Talk:Mill Hill Missionaries

Basic information first please

There have been a couple of attempts to take this article past the first sentence by adding negative statements. So, let's have some sense of order here.

An article should be established first.

A description, some history, details of activities, philosophy and aims, the nature of the Society, should all be included before negative statements are placed in any article. Otherwise, it looks like someone has an axe to grind, has lost their sense of impartial article writing, and has resorted to showing a personal point of view and writing a piece as an original piece of research.

The Mill Hill Missionary Society is just that - a Society - and not, as reported in the article recently, as an order. The Society has, over the years, had thousands of members - priests, brothers and lay members. Of course, there will be some things that haven't gone well. Its beginings were in Victorian England - what is politically acceptable has changed over time. I'm sure that Mill Hill Missionaries were formed and continued to be run for righteous reasons. So, let's fill the article with 95% good stuff first before we put any bad press into the aticle. It's the only fair way to show a sense of balance. Francis Hannaway 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree with you. Yes the article should be longer and give more information about this group's history and aims. Whether those aims or worthy or not isn't for us to comment on. The problem is no one seems to want to do that. The recent RTÉ programme on the Society's handling of alleged child abuse by it's members in Africa in recent years is likely to lead to increased media and other interest in them. It seems odd to remove all reference to it. I won't revert your revert but the info I added was properly referenced. Hopefully others will work on the article. --User:Boreas74 ^Talk 23:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does shouldn't just be longer - there is no article; it has yet to be written. The RTE programme, which I watched before deleting, was an interesting case. First, it was about one Mill Hill Missionary; he hadn't been convicted of anything; he didn't have the opportunity to defend himself in the programme; the programme makers were selling a sensationalised account of what could well be vindictive gossip. Because of this - and your reporting of it - you could leave yourself open to allegations of libel. Secondly, let's hypothetically make the assumption that this man was guilty of a crime, he is one of, I don't know exactly, 800 prests and brothers worldwide from this Society. If a dentist abused a patient, it would be ridiculous to start an article with "All dentists abuse patients". Why? Because there are thousands of dentists who don't - who, in fact, do great work. Similarly, the case of a single teacher who has abused a pupil - I'm not saying it's never happened - but, it would be wrong to base an article on it. "What do teachers do? They abuse children". Of course not, they teach children. Police - doctors - politicians - who would start an article with a piece about abuse? I think, too, that when "allegations" are included in an article, rather than "convictions", you are wandering into POV writing and original research. RTE wouldn't make a programme if it wasn't controvesial - the ratings wouldn't be high enough. TV gets audiences by being sensational. As a rule of thumb, I would say, look for a conviction first - not a sensational allegation. Furthermore, always present a balanced view - whatever your profession there will be wrong-doers in your midst, but that's not what Wikpedia readers want to read as a main feature. Thanks for your comments - and thanks for not re-reverting. Best wishes Francis Hannaway 09:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)