Talk:Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy
|This page was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This article was proposed for deletion by DustFormsWords (talk · contribs) on 2010-05-02 with the comment:
This article, while notable, consists largely of unsourced, poorly sourced or poorly explained statements about living persons. We should probably have an article on this, but it needs to be a better-written one than this and I don't have the expertise to fix it myself.
It was contested by Cnilep (talk · contribs) on 2010-05-02 with the comment:
Deletion is not for clean-up. I have removed the elements marked as 'citation needed' and given more specific description of the charges per Irish Review. I encourage those more knowledgeable about these cases to make additional clean-up.
|WikiProject Ireland||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Problems with this article
- I don't find it too bad, given that similar articles have similar titles, such as sexual abuse scandal in the Congregation of Christian Brothers and sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese. ADM (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The Names of the Two Accusers of Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe
The mames of the accuser Regina Walsh and her "witness" Patricia Phelan became public property when they gave an interview to the Star newspaper shortly after Nora Walsh and Pablo McCabe were convicted. The interview was, in fact, the main thing that brought the case against Wall and McCabe crashing down. Full details are in the main Wikipedia article on Nora Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Wall Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
For example the names of the two accusers are in Studies Quartely Review for December 2006 which is footnote 1 of the current article AND in the Judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal of December 2005 which is footnote number 3. Both are available on the Internet and are major sources for the Wikipedia article on Nora Wall. Numerous newspapers articles footnoted in the Wikipedia "Nora Wall" article also mention them by name. Kilbarry1 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have to revisit the sources later, but generally we are not required to add names of people on the grounds that they have been published elsewhere, although that is required if we are going to do so. We can't use Wikipedians as a source, though, whatever happens. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. You might also review the source for this statement: "Mercy Sisters were also accused of physically, verbally and emotionally, and perhaps even sexually abusing, or allowing lay personnel to sexually abuse, children under the care of the order." The Guardian article given as source does NOT state that the Sisters of Mercy were accused of sexually abusing children NOR that they allowed lay personnel to sexually abuse children. Apart from the Nora Wall debacle, no Sister of Mercy was even accused in court, still less convicted, of the sexual abuse of children - or indeed of any crime. Kilbarry1 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're right - I've reworded that section. Generally, these articles seem to have been created in response to the Ryan Report, and don't always have a lot to warrant their existence. In this case, much of the content appears to have been unsupported by the sources or to have been pulled out of general discussions not necessarily related here. I've removed a lot of the problematic stuff, but I guess the main question is whether or no this content would be better served in other articles, such as Sisters of Mercy and individual case articles, where sufficiently notable. It also seems significant that the abuse accusations tended to revolve around physical rather than sexual abuse, yet this article is focused on sexual abuse claims. But I guess we'll see. - Bilby (talk)
Delete this libelous article
This article implies that the Sisters of Mercy were involved in a scandal. The article then goes on to explain 1) They were accused but found not culpable, 2) They paid money into a general compensation fund - without implication. POV and original research of the most scurrilous type.