Talk:Murder of Bridget Cleary

Untitled
Created this page 3/22/2007. I submit that the case is notable because it was quite a famous trial in its day, and it has spawned a fair amount of popular interest as well as some serious scholarly research. It will take me some time to have the information properly distilled and written out though.DCB4W 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I have a rough draft done, so I can leave it for a bit without feeling I defaced the article space. One nitpick I have, for which I would be grateful for advice: I said Cleary was murdered, when in fact her husband was convicted of manslaughter only. However, there is no verb form of "manslaughter", so I'm leaving a deliberate technical error until I think of a better way to word it.DCB4W 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. In the course of a WikiGnome job, I changed "murdered" to "killed," which is the generic way to say it without using criminal law terminology.  (My opinion is that it was murder in the first, but that's beside the point.)  Also, I suggest expanding the text as to political ramifications, including the significance of Oscar Wilde's concurrent legal wranglings.  (I would do this myself, but I think your draft is a good start, and I'm in a lazy mode. :) )  Z Wylld 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone.... In followup to the comments above, I see that someone changed "killed" back to "murdered."  I don't want to get into a revision/rerevision/rererevision thing, so I will just put my further comment here first.  As I said before, my (personal) opinion is that this was murder in the first degree.  But Michael was actually convicted of manslaughter, not murder (in whatever degree).  I don't know what the exact definitions of these crimes were in 1890s Ireland, but they definitely are not (and were not) interchangeable in a legal sense.  So I think it's best to say Bridget was "killed" by Michael, because this is the generic verb, and accurate as well, regardless of the specific criminal conviction.  ...comments??  Z Wylld 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bridget Cleary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203110359/http://www.controverscial.com:80/Fairy%20Witch%20of%20Clonmel.htm to http://www.controverscial.com/Fairy%20Witch%20of%20Clonmel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

wilful [sic]
Wilful with a single L is the ordinary spelling in most English-speaking countries (though not in the US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.49.30 (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Image inclusion
I'm aware this isn't a BLP and that she died in the 1800s. I still don't think that the source you used is reliable enough to include this image, it doesn't even say that it's her. I also disagree that its inclusion is nessecary because it's from an "academic" blog. For one, the author is unknown and there's no indication of anything like peer review or an editorial board. It really just seems like someone's blog. I wouldn't use this blog post as a source for anything about Dr. Strange, for example. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * while i would prefer an archival link to the glass plate with provenance, we do not have that, and that is a heroically high standard. you are making up an image curation standard, no where else on this site. we have an ocean of phone snaps, and Punch (magazine) caricatures. if you do not put an image here, then every year the #wpwp drive will insert the drawing. in a larger sense, the implicit anti-media bias harms the wiki, encarta had better media a decade ago. --Turktimex3 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not making up an image curation standard. The blog doesn't even say that that image is a depiction of Cleary and inaccurate information is worse than nothing at all. I'm not against providing images of historical figures if we can be sure they are actually correct. I don't really trust a random blog to provide that. Are there other, more reliable sources that display the image? Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An example of what I mean is Katherine Hughes (activist). The current image is from provincial archives, but a previous version of the article included the one shown in her biography entry here. My concern is that a random blog could be displaying an image of someone else or mixed her up with another Cleary, among many other possible scenerios. That's why I think it's important that a reliable source is the source of the depiction. If we wouldn't use a blog for written content, why would we use it for other media? Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * More reliable sources do seem to confirm it is her:
 * https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/1019/1085544-darkest-ireland-and-the-burning-of-bridget-cleary/
 * https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-man-who-burned-his-wife-to-death-for-being-a-witch-36583918.html
 * A post to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion caught my attention. I hope this is helpful. CT55555 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is helpful, thanks! My main concern was the accuracy. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)