Talk:Ronald Conway
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ronald Conway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Charges against Conway[edit]
It seems extraordinary that someone, and perhaps more than one person, sees fit to remove from this article any references that have been made therein to the fact that male patients of Conway's have described him as molesting them. This fact is attested by the Victorian Parliament's recent inquiry into sex abuse cases; by Broken Rites; and by two articles in a Minnesota Catholic magazine, The Remnant. Sources:
(a) Victorian Parliament inquiry: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/StoveRobert.pdf
(b) Broken Rites: http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/136
(c) The Remnant articles: http://rjstove.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Stove-Conway.pdf http://www.rjstove.net/articles/Conway_Evil.pdf
The importance of Conway to Australian intellectual life in the 1970s and 1980s isn't in question (hence the original article) but in today's climate it is sheer lunacy to suppose that cover-ups of molestation proclivities in a Catholic context can or should be concealed. Without wishing to speculate as to the motives of those who wish to censor referenced material which displeases them, I believe they have some explaining to do and some decent contrition to exhibit.