Dreadstar † 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the diamond in the rough you've been looking for? Please check this out, it is a recording of the relevant show, including the interview with the "whistleblower" and it is in mp3 format, which means you just have to right click and save as onto your desktop. It is from RTE's website[5], and remember that RTE are the state broadcasting company of Ireland. I hope this helps [6]-- r011in (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added compensation ref and Ferns Report section

[edit]

Why had these been left out?86.42.229.38 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version of article

[edit]

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)[reply]

On the Ferns Report article you'll see links to the 2005 Irish parliamentary debates which were scathing of the limited McCullough Report; see [7] and [8].86.46.230.150 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Senator Mary Henry: "With regard to Monsignor Ledwith, I was dismayed to read the response of the bishops to whom complaints were made by six senior seminarians, as they are described in the report, as well as the senior dean of Maynooth College, Fr. Gerard McGinnity. Cardinal Daly, one of the surviving bishops, indicated in his statement to the inquiry that it was entirely untrue that any seminarian had mentioned homosexuality to him in connection with Monsignor Ledwith. He also stated it was not credible that he would have ignored allegations of homosexuality when he was already investigating the issue in Maynooth College. The Cardinal added that if the issue had been raised with him, Monsignor Ledwith would never have been appointed president of Maynooth College. Unfortunately, I have found that the Cardinal’s memory is not always clear." [9].86.46.230.150 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another new version

[edit]

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)[reply]

new amendments

[edit]

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)[reply]

This needs other eyes. I have raised the issues at the biographies of living people noticeboard, as I'm concerned that the current version focuses too much on rumours and unsubstantiated allegations, but correct weight is a difficult thing to evaluate. - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I think it is heading in a better direction now. My concern is mostly about weight: given that the allegations were unsubstantiated, in particular those regarding the 1994 case and the McCullough report, I don;t know how much we should be going into them - as its stands, it presents Ledwith in a manner that isn't consistent with the findings of either report. The 1994 case is notably worrying, as the opening paragraph to "The McGinnity Affair" focuses on those charges, but that the charges were completely dropped after the complainant changed his story is not mentioned until the last line of the second to last paragraph in the next section. But that's part of my concern with the tone - it comes across as too critical of Ledwith, given the lack of substantiated allegations. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion with with editors

[edit]

Michael Ledwith

[edit]

Michael Ledwith (edit | 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:

  • Michael Ledwith was President of a major seminary in Ireland, and resigned suddenly before his term expired. It was later revealed that he was being investigated in regard to a sexual abuse claim against a minor, with Ledwith denied. The investigation did not come to a conclusion, as Ledwith reach a private settlement that included a confidentially clause, preventing progress.
  • A second abuse claim emerged from the time after he resigned as President but before he left the college. That claim was dropped after the claimant changed his story and stated that the incident was consensual. Ledwith denied the allegation, consensual or otherwise.
  • There were claims in the media that Ledwith had previously been accused of sexual harassment by students at the college, but that the college had not acted properly. The college initiated the McCullough Report, which was unable to find any students who had made claims about harrassment. It did find that they had complained about his propensities - particularly that he might be homosexual and had focused to much on worldly goods.
  • The Ferns Report looked into Ledwith, and could not substantiate the first claim, due to the confidentially agreement, and questioned the reliability of the second. It was critical of Ledwith, though.

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)[reply]

I reverted his recent additions - for "large reliance on primary reports" - and left the user a link to this discussion thread and asked him not to replace without discussion and some degree of support for the expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[edit]

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Micheál_Ledwith&oldid=1208125569"