Talk:Philip Wilson (bishop)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Criticism of handling of child abuse allegations[edit]

I'll try to put something in regarding these in the next few days. For the moment, here is the ABC coverage, and his response. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at doing this. However, I didn't mention the comments about the alledged rampant abuse at St Pius X High School. I felt this was less substantiated than the other two claims I have covered. TurquoiseThreads (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alleged mishandling of sexual abuse of children[edit]

I've rewritten this section, and would like to get some thoughts regarding the sourcing, weight and tone of the content as it stands. In particular, I'd appreciate some discussion relating to the following points:

  1. Currently this section takes up a large part of the article. I have more sources and content to add, but even with that, should we consider cutting it down?
  2. I haven't included the name of the victim that alleges Wilson knew about his abuse in the 70s, should we add it?
  3. I have used the word "alleged" in the case of the abuse by McAlinden, because the article doesn't say he was convicted for these crimes, even though it is definite (ie doesn't use the word alleged). Should we use the word alleged, or should we follow the article.
  4. Is this section neutral? I've tried to keep it neutral, but I'd appreciate some constructive criticism.
  5. Partly related to the above point, but the ABC came under fire for this story (I realise the Australian isn't entirely neutral regarding the ABC, but their take makes some good points). Is it worth mentioning this stuff?

Thoughts?  -- Lear's Fool 13:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing[edit]

I only looked at a single sentence ... so.

Source states: "and later he was transferred to a remote parish in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Over the next decade he sexually assaulted five more girls under the age of 10."

Article states: "but instead, McAlinden was transferred to a remote West Australian parish, where he sexually assaulted five more girls under the age of 10"

Should be rephrased. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to respond here, although it will be relevant to my ongoing RfA. The passage here, (and other sentences in this section) may resemble passages in the article by the ABC, in particular factual statements like "remote West Australian parish" and "sexually assaulted five more girls under the age of 10". What needs to be balanced here are close paraphrasing concerns on the one hand, and being sure to say what the source says on the other. These are quite serious accusations about a living person, after all. I was not particularly comfortable rephrasing key statements of fact from the article, but took care to structure paragraphs and (as far as possible) individual sentences differently from the source so as to avoid plagiarism. I'm not sure whether it is possible to rephrase the above sentence much more differently from the source while still maintaining fidelity to the ABC article.  -- Lear's Fool 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The next closest thing I can find is the phrase from the article "A victim of Fletcher alleged that Wilson, who had lived on the same property as Fletcher in the 1970s, should have been aware that he was being assaulted in Fletcher's upstairs bedroom." This is close to "Now a victim of convicted paedophile Father James Fletcher, who died in jail in 2006, says Archbishop Philip Wilson was a priest living in the bishop's house in Maitland when Fletcher was also living there in the late 1970s, and that Philip Wilson should have been aware that he was being sexually abused in Fletcher's upstairs bedroom."
This is probably too close to the original, and I have slightly reworded it. However, I still feel that this is one of those situations where there aren't that many ways of expressing the idea, especially given the necessity to remain faithful to the source.  -- Lear's Fool 16:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The best thing to do, when in doubt, is to attribute directly to the source and use the phrase verbatim in quotation marks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask how this doesn't fall into the category of appropriate paraphrasing, given the difficulty in finding other ways to express the idea? Also, please don't think I'm trying to be difficult or narky here (I don't mean to be), I'm just trying to pick your brain (so to speak).  -- Lear's Fool 16:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If I can't think of a way to express the idea without close paraphrasing, I almost always use as a quotation. In this case there's nothing wrong with attributing to the news source and using their exact words in quotation marks. The problem with the piece as it was written is that it wasn't even attributed. Hope this is helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is helpful. I'm afraid it's too late for me to look over it tonight (it's 3:30 am here), but I'll give it a rewrite in the morning and ask what you think. Sound good?  -- Lear's Fool 17:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. Btw - you should know appropriate paraphrasing never uses the text in a word-for-word manner. Better to summarize larger bits of texts, or to paraphrase multiple sentences. Anyway, I'll keep this watched and see how you get on with it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)