Talk:Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Problems with this article[edit]

The title of this article is problematic. The word "scandal" is emotive and not neutral. It needs to be changed to something like "prosecutions". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Delete this nonsense. Francis Hannaway 18:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Francis Hannaway (talk)