Talk:Nora Wall

Untitled
I have requested the secretary of the group responsible for the website to confirm that I am the author of the original article on Nora Wall.

Kilbarry1 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Secretary of the group that published my original article on Nora Wall has emailed Wikipedia Permissions to confirm that I am the copyright owner of my own article. Can this article be restored please?

Kilbarry1 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(This copyright assertion has been moved from the main page of this article preparatory to restoring an earlier version of it.) I am the author of this original article on Nora Wall published on 6 Jan 2006 on the website of the organisation "Alliance Support". The Secretary of the organisation has confirmed this to Wikipedia Permissions but this should not really be necessary as I retain the copyright of my own articles. "Alliance Support" is a charity. The Ticket Number of the query to Permissions is [Ticket#2009082310018149]

Kilbarry1
 * We need further clarification of this release. Please look for an e-mail with further instructions. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved Hairhorn (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

&quot;Nora Wall&quot; → Nora Wall &mdash; I've left a message at WP:Requested page moves to bring this article into accord with our page-naming conventions, hence Nora Wall. I am not absolutely sure why I can't do this myself; I think it has to do with the quotation marks. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page... perhaps I did it prematurely given the request, since I'm not an admin, but it seems a pretty clear case. The quotes didn't give me any trouble.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section..

NPOV
Now that copyright issues with respect to this article are for the moment addressed, the article needs a thorough edit to bring it into line with our neutral point of view policy and the apparent violation of a number of our biography of living persons policy, because there are a number of strongly negative assertions about apparently living people that are not specifically referenced (and this could expose Wikipedia to legal action). Accounting4Taste: talk 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The two accusers of Nora Wall had their reputations soundly trashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in December 2005 when the judges issued a certificate of Miscarriage of Justice to Nora Wall. I take it that the problem is with my criticisms of the original judge and of the Sunday World journalist. I will reference these. I will also be adding some positive comments about the former who seems to have had a change of heart as a result of the case. Kilbarry1 (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article page:

Is there a SECOND "Speedy Deletion" notice? I can document every statement I made. I can also tone down comments in the interest of neutrality although the Judgement of the Irish Court of Criminal appeal- published by the Court service on the internet- contains very "judgemental" language. Kilbarry1 (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And if their reputations, as you put it, were "soundly trashed", you need to cite the decision/opinion/judgment/whatever it was called that trashed their reputation. Our WP:BLP policy is quite strict. Negative unsourced comments may be removed without notice or delay. BTW, please, please, read WP:NPOV. Tim Song (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See No 6 of my "Note on Sources" at the end of the article The Judgement of the Irish Court of Criminal appeal delivered on 16 December 2005 (Director of Public Prosecutions and Nora Wall - CCA 147/99) is at http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2005/C140.html

I have not yet incorporated this into the article with reference to specific paragraphs but will do so shortly. ALSO please see the Wikipedia article on "Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hugh_McGregor_Ellis whose case in New Zealand ressembles that of Nora Wall in Ireland. The Wikipedia article is highly sympathetic to Mr Ellis even though his conviction for child abuse in a creche has never been OFFICIALLY overturned. Peter Ellis was probably targetted because he was the only male working in the creche - and because he was homosexual; also the mother who was his first accuser went on to accuse another male working in a different creche. Nora Wall was targetted because she had been a nun - as is demonstrated by the tone of the media coverage of the case AND both her accusers had made previous allegations against other people. Also Satanic Ritual Abuse played the kind of role in the Ellis case that Retrieved Memory played in the case against Nora Wall. Complete neutrality is impossible to achieve but the case of Nora Wall is more straighforward than that of Peter Ellis. Kilbarry1 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup/Style/Quality Standards
I have amended the article to use the Wikipedia type headings and sub-headings and generated an Index. Does that deal with the two issues re Cleanup and Quality Standards? Kilbarry1 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. This article still needs a lot of work; there is still considerable original research, uncited conclusions of fact, peacock terms, etc.  I've given it a once-over-lightly and brought it somewhat in line with both our style standards and policies and will return to it when I have more time.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, one thing that needs to happen is a large edit whereby the subject is presented in chronological order. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK this started life as part of a much larger article so the chronology suffered when I reduced it and I will rewrite. Regarding the removal of the sentence: "This case illustrates the danger of false allegations of child sexual abuse - especially those based on anti-clericalism'; there is no doubt at all that this is a false allegation of child sexual abuse and a very significant one. Saying it was "based on anti-clericalism" is offering a point of view but there is a huge amount of evidence - an unprecedented list of legal disasters being inflicted on a former nun accompanied by savage media attacks on the clergy. Kilbarry1 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the Wikipedia guidelines about original research, especially original research by synthesis. Regardless of how tempting/obvious it is to draw conclusions from evidence, Wikipedia articles only quote such conclusions when they are the written product of experts.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I more or less completed the content of the article so I will work on the chronology next. However I propose to leave the section "The Reason Why" at the end even though datewise it should be at the beginning. It concerns the reasons for the convictions - as per the Irish Times, Independent, UK historian Richard Webster, Studies Review - and Nora Wall herself. Kilbarry1 (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Her convictions come first, the appeals come second. Follow the sequence. This is not an place for creative non-fiction writing--it's an encyclopedia, and we describe things plainly, in order. I   DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

further advice
Actually, there's quite a bit of editorializing that needs to be removed. And all unsourced opinion. And negative unsourced discussions of other people. And repetition. The material needs to be presented in chronological order--I began doing that-- and it is necessary to describe what he was accused of. Do not leave the section "The reason why" at the end--and do not use that section title--it's inherently editorializing. And I mention that BLP policy applies with respect to everyone, not just her.  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I will put the material in chronological order. I changed the title of "The Reason Why" to a more neutral one "Explanations for Miscarriage...". I think that the biographical material on Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe should go together since they were both accused of the same two rapes and both found guilty of one of them. (Nora Wall is supposed to have assisted McCabe). Maybe change the title of the Wikipedia article to "Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe"? This is close to the title of the main account of the case in Studies Review "Miscarriage of Justice: Paul McCabe and Nora Wall", (McCabe is dead so his name is not in the title of the Judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal). Kilbarry1 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The material is now largely in chronological order. I need to make some changes made necessary by the alteration of the order of paragraphs and also to add more references and eliminate some "editorial", I think that the section "Explanation for Miscarriage of Justice" could stay at the end. Much of the attribution of responsibility for the fiasco was done AFTER the Judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Dec 2005. Kilbarry1 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have begun removing sentences that are editorializing and non-encyclopedic writing. We describe what's happened--we do not draw morals. I want to see if it is possible to revise to NPOV without rewriting from scratch entirely. I expect to remove several major sections--the judgment of the Court of appeal repeats the same facts as in the previous section, and in the section on the responsibility of the different figures--once would be enough, but I'm not sure where. I think the C of A decision might be the clearest account of the sequence. but normally we'd describe the sequence,and just source it to them. I am also unconvinced of the relevance of the pathetic scenes. But I remain concerned that this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article.    DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nora Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118205630/http://www.studiesirishreview.ie/j/page102 to http://www.studiesirishreview.ie/j/page102
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118205630/http://www.studiesirishreview.ie/j/page102 to http://www.studiesirishreview.ie/j/page102

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nora Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310152104/http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/04/13/story135990641.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/04/13/story135990641.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)