Talk:Philip Wilson (bishop)

Criticism of handling of child abuse allegations

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)

You do realise your allegations are ridiculous right? "Rampant abuse" at St Pius X... Why hasn't anyone been convicted for it then? Sounds like high school gossip to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.183.21.131 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Alleged mishandling of sexual abuse of children

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)

My thought is that the claims about Wilson are everywhere. Some people on here are claiming that he sexually abused 5 girls under the age of 10... others say he protected peds... so... let's leave anything out that has not been ruled under a court of law 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:B8E6:786F:3C7D:157B (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

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)

You say "sexually assaulted five more girls under the age of 10"... but do you have any evidence... 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:B8E6:786F:3C7D:157B (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox criminal

Here’s the guidance on the use of this infobox:

Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or Murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I had never heard of him until he rose to fame as a protector of paedophiles. That would be true for a lot of other people worldwide. That means his crimes made him more famous than his other church activities. So "Criminal" applies. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What a complete joke! There is no evidence he was a "protector" of peds whatsoever. The news coverage just appears like criticism from people who have daddy issues... with need of psychiatric help - not pursuing criminal action 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:B8E6:786F:3C7D:157B (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

He has been convicted of "failing to report allegations of child sexual abuse". Sounds like protecting paedophiles to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Pican and Finn

French bishop Pierre Pican was convicted of failure to report to police and given a suspended sentence in 2001. Perhaps the distinction to be noted is that he did not resign.

In the US, Robert Finn (bishop) is a similar case. Conviction in 2012, resignation in 2015.

I'll change the assertion that Wilson is the highest to make clear that hangs on his being an archbishop rather than a mere bishop.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Slanted coverage

Moved from User talk:Megapodius

 – content discussion should be here — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reading the entry I find a certain slant has been put on the article. It does not seem neutral in regard to what Wilson was found guilty of. References are in most part to tabloid newspapers, some behind paywalls. Some of the tabloid entries are obviously wrong and again do not relate to what Wilson was found guilty of. The issue of Wilson's magistrate bench conviction in Newcastle Local court is a red hot potato in Australia at the moment. I don't want to get into a war of words with whoever wrote the article but as it stands it is somewhat defamatory to Wilson. I am not prepared to completely rewrite the article.

Please help me with...

I have no idea how to proceed against the obvious inaccuracies in the entry. Help.  :)

Megapodius (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Megapodius: It's okay if you don't want to attempt to edit the article yourself. What you can do is lay out your concerns here in somewhat more detail. Which statements do you consider defamatory? What sources do you consider incorrect or unreliable. (Being behind a paywall does not affect whether a reference can be used on WP nor, all by itself, does it affect whether the source should be considered reliable.)

It's important on Wikipedia to be scrupulously fair to persons accused of crimes, but we do want to report what reliable sources say about the case. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)