Talk:House of Prayer, Achill

Possible POV pushing

StPhilomena has made a large number of edits, citing sources that fail WP:RS. I'll revert to an earlier edit.Autarch (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source issues

• This source seems to be a copy of an online article rather than a link to the online article itself.
• Christina Gallaghers' autobiography is used as a reference - this may fail WP:SPS.
• [1] is a website that seems to be linked to Christina Gallagher - fails WP:SPS.
• [2] is a website that seems to be linked to the House of Prayer - fails WP:SPS.

Also, FluffyRug seems to be a single purpose account devoted to editing the article in question.Autarch (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tags

The article was tagged as having the following issues: COI, disputed, notability and ref improve.

• COI: this issue may have been addressed by backing out much of the contributions since late October.
• Disputed: I have tried to add balance, though something which may be added further (not too much) detail on the actual work of the center and how popular it was
• Notability: I don't agree that this article would fail WP:NOTABLE. I suggest the appropriate way to go ahead with concerns about notability if they continue to be held is through an AfD.
• Ref improve: Much of the content added since October was not correctly cited. Even parts which were cited, did not use references appropriate.

Can we remove the tags as of this revision? --RA (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with it if you remove the COI, ref and disputed tags. For the notability tag I like to have a bit more input. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Done. --RA (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing disruption

The continuing addition of unencyclopaedic content by User:FluffyRug, with citations that are not to reliable third party sources, is disruptive, and should stop. Scolaire (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism to House of Prayer, Achill

User Autarch has persisted in deleting content quoted from reliable published sources which is widely known about and presented in accord with Wikipedia policies. User FluffyRug has updated the House of Prayer, Achill information to comply with the policies of Wikipedia and amendments have been made.

User Autarch may not wish this information to be included but to make sweeping deletions of content is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Even to the point of deleting the full name of the House of Prayer, which is Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer. His actions amount to possible Vandalism.

User FluffyRug has no connection with the House of Prayer and no interest in 'pushing' information other than an interest in adding factual information to Wikipedia. This is not a single purpose account but merely the first page to be edited by a recently new account holder totally independent of the House of Prayer, Achill

• http://www.voiceofourladyspilgrims.com/[3] is a website about the House of Prayer but not linked to it. Published in 2009, it presents the views of many hundreds of people as the site states and is independently published material as the site states.
• http://www.christinagallagher.org [4] is a website about the House of Prayer and any reference to it has been backed-up by several other published references.

FluffyRug (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You throw accusations of vandalism around quite lightly it seems. Your sources are not considered reliable, as has been pointed out. If, as you say you are not a SPA with a conflict of interest, perhaps this would be a good time to move on to another unrelated topic. Allow the dust settle and dispositions improve. RashersTierney (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the use of sources, please see what is meant by self-publish sources and reliable sources. Please also consider what it means to write from a neutral point of view. Before reverting again, please read Wikipedia:Edit warring and bear the three-revert rule in mind.

I've added the full name to the first line. Regards, --RA (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The website http://www.voiceofourladyspilgrims.com/ is copyrighted by Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer. That does sound related to me. Many of FluffyRug's other sources also seem unreliable or not secondary. Besides, the tone of his preferred version is unencyclopedic, the layout is a mess, and it violates WP:NPOV. for these reasons I prefer the short version. Huon (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

'Independent source'

I have already removed this source as failing WP:SELFSOURCE, particularly points 1) and 4), only for it to be reapplied with the assertion that it is 'independent'. Thoughts? RashersTierney (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Media Michael's modus operandi reminds me of FluffyRug. In this case, Amazon says about the book: "Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer (Editor)"; it's published by The Voice of Our Lady's Pilgrims, the organization FluffyRug tried to pass off as independent (see the section preceding this one). These edits by Media Michael and FluffyRug show a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and, when repeated without even an attempt to discuss controversial edits on the talk page, become disruptive. Huon (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi RashersTierney, I have moved the discussion on to here as you suggest. Regarding the source in question, I must disagree with you. I have the book here in front of me and it is published by the Voice of Our Lady's Pilgrims, and not edited by House of Prayer as Amazon is stating. This is clearly an error. I note that the amazon book is only a reseller who is selling this used copy for a ridiculous price of $125 when it can be bought for about €7 euros! Our Lady's Pilgrims are a group of ordinary people ranging from doctors to solicitors , teachers, publishers, nurses, builders and carpenters... who have been outraged by the totally biased reporting of the House of Prayer Achill in the newspaper media. They say this on their website www.voiceofourladyspilgrims.com Their only connection with the House of Prayer is that they visit there on pilgrimage because they believe the messages come from Our Lady. How can ordinary people with nothing to do with the running of the House of Prayer not be independent witnesses? It is full of testimonies which are independent and clearly of an individual nature giving their own names etc. Media Michael (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, the Voice of Our Lady's Pilgrims organization doesn't strike me as particularly independent, either. At the very least, they have "donated" their website's copyright to the House of Prayer, so there are obvious organizatorial connections. Even if it were something like an official or inofficial fan club, it would still not be a reliable source, and the book is still not published with a reputable publisher. I'd say claims of miraculous healing are rather extraordinary claims and should not be based on such sources. Huon (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Huon, thanks for your reply. Consider this, - Are the people who attend a venue independent from the organisation of the venue? I think they are. If they band together to report an injustice about the venue, are they still independent? I think they are. If they have no interest in benefiting from their book and wish only to report that injustice, is it not fair enough that they just give the copyright away as they wish? It is - and I think they are still independent after doing so. Surely the subject matter being about claims of miraculous healing, is rrelevant to the their independence. Media Michael (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, we have only your (and maybe their own) word that this organization is indeed independent; Amazon, for example, disagrees. It's indeed possible that Amazon got it wrong, but from my point of view, it's equally possible that Amazon is, in fact, correct. Even if the organization were indeed legally independent, I don't think that alone suffices to make the source independent for Wikipedia's purposes. WP:Independent sources describes such sources as "a source that has no vested interest in the subject and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the subject from a disinterested perspective."

Secondly, we require more from our sources than solely independence. We also require reliability. I see not the least indication that this book is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The credibility of this booklet is somewhat undermined by the fact that it consists of testimonies from people who believe that the Mother of God talks to a very wealthy woman whose wealth has come from persuading people that the Mother of God talks to her and that therefore they should give their money to her. I don't doubt that these people are solicitors or carpenters etc., and I have known many honest carpenters, but they are not independent reliable sources. The only place apart from Amazon where this publication can be found is www.christinagallagher.org. The article as it now stands contains only material derived from sources completely independent of Mrs Gallagher and her organisation, but for those who want an alternative version of reality, direct links are provided for Gallagher and pro-Gallagher websites. Brocach (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it sounds rude, but how far are you involved, Media Michael? Thrombosis still okay? The Banner talk 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A clue: all of "Media Michael"'s contributions to Wikipedia relate to this cult, and when directly asked if he/she had previously been involved in this article, no direct answer was given. "Media Michael" is obviously a tool of the cult. Brocach (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Let him answer for himself! The Banner talk 01:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

She will. Brocach (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your revision is an interesting change and without discussion or consensus. I don't think this is WP policy. You have deleted another addition with a perfectly independent source and you have adjusted 2 independent sources to squeeze out an opinion opposite to your own. This is not WP policy. And so it goes on... It seems obviously you are all part of the 'hate campaign' and you have just linked yourself in to the investigations. Media Michael (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What precisely do you mean when you say "you have just linked yourself in to the investigations"? Brocach (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you (Media Michael) are in some way linked to the House of Prayer then you should declare this, and if you are then you should not be editing this article per WP:Conflict of interest. Snappy (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snappy, you may not have noticed but I have infact already stated that I am not representing the House of Prayer and neither am I linked to it and that my knowledge comes from years of personal interest. What is your link to this subject? RasherTierney, Brocach, The Banner, what is your link to this subject?Media Michael (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My ties to the subject: I have seen the building both times when I was on holiday on Achill Island. Both times the owners of my lodging referred to it as a sect when I was chatting with them over the my exploits at the island. That made me look it up at Wikipedia. The Banner talk 13:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

None whatever. Brocach (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Wasn't aware of its existence until coming across this article. RashersTierney (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No link at all. Snappy (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Strangely though you have some strong and heavily biased opinions to the exclusion of all others. Media Michael (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets

Should we ask for a critical look behind the scenes for StPhilomena ([5]), WiseOldChinaMan ([6], did just one edit ever), FluffyRug ([7]), FactVeracityTruth ([8]) and Media Michael ([9]) in relation to the articles Gerard McGinnity and House of Prayer, Achill. Any more articles and editors involved? The Banner talk 13:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd expect most of those accounts to be too stale for CheckUser to be of any help, and secondly, I don't think any two of them ever edited at the same time, so I'm not even sure this conduct would be in violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry rules even if they are all the same person. Huon (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but if they claimed not to be, that would be different. It would probably succeed or fail on the 'duck test', but still worth considering. RashersTierney (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am working on it. The Banner talk 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess it has to be tweaked and shortened, but this is my first full version of teh Ducktest-investigation: User:The Banner/Workpage11 The Banner talk 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

From the Article : "and has no official status with the Roman Catholic Church."

This is incorrect, misleading and one-sided.

Let me quote Dr Michael Neary, Archbishop of Tuam in his statement of 2008 - "Mrs. Gallagher and her associates retain, of course, the right to believe and state their belief that such have indeed occurred and continue to occur. The question, as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven" - This position quite clearly is not represented in this WP article. It should be, why is it not? Because this article is currently written and rewritten from a non-neutral standpoint and is kept that way by those who persistently edit it against WP policy. Media Michael (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Source? The Banner talk 14:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Found it already on the website of the diocese. I would say that just your quote is biased. But I have no objections to add the full quote While recognising the difficulty involved in treating such matters, I find myself obliged to state that no evidence has been presented which might prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of supernatural phenomena of whatever kind in this situation other than that of faith. Mrs. Gallagher and her associates retain, of course, the right to believe and state their belief that such have indeed occurred and continue to occur. The question, as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven. Source: http://tuamarchdiocese.org/2008/02/achill-house-of-prayer/ The Banner talk 14:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon The-Banner, I omitted to put the source but you found it, so that's good. I have no objection to the inclusion of the entire quote from Archbishop Neary's statement which clearly shows that the status remains open and unproven. That is the official status of the Roman Catholic Church. So the statement in the article is clearly incorrect and should be removed. Media Michael (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Neary stated the plain fact that Gallagher & co. retained the right to believe and say that supernatural events occurred. I am sure he would equally say that Jews have the right to hold and state their beliefs, ditto Muslims, Anglicans and the rest, but that does not make those religions Catholic. He did not give the cult any status with the Catholic Church. It has none. Brocach (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I read Neary words as "You are free to believe in the truth you have created, but you won't fool me with that." The Banner talk 17:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, what is your connection to this subject? You have totally rewritten this article in the last 24 hours without discussion or consensus, which is not in keeping with WP policy. Reverted to before rewrite. Media Michael (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re your question - I answered that hours ago above; you haven't answered my question to you. Re your advice - you are of course a terribly new and inexperienced Wikipedia contributor on a very tiny range of topics - 34 edits on five pages - so I think I'll run with my own interpretation of WP policy until you point out any specific item in my edits that contravenes any policy, or disclose your editing history under other user names. Brocach (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see the edits referred to are certainly within policy/guidelines. If you have specific policy-based concerns, please spell them out. RashersTierney (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How strange Rashers, my comment on here has just been deleted! I said that the article cannot be completely and utterly rewritten without consensus. Please discuss each change here before continuing to revert to Brochach's rewrite. If he/she wants to make changes let them discuss each change on here. Media Michael (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The quote above from the Archbishop should be included in full which would be unbiased as the Banner has suggested. Media Michael (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A warning to a "very inexperienced" editor: you cannot keep reverting edits without bringing to the discussion page what the specific problem with any edit is. Archbishops do not need to be quoted in full unless you know of a Wikipedia policy hidden from the rest of us. Have you never heard of WP:3RR? You have now made so many reverts that you are in danger of having to invent another username. Brocach (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't mean unanimity or even pre-agreement. I'm not aware of any comments on this TP that have been deleted. TP comments are very rarely removed if pertinent to the article in question. Regarding whether the (rather long) quote should be included, I don't have a strong view, but I would be wary as to how its meaning is presented. RashersTierney (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Look at the page history; nothing has been deleted. Brocach (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that Brocach's version is generally superior to Media Michael's. I don't think the archbishop's quote, which doesn't really say much about the House of Prayer beyond the lack of evidence for miracles, needs to be quoted in full. Huon (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The position of the Catholic Church is that it remains "open and unproven" This is a fact. Therefore the comment "...and has no official status with the Roman Catholic Church" is incorrect, should be removed and replaced by the Archbishop's words which are correct. Media Michael (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From the same source but later date: "In summary the ‘House of Prayer’ has no Church approval and the work does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities." Surely this is an unequivocal re-evaluation of the earlier position? We need to be very cautious if cherry-picking from primary sources. RashersTierney (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The position of the Catholic Church, per the quote from Neary, is that claims by Mrs Gallagher's business that supernatural things happened were not accepted by the Catholic Church. This does not equate to the Catholic Church granting official status to the business that claims that these things happened. Mrs Gallagher's business is not endorsed, authorised, or any part of the Catholic Church. Got that? Brocach (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to have an understanding of the way the Catholic Church works on these matters. For private revelation, such as these, Pope Benedict, when Cardinal and prefect for the CDF, stated that until the Church has made a definitive and canonical judgment, the faithful are free to accept Private Revelation with prudent discernment. And they are free to believe in a private revelation unless the proper examination and its results show just cause for a negative judgment. Because unless this has happened it is mere persecution to give a negative judgment when the facts of the case show no doctrinal errors, an authentic ecstasy, and sound moral character of the seer along with good fruits. Neither the Archdiocese of Tuam nor any other ecclesiastical body has made a judgement on the apparitions to Christina Gallagher. The position therefore of the Catholic Church is that it remains open and unproven. That is the official status so the comment in your weighted and unrepresentative commentary is incorrect. Media Michael (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not the church. We just want reliable, independent (= completely unrelated) third party sources. And in controversial cases, like this, we can even ask for multiple reliable, independent third party sources, excluding the local newspapers in the process. We don't make a judgement if it is true or not, you don't have to convince us if it is good or not. You just have to convince us that what you claim is backed up by reliable, independent third party sources. But up to now, you have failed to deliver those sources. The Banner talk 10:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying wikipedia is the church, I am saying your 'reliable' source has got it wrong. Your statement is wrong. Factually incorrect. Media Michael (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Our source is not wrong, you fail to prove your case with reliable, independent third party sources. The Banner talk 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The source for the statement that Mrs Gallagher's operation "has no official status with the Catholic Church" is footnoted as an article in the Irish Independent - the largest-selling newspaper in Ireland - that begins: "The controversial House of Prayer has been disowned by the Catholic hierarchy and has no standing in the eyes of the Church." The article goes on to quote Archbishop Neary as saying that "any work carried on since [July 1998] has been entirely of a private nature and has no Church approval" and does not "enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities". There is no way to read into that a suggestion that the company does in fact have official status with the Catholic Church; but if you can provide reliable sources showing what its official status with the Catholic Church is, go ahead. If the Independent got it so very wrong, it's surprising that Mrs Gallagher or her company didn't sue for libel, as the article must have damaged the business. Brocach (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

From the Article : "...created a religious organisation"

This is incorrect. The House of Prayer is not a religious organisation, it is a private house and a centre of Catholic prayer which is not unusual in the Catholic Church. Media Michael (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"entirely of a private nature and has no Church approval whatever...". Apparently. RashersTierney (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

However RashersTierney, the Archbishop's statement which is the position of the Catholic Church contradicts you and yet you have deleted it and replaced the incorrect statement. This is very disruptive. Media Michael (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Has no disapproval - remains open and unproven. Therefore to be accurate and unbiased you must include this and not keep on deleting it. Media Michael (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the Archbishop from your source. Check the link I provided, and stop wasting my time. RashersTierney (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So sorry for taking up your time RashersTierney. The Archbishop has been rather ambiguous therefore the quote I am proposing must remain. He does NOT give disapproval which is the key thing in the Catholic Church. Media Michael (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked a quote from a contradictory primary source to suit your POV and edit-warred against clear consensus in order to retain it. Where is your supposed proposal? RashersTierney (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not 'created' in 1993, it was 'opened'. Quoting from the book by Fr Edward D O'Connor C.S.C. "Listen to My Prophets - Divine Mercy and Divine Justice" published by Queenship Publishing Company, CA USA. 2011 "The House of Prayer was opened in 1993 by Archbishop Cassidy. However his successor, Archbishop Michael Neary, placed such severe restrictions on the celebration of the sacraments there in 1997 that Christina was led to close the House as inoperable. In response to popular demand, however, she reopened it in 1998. Several other associated Houses of Prayer have been opened in other parts of the world" Media Michael (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Brocach, Ltd means 'is a limited company' so no need for repetition. Media Michael (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Grand. Have amended the lede paragraph to reflect the fact that this is not a "religious organisation", and stressing that it is an ordinary limited company. I'm not sure if the current text makes it clear when the business was registered as a limited company so perhaps you could clarify that? Brocach (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The correct name of this centre is Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer. Media Michael (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, please clarify your link to this subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media Michael (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Correct name" has two senses: WP:COMMONNAME, which appears first in the lede para (House of Prayer), and the legal name of the business (Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer (Achill) Ltd), which is also given in the first sentence. Your (unsigned) question has already been fully answered, above, please read and stop asking. May I remind you for a second time that you haven't answered my question as to what you meant about me becoming linked to "the investigations"? Will you clarify immediately, as that looks like a threat? Brocach (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, can't see your answer and don't have time to trawl through. You obviously have strong views which is disrupting the presentation of neutral commentary on this subject. Media Michael (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you "don't have time to trawl through" to find my answer to your question, I am amazed that you can find time to make further edits and comments. Your question, if you have forgotten, was "RasherTierney, Brocach, The Banner, what is your link to this subject?" My answer was "None whatever." Brocach (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How interesting! Media Michael (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, you will need to give proper justification for continuing to remove valid neutral commentary on this subject. Media Michael (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Brocach, to say that the edit has added no useful detail is nonsense. Media Michael (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We have gone a bit beyond a supposedly "new" editor questioning good-faith edits by a long-established one. You are clearly editing this article from a non-neutral perspective, violating WP:3RR and I will now seek a ban. Brocach (talk)

Media Michael is clearly editing against the established consensus. If they persists in this, I would support a topic ban. Snappy (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If they persist, so will I. RashersTierney (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So just to clarify, you object because I would like to add :

- The correct name in the opening sentence as it has been for a long time now.

- The quote from the Archbishop from 2008 statement which adds balance and corrects the inaccurate statement that the House of Prayer has no status in the Catholic Church. Important because the Archbishop has not given his disapproval which is the key thing in the Catholic Church - "While recognising the difficulty involved in treating such matters, I find myself obliged to state that no evidence has been presented which might prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of supernatural phenomena of whatever kind in this situation other than that of faith. Mrs. Gallagher and her associates retain, of course, the right to believe and state their belief that such have indeed occurred and continue to occur. The question, as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven."

- The information from Fr Edward O'Connor's book "Listen to My Prophets" which acknowledges the aspects of the subject not covered in your 'version'. The House of Prayer was opened in 1993 by Archbishop Cassidy. However his successor, Archbishop Michael Neary, placed such severe restrictions on the celebration of the sacraments there in 1997 that Christina was led to close the House as inoperable. In response to popular demand, however, she reopened it in 1998. Several other associated Houses of Prayer have been opened in other parts of the world"

- The information from the daily mail sources which you have rewritten in such a way as to lose all of the relevant information. Articles from 2002 and the other in 2003.

There would be no problem incorporating any of this into the correct chronology but first we have to get past your sweeping deletions and rewriting of and edits (within seconds) which are not from your own stand point and without any proper discussion. Your actions are preventing this article from becoming balanced.

By the way, a blog is not a reputable source Brocach. I would have thought a long-established editor would be well aware of that! Media Michael (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What blog are you referring to? RashersTierney (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Current ref 6 is a link to a blog. Media Michael (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So I had noticed and already commented on below. I'll replace it using Highbeam Research for the archived newspaper article link. RashersTierney (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with sources from 2002 and 2003? The Banner talk 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing of substance, but we can use Highbeam Research as the source of archived newspaper articles if that is the point of contention. It would only mean tweeking the refs. Downside is not everyone has access, but that isn't a problem from a WP citing perspective. @ MM - will that satisfy? RashersTierney (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing of substance from your one-sided point of view perhaps RashersTierney. To answer the question about what is wrong with the re-write of Articles from 2002 and 2003 I will give you the edit which was re-written.

Information from article by Elaine Edwards August 24, 2002 "I was cured of Cancer in Island's House of Prayer: Mum-of-Six Claims Her Tumour Cleared Up after Achill Miracle The Daily Mirror (London, England) In July 2002, people claiming miracle cures addressed the crowd at the House of Prayer Achill, with one woman, claiming her unborn baby had been pronounced dead but had come back to life after her visit to the House of Prayer. Another, Kathleen O'Sullivan, gave testimony that she was cured of pancreatic cancer after a visit to the House of Prayer Achill having only weeks to live.

Information from article by Teresa O'Malley July 17th 2003 "House of Prayer Cured My Wife of Cancer; 'Miracle Centre' celebrates 10th Year" The Daily Mirror (London, England) Donal O'Sullivan on July 16th 2003 gave testimony of how his wife was cured of cancer after visiting the House of Prayer. She had just three months to live when her husband Donal took her to Christina Gallagher on Achill Island. She was yellow with jaundice from pancreatic cancer, he said to the thousands who flocked to celebrate the centres 10th anniversary, "She travelled here in the back seat of a car covered by a duvet and she left sitting up in the front seat cured. In 2003 cancer consultant, Dr Michael Anketell investigated her case along with three other patients who claimed they were healed at the House of Prayer Achill.

The re-write by Brocach has merged these 2 separate articles reported by 2 different journalists, about 2 different events a year apart and cuts out as much detail as possible about the crowds of people at the House of Prayer at both events, what they were doing there, who they were listening to and the circumstances of the claimed miracle cures. The 2002 article gives the report about Kathleen O'Sullivan and others giving testimony. The 2003 tells of how her husband spoke to crowds to give corroborating testimony and quotes his own words on this. The report refers to Dr Michael Anketell as cancer consultant yet this is omitted because the heavily biased consensus here is that he is only a 'village GP' as if that meant he wasn't a proper doctor. However the information has valid sources and should be included. Media Michael (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop referring continually to perceived bias and supposed 'involvement' of other editors. You have been given a lot of latitude so far on this. Also, it was you who initially put these two sources side-by-side and essentially 'merged' them with this edit. RashersTierney (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The bias is not perceived, it is well and truly there. I refer to it in an attempt to redress the balance in this 100% one-sided article. What supposed 'involvement'? this refers to nothing I have said. I did not merge these two sources. I gave them separate paragraphs because they are separate events. It is true I did put Dr Anketell's reference in paragraph 1 because it reads better there, but I referenced it correctly at the time. There was no need to rewrite this entry. Media Michael (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Media Michael, I have to assume a straight face to talk to you about issues of bias. OK, face assumed. Can we have a little chat about your reference to Dr Michael Anketell as a "cancer consultant"? Do you agree that he was not in fact a cancer consultant, but a country GP? Can you explain why you referred to him as a cancer consultant? Can you point us to a report of the outcome of his "investigation" of the miraculous cure of Kathleen O'Sullivan, which must surely have had extensive coverage in the medical journals? Do you intend to hang around here much longer as Media Michael, or would you prefer to create a new username? Brocach (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brocach, It is the source referenced who referred to Dr Michael Anketell as a 'cancer consultant' not me. Check the article in the Daily Mail. However to help you I have looked up the qualifications of this doctor you dismiss as a country GP. Dr Michael Anketell M.B. B.C.H. B.A.O. F.P.C. D.C.H D.Obs and Family Practitioner. His investigations were supported among others by Dr Munkund N. Sargur M.D. and by Maria Fletcher L.C. (W,S,C) M.B.A.A.C. and by LC Jorge M.D. Do you have any qualifications Brocach? Media Michael (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some sources for all those titles, <redacted> The Banner talk 23:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Plain old google. But there is just one passing mention of him being a cancer consultant and I don't know how many of him being a GP. So why do you stick to the clearly erroneous "cancer consultant"? The Banner talk 02:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

<redacted>, one would expect an Irish doctor to have medical qualifications. My point is that this one is not and never has been a consultant oncologist: he is a village general practitioner. Do you regard the Daily Mail as a more reliable source than the Irish Government on that matter (or anything)? I've no idea who those other people are but presume you will give us a reliable source for their findings and credentials. Brocach (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have not disputed this. I have merely given the info from the reference. I have been clear

- The re-write by Brocach has merged these 2 separate articles reported by 2 different journalists, about 2 different events a year apart and cuts out as much detail as possible about the crowds of people at the House of Prayer at both events, what they were doing there, who they were listening to and the circumstances of the claimed miracle cures. The 2002 article gives the report about Kathleen O'Sullivan and others giving testimony. The 2003 tells of how her husband spoke to crowds to give corroborating testimony and quotes his own words on this. Media Michael (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

On the bias issue I agree with you 100%, but the way to address suspected sock puppetry is to file an SPI. MM's insinuations about bad faith have been provocative and gratuitous, but WP:AGF is expected all round, whatever suspicions editors may have. RashersTierney (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on that SPI. The Banner talk 02:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StPhilomena The Banner talk 00:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweeping deletion of edits by Brochach !

Brochach, you cannot just delete edits you do not agree with - all of which are properly cited. Where is your discussion for each deletion? Media Michael (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The same applies to you, Michael. He just restored the original timeline and even readded a link to a (critical) source that you had removed earlier. The Banner talk 19:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will re-add the sources he deleted then and I had corrected the timeline issue. By 'critical source'? do you perhaps mean the blog which was removed from the External links section on the grounds that it is 'a blog' the use of which is to be avoided according to WP policy? Media Michael (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Creative thinking, but incorrect. Blogs can't be used as sources, but when relevant and reasonably neutral they can be added as external link. The Banner talk 21:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not creative thinking but WP policy. If you refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links you will see that blogs are to be avoided on External Links too ... Media Michael (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

True, but not always: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) The Banner talk 23:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He did not 'just restore the original timeline' as you state The Banner. He removed several new edits added to this article which were fully referenced. Granted one was firstly added in the wrong place but was later moved to the correct position before his deletions. Media Michael (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Mr Voris, every edit that I made was fully explained in the accompanying note. Specifically, (1) I reverted your "citation required" note about income and tax status, because sources are cited in the article for income and tax status; (2) I reverted your insertion of an extract from a 2008 statement into a paragraph dealing with events in 1996-98; (3) I reinstated a 2008 quote into the correct section; (4) I removed a quote that you had dated to 2008 but that was actually from 1997; (5) I reinstated a sourced statement that you had deleted without explanation; (6) in the interests of balance, I reverted your deletion of one anti-Gallagher web link, while you left two pro-Gallagher links untouched. These are not "sweeping deletions" but an attempt to rein in your efforts to manipulate this article. Brocach (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Brochach, you said "The venture secured tax exemption from the Revenue Commissioners, and built up a considerable income from voluntary donations." Where in your reference does it say this? I have deleted your other reference which was a blog and not allowed. Media Michael (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Nowhere, I am deleting it. Media Michael (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but the article (with corrected link) is back. The Banner talk 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

and I have added 'Prayer centre' fully referenced before and yet deleted by you. Do you have a problem with this Brocach? Media Michael (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your superfluous chatter. The Banner talk 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes yes yes, keep on supporting the negative POV pushing.

In my opinion the "Centre for prayer" addition was a case of bad grammar. It's also bad style; the Wikipedia article on the House of Prayer should begin with The House of Prayer is.... I'm not perfectly happy with the current first sentence either, but at least it doesn't suffer those problems. Huon (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is utterly absurd to start this article with the financial arrangements of this religious organisation and not first to introduce the House of Prayer itself. It is however indicative of the consensus here which promotes so many examples of negative POV pushing. One would not know where to start to correct it. Media Michael (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is just a business-for-profit, selling religious dreams. Nothing else. The Banner talk 11:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Mayo News describes it as "controversial company" and "religious retreat". The Sunday Times says it's a "retreat". The Irish Independent calls it a "prophetic religious cult" (among various other articles that avoid calling it anything). The Mail on Sunday calls it a "company". So focusing on the business aspects indeed seems justified, but WP:NPOV to me seems to require that we should also mention the "religious retreat" aspect. How about this? The House of Prayer is a religious retreat organized as a limited company and trading as Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer (Achill) Ltd, created by an Irish woman, Christina Gallagher, in 1993. Huon (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue Ireland & additional links

Note: I make no pretence of being unbiased or uninvolved, and state upfront that I do webmastery for Dialogue Ireland.

Could someone change the Dialogue Ireland link to our House of Prayer page?: http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/archive/house-of-prayer-christina-gallagher/

That page, and our site, also contains many media sources and references that would be of use in this article.--Themadhair (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Tóraí (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"See also" item

It's not clear why "Intercessors of the Lamb" is linked here in the "See also" section (and vice versa). There is no obvious connection between the two organizations. Bistropha (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)