User talk:Neil80123
Welcome
[edit]
|
Michael Ledwith
[edit]Hi. The article before your changes certainly has problems which need to be addressed. The problem is that your changes can't be kept as things stand. There are a few problems that need to be worked through. The first, and main reason why I'm forced to change it back, is that you've added a number of copyright violations through overly close paraphrasing. Thus, I'm afraid, according to policy, I'm forced to revert the changes to an older version. However, while this is the most immediate concern, there are some other issues that will need to be addressed. One is that much of the article reads as well-written opinion. In particular, the section entitled "Comment" is both unsourced and, it would appear, speculative. Similarly, large portions remain unsourced - the references you have provided work for some of the material, but not all, and where these sorts of articles are concerned we're forced to use references for everything. The previous version was also a problem on that regard, and I'd like to work through it, but the other concerns make reverting necessary even if the older version is, as is clearly the case, less than ideal.
More generally, one concern is that the article is focusing on one aspect of his life. As you say, most people won't be interested in issues outside of the allegations, but we need to be balanced in what we write, providing as much as possible a complete and neutral account. That means, perhaps, that we need to add more on the allegations, but we still need to balance that with other aspects of his life, such as other aspects of his career and his more recent activities. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Outrageous comment, what you call 'allegations' are the subject of a report by a High Court Judge, Mr Frank Murphy and another by Denis McCullough SC and substanital newspaper research and comment. Nothing of what is written in this article constitutes an 'allegation'; everything is the subject of public record in Ireland. Msr Ledwidth's activities were regarded with such gravity in Ireland that two reports have been commissioned on him, therefore you are dismissing what the Irish State itself regarded as serious charges as allegations, which is a conceit and arrogance beyond belief. It is a public fact, and underwritten by the Murphy report that Msr Ledwith was accused of a sexual impropriety with a minor and settled this in the civil courts and applied a gagging order which prevented any criminal proceedings or further probing by the Church and Health Board. It is a fact of public knowledge, also in the Murphy report, that Msr Ledwith was accused of sexually harassing young semanarians, and indeed some newspaper articles stated that the harassment was severe and used from a position of power to intimidate students. It is a matter of fact the Fr McGinnity was dismissed from the staff of Maynooth as a result of his complaint to the Bishops and this has been clearly found in the McCullough report. On this basis what you dismiss as 'allegations' are to the rest of the sane world, at least to those who investigated this man, facts. As to what constitutes his life subsequent to his clerical career is clearly not of interest to anyone beyond a passing reference. If that was to be the case then Wikipedia should have an entry for the 6 billion odd human beings who inhabit this planet and their mundane day to day work. It would be sufficient alone to state that he currently works with an American spiritual organisation and nothing else. Not that the circumstances are equivalent, but it would like like having an article on Jack the Ripper, if we knew his true identity, and devoting a small aspect to the murder of prostitutes and the rest to his noble acts and deeds. People are worthy of a biography not because of their work and deeds, but because of their public acts and deeds and Msr Ledwith was found severely wanting in regard to his public conduct. I find your insistence on reverting to a garbled and poorly written article strange and frankly quite sinister. What gives you the right to exclusivity in regard to this article?
With regard to your comment on copyright, all my sources are clearly instanced and from this perspective it cannot be stated that I have plagarised from other sources as the source material has been clearly referenced. I have merely reworked comments from verifiable and reliable organisations, including a report from the National broadcaster, RTE; an article from the Gorey Champion and from the Ferns report by Justice Frank Murphy and another report by Dennis MacCollough SC. This would be perfectly acceptable in an academic environment if referenced correctly, which it is. After all it was Dr Johnston who said that academic works were the taking of bones from one graveyard and putting them into another. Your comment that I do not have sufficient references and that in turn I take too much from references is highly dubious and completely self-contradictory. If this is the criteria adopted by Wikipedia then there is absolutely no chance that anything could be written on this subject, or any other, other than to stress the virtues of a biographical entry rather than the vices. This I would call taking fair comment to an obnoxious level and if you are concerned that Msr Ledwith might sue, then he is perfectly welcome to have himself laughed out of an Irish or any other court of law on the basis of a defence of justification and I would gladly put my name to this entry.
In regard to your opinion on what I write as 'comment', surely any good author worth his salt must analyse the facts objectively. If Wikipedia is to have credibilty as an online encyclopedia then objective commentary and opinion must be allowed pass if based on reliable source material - otherwise the Wikipedia project is going to perish on the rocks of incompentent and highly biased editors. To this extent I give my own opinion based on an objective consideration of the facts, and it is up to others to consider what I have written and change the perspective but not delete the content outright. It is an objective fact that the role of President of Maynooth was a highly distinguished post, as at the time the Pontifical College and the University had not been separated and Maynooth was thus one of 7 seven Universities in the State and the second oldest. It is also an objective fact that many former presidents of Maynooth were rewarded with a Bishopric. From this perspective the decision to appoint Msr Ledwith to the post was highly questionable, and indeed there is a recent Irish Independent article on the matter by the religious correspondent John Conney who reveals much more on the matter published on August 11th of this year. In fact the Bishops themselves were worried about the appointment and controversy of Fr McGinnity's complaint subsequently and commissioned their own report into the appointment which was highly critical of the lack of investigation into the character of this man. In fact on reconsideration of the facts the Roman Catholic Church regarded what you call as allegations as sufficient to defrock Msr Ledwith in 2005.
I am overall highly curious by your interest in subjects concerning Irish Catholic Church scandals and those also in Australia. I note that you are an enthusiastic editor of these. I will be reverting the article to his my version and each time you change it I will revert. On this basis you can seek to block me and I will appeal it to another editor on Wikipedia. If much of this content appears on other Wikipedia articles then you can hardly claim that what I write is plagiarism or lacks fair comment and does not meet the criteria for a living biographical entry.
Best,
Neil
- I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that the existing article is insufficient. The article needs to be improved. However, as mentioned, your changes are too big to manage in one hit, and introduce a lot of different problems. What is needed is something between the two. Part of the difficulty is that Wikipedia has a complex system of policies and guidelines, and these are particularly important when it comes to biographies of living people, due to the potential harm that can be caused. I'll try and help explain them, as I'd rather see the article fixed than just have to revert it back, and I'd really like to find a way forward.
- First, in regards to analysis: there's not much room to move, there. Wikipedia has a policy on original research which effectively precludes anyone from adding their own analysis or thoughts to an article. We can source analysis, where it has been made and published in reliable sources, but we're not allowed to add our own, irrespective as to how accurate it may be.
- The policy on copyright is generally a bit stricter that what you will find elsewhere, but it ties into the free-use license Wikipedia employs. In this case you're sticking too close to the original wording, in many cases using the same key words and sentence structure, but changing some words around. For example, in the original source it states: "The statement says that prior to his retirement, an allegation pertaining to sexual abuse of a minor was made against Monsignor Ledwith. He was informed of the allegation and denied it strenuously." You've combined the two sentences and reworded it a bit, but the result is still very close to the original: "The statement stated that prior to his retirement as President in 1994, an allegation pertaining to the sexual abuse of a minor was made against Monsignor Ledwith, who had denied it strenuously."
- The balance issue is an important one here. The article is about Michael Ledwith, and thus it should (and doesn't do enough on this) cover the allegations. However, it isn't about the sexual abuse allegations on their own, as important and serious as they are, so the article should also reflect other aspects of his life. You've removed his post-clerical career and much of his clerical career where it doesn't relate to the allegations, and this brings the focus almost exclusively on one part of his life. Admittedly, the original material is unsourced, so that it may have to be removed anyway, but we can't focus on just one aspect to the exclusion of the rest.
- Finally, to return to the sourcing issue, you've used one source per paragraph, but not every claim seems to be in the source you've employed. For example, the line "Despite a number of rumours the Catholic Church initially showed a reluctance throughout the late 1990s to answer questions about his premature departure." appears to be sourced to the RET new article, but isn't specifically supported by the article.
- It's a complex mess of policies to wade through at times, so it can be difficult to get a correct balance in an article, but I don't think either version has it right. I'd like to include more coverage of the allegations, but it will take a fair bit of work given the serious nature of the allegations being made. I'll see if I can ask for other eyes, as it might help if there is someone else helping find the correct balance. - Bilby (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
That's fair enough to a point, however I really fail to see what interest there could possibly be his post clerical career - Is Wikipedia in the business of rehabilitating the wicked? Does Wikipedia believe that sinners can repent and start again - if so you're in the wrong business of supplying verified information to the masses and should instead get into the business of saving souls. As I stated above, a single sentence of what he is doing subsequent to his career is sufficient and I have given it enough attention. It is like saying Mr Hitler killed 6 million jews full stop but he was kind to dogs and animals, and then indulge in a tangental diatribe listing all the nice things he did just to be balanced. This article achieves balance in presenting Ledwith's point of view, and noting that he denied all the accusations made against him. I also note that his academic qualifications to be President of Maynooth were formibable, but I question the wisdom of appointing him to such an important position based on the objective facts, particularly when serious questions were raised about his predilications. As things stand the previous article seems to present him as a fairly innocuous homosexual priest, whereas official and newspaper reports have found him to have breached the trust placed in him as the head of a major and famous educational institution and to have harassed male students for sex. Students after all are not in quite the same august position as the President of a College. The Ferns Report also insinuates reasonable grounds that he committed a sexual act with a minor, which is a criminal offence in Ireland and most other civilised counties, and that he escaped prosecution by applying a gagging order making a trial impossible. This is fair comment and nowhere have I said he was a paedophile and in subsequent re-edits have removed all references to paedophilia. Let's let the good public up their make up their own minds based on the objective facts presented and cited from good authorities. For God's sake don't patronise your audience! They can make up their own minds.
I'm very confused by the contradictory advice on citation. It is true that I have paraphrased from another article sourced on the website of the National broadcaster, RTE. This, while ghosting, is entirely acceptable when cited and this method of writing is acceptable in every discipline and I cannot accept the excuse of licensing terms and conditions. I have amended my references to order them correctly and to the exact url. Paraphrasing an article is the only way to cite, there is no other way of citing other then to make the whole thing up. One is always entitled to emply close referencing or direct quotation and I can't imagine any publisher having difficulty with this. If this is the case then close reference or direct citation is impossible on Wikipedia and therefore the encyclopedia has no academic or indeed journalistic worth and is just a load of junk. Copyright rules of academic, or any publishing, are quite explicit and citation can be used provided it is correctly cited. I cannot accept that Wikipedia has tighter rules than say, the conditions put forward by a publisher such as Elsevier to an academic institution for published articles.
I also find contradictory your guidance that nearly every sentence should be referenced, after you have chided me that I have too closely referenced text. For example in the one you instanced obviously an author must be allowed to bridge text with their own words to lead into referenced text. Given that Msr Ledwith resigned in 1994 and the Catholic Church only made a statement on his resignation in 2002, it would seem obvious to any intelligent person a logical conclusion that the Catholic Church was initially reluctant throughout the late 1990s to answer questions about his premature departure. We must make allowances for the fact that our readers are actually intelligent beings and can interpret text all on their own without someone holding their hand or instancing references for every sentence, without, of course, quoting at length becuase that would be bold! If Wikipedia was only so circumspect in relation to all its articles than it would be better accepted in the academic and wider community. Indeed many of your articles copies vast swathes of text from the Catholic Encyclopedia so let's not get all hypocrical here.
Finally an article that does not attempt to comment on the veriable facts is a waste of time. Oxford or Britannica would always attempt to make some comment. The comments I have made are fair and ones found by the McCollough Report itself that appointing Ledwith to his position when there were so many questions was foolhardy without even carrying out a simple investigation. It does show a crisis in Catholic management of Irish sexual scandals and that is fair comment: in fact I think that the simple public might have managed to work that out all by themselves without me coming in to tell them. However an encyclopedia should never be just about facts alone, but the writer should at least try to assemble the facts and come to a conclusion. It's up to Johnny public to accept or eschew the conclusions - would you not agree?
- Whether or not I'd agree with you analysis isn't really the point, I'm afraid. It's simply that Wikipedia won't allow analysis unless it is sourced analysis made by someone else. Wikipedia's role is collating information from reliable sources, not original thought, as the model can't work with the latter and is only able to work with the former. Anything which is based on your own analysis runs afoul of the policy, whether for not it is going to be generally seen as accurate.
- In regards to paraphrasing, certainly paraphrasing is not only acceptable but required. The problem is overly close paraphrasing - you're using the words of the original author, with some replacements here and there, rather than your own. There's some help explaining the approach here at Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- Wikipedia's policy on verification requires every claim that may be challenged to be sourced. You have sourced some, but not all.
- And we still run into the same problem. This is a biography about Ledwith's life, not about the allegations alone. So it needs to reflect his life. Using your example of Adolph Hitler, the article covers WW2 and everything from his rise to power, as one would expect, but it also covers his paintings and other aspects of his early life. Similarly, Ledwith's article should cover the allegations, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't also cover other aspects. - Bilby (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to try and get a version together that can be used to further develop the article. I've reverted your changes for now, mostly because of the overly close paraphrasing issue, but 'll try to add back your content as I go. It should be done later tonight, as I have some other commitments today. From there we should be able to look at how to further develop things. - Bilby (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Your version is an undoubted improvement on the original, however it contains a number of inaccuracies and completely muddles the facts and the actual story which, I repeat, is a matter of public record in Ireland and it is important that the record and objective facts are accurately represented. I wouldn't be all that happy with your choice of words in some instances, for example the use of the word 'tenure' for Cardinal O'Fiach. Such a phrase is more appropriate for a University appointee than a serving Bishop and a Bishop usually 'occupies' an episcopal See. This, of course, is a small matter but surely the editorial of Wikipedia should strive not only to censor but also to uphold the highest standards of language and form. My version also noted Dr Ledwith's career progress at Maynooth from senior lecturer in dogmatic theology, to registrar, to Vice President to President. Whilst these are sourced elsewhere they are objective facts listing his journey up the cursus honorium and cannot be deemed plagiarism in any standard. You have also omitted that he was President of St Peter's College in Wexford. This seems a small point but it is worth mentioning as informed readers would be able to extrapolate that he presided over a secondary school in which the worst and grossest sexual abuses were perpetrated on students by two clerical members of staff, Donal Collins and Sean Fortune. No allegation of impropriety was made against Miceal Ledwith, but he nevertheless presided and managed a travesty and whilst this does not need to be mentioned per se, it is nevertheless an important biographical point. Those who have watched this story closely since it became public in the early 2000s will be able to understand the context of this appointment: Fortune and Collins destroyed the reputation of a fine educational institution and if you read the record in the Ferns report and the analysis of Colm Toibin you will be shocked by the detail. Collins, in particular, progressed from bizarre practices of inspecting the boys for physcial 'deformities' and measuring their pensis' to actual rape. The career of Sean Fortune is in an altogether different bracket of depravity and makes for the most depressing reading. That the President of a school would allow these two men on his staff shows a dereliction of duty to say the least and Tobin's account of how one priest, Dean Sherlock, struggled to keep students away from Collins' seductions but was betrayed by the management and the Diocescan Bishop. From this perspective not all clergymen were intrinsically evil and did their best to protect the students placed in their care by trusting parents. Others were non-chalent ammoral career men, and Ledwith undoubtedly falls into this bracket.
You state Ledwith resigned as President of St Peter's in 1994. This is highly inaccurate, in fact he resigned as President of St Patrick's Pontifical College Maynooth in 1994. Maynooth, if you do not know it, is Ireland's second oldest University and grew out of a Seminary for Catholic priests founded in the 18th Century. Appointment to Presidency of Maynooth was the most distinguished non-episcopal post in the Irish Church, as incidently was the Chair of Theology also held by Ledwith. Both posts usually led to a Bishopric in due course, and both O'Fiach and his predecessor, Bishop Newman of Limerick had been promoted after their time as represpective Presidents of Maynooth. It was only in 1994 that the Pontifical College and the University separated, before becoming completely separate institutions in 1997, and as such the President of Maynooth during Ledwith's TENURE was a member of the Irish University President's Conference and a Vice Chancellor of the National University of Ireland. From that perspective I don't think it is speculative to state that the appointment of Ledwith in 1985 displayed a poor error of judgment by the Church authorities in the light of stories brought by McGinnity in 1985 ; in fact the Bishops were sufficiently retrospectively concerned about the manner in which the appointment was made in 1985 that they commissioned a report with Senior Council in 2002, the McCullough Report. You have removed the substance of the findings of McCullough from my version and also the relevant quotation from the report, which criticised the Bishops of 1985 and the lack of investigation. This, it must be noted, was the Bishop's own report. In place you have restored a reference to a speech by Senator Mary Henry which is very hard to contextualise and make relevant in the flow of your text. It would, I submit, read better to quote from McCullough itself rather than someone critiquing the report. People can make up their own minds, however we can keep this in and work around it.
You next muddle the entire McGinnity affair, which is a key part of the puzzle and a huge news story in Ireland in the early 2000s; the magnitude must be measured against the fact that allegations were made against one of Ireland's most senior academics and Churchmen and some tabloid newspapers reported that Ledwith had turned Maynooth into a 'pink palace' during his time there. THis, in itself trivialises the issue and whether Ledwith was a practicing homosexual is not in itself important, apart from the fact that he broke his vows. One can't, after all, blame a man for what he is - we are all the sum total of who we are and homosexuality is not blameworthy in itself when divorced from the teachings of the Roman Church. What is key is the allegation that he sexually harassed semanarians and some newspaper accounts suggested that threats denying ordination were made unless certain choosen students vitiated their consent and surrendered to his base appetites. Of course this is hear say and I wouldn't include it in a wikipedia article as I think that the phrase 'sexual harassment' is sufficient in the minds of reasonable persons to be able to draw a fair inference based on the objective facts presented.
Finally you scandalously omit references to the Ferns Report, which was one of the most disastrous reports for the Catholic Church in Ireland ever and rocked the Church to its very foundation. It was the first in what is now a very depressing catalogue of State audits of child sex abuse in Irish Dioceses and the revelations were unimaginable to nearly all persons living in Ireland at the time. I personally found them very shocking and continue to be dismayed by the litany of betrayals of trust. Many are weary now of the stories of child sexual abuse, however a rereading of the reports makes for compelling but nightmarish bedtime reading. The Murphy Report was commissioned in the wake of the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey in the late 1990s following the case of the depraved Sean Fortune. The former Msr Ledwith was also examined in detail in this report, both for his sexual advances to students, but also due to the fact that he had been accused of soliciting and partaking in sexual activities with a minor. You have completely muddled and confused these two issues which are entirely separate. Breach of trust and sexual harassment is a gross breach of trust in itself, but between adults who are in a position to defend themselves. The sexual abuse of children, however, is absolutely unacceptable and even though Ledwith secured a gagging order on the nitty gritty, the confidentiality clause does not extend to preventing reports that an allegation was made and a settlement reached privately. I would submit that this has not subsequently served Miceal Ledwith well as the public has been precluded from an understanding of the exact circumstances and it would have been more appropriate that this matter was forwarded to a jury for consideration in criminal proceedings. By inference one can only presume that Ledwith was anxious to avoid criminal proceedings, so once more right thinking members of society will be able to draw their own conclusions based on the few verifiable facts that we have on this particular incident.
On this basis I am afraid I have no choice but to re-edit your version, which while improved, still falls far short of presenting the objective facts. However as a concession I am prepared to omit analysis which for me is totally counter intuitive. I will also leave your section on his post clerical career unchanged. Frankly I don't see of what relevance at all it is, but if you insist then we must respect your wishes. I might also add if you read the accounts of Brendan Smyth and Sean Fortune on Wikipedia no mention at all is made of their pre or post clerical careers outside the context of child sexual abuse.
Surprisingly you have violated your own standards by mentioning that he was a possible candidate for the See of Dublin but not referencing this. I can find you a reference in an article written by the Irish novelist Colm Tobin. However it was a rumour and as the appointment of prelates is a confidential process, known only to the Chapter of a Diocese, the national Hierarchy and Nuncio before approval is given from Rome, we can never know if this was true.
- I still haven't completed the work - the criticisms you raise are valid, but relate to the version before either of us started editing the article. His career needs references and clarification, as you say, and I have yet to tackle most of what you were ding. The process will still take a few hours - if nothing else, reading the McCollough report took a bit of time. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 16 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.
I note that you are reading the McCullough Report. I strongly suggest you read the Ferns Report and the chapters on Msr Ledwith here http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ferns/ Frankly in comparison to the other priests considered the Ledwith affair is rather minor, however it is important to have the matter out in the open and the true and objective facts aired.
BLPN - Michael Ledwith
[edit]Hi your contributions to this Biography of a living person are ther subject of a report at the noticeboard - please comment there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Ledwith
As your additions are largely reliant on primary reports and disported I have removeds them - please don't replace then without some discussion and some support at the BLPN report, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have replaced the primary sources and backed up with secondary source material. I have tackled all of Bilby's comments and brought balance to the affair. Given that there is so much media commentary on this subject it is only fair to record the allegations of child abuse, examine the McGinnity affair and record carefully the conclusions of the Ferns report, which reaches no conclusion. I have carefully noted this, but also the criticisms of the report and also documented the research of the Inquiry into the Diocescan and Maynooth trustees investigation which found the allegations of child abuse to have substance but were stymied by Dr Ledwith's private settlement. In order to achieve balance the public have a right to know the salient facts. With this account put into the record it is only fair that people should make up their own minds, and this very definitely falls into the WP criteria for primary sources which I have quoted on the edit. I have totally removed the copyright infringements, and rebalanced the article. Based on the facts I think this is a very reasonable attempt and, to be frank, the only reason Miceal Ledwith has a BLP entry at all is due to these allegations. Either Wikipedia is a source of record or it is junk.
I am in discussion with Bilby and await his critique of the new version.