Talk:John Charles McQuaid

What is this supposed to mean? As far away from POV-neutral as one can imagine…

"After McQuaid was buried under the High Altar in Dublin's Pro-Cathedral, he was quickly forgotten, as his successors struggled, unsuccessfully in the end, to fend off what became known as 'the liberal agenda'."

That is really how the article ends at present. What a joke.Stealstrash (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Regroup into controversies section?

There's no mention of his possible role in the abuse of symphysiotomy; however, that topic needs better sourcing than the link I noticed.

The section on child sex abuse (both individual and condoning) might combine with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abb3w (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abb3w Dedicated controversies sections are deprecated. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Style

There are far too many quotations in this article and yet despite that it reads in many places as if the opinion of the WP editors is being stated. Really very poor: needs more paraphrasing, less editorialising, and a whole bunch of very basic MOS-type issues fixing. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there are a fair few identical phrases in this article to those published here. Not sure which came first but if we took from that publication then we must attribute it, preferably inline because it gets really messy if the attribution is just dumped generically at the foot of our articles. Further, if we took from there then the close paraphrasing, as well as the direct copying, will require resolution. The last update noted there is 2009. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is probably of use. To our modern eyes, at least, McQuaid was corrupt and draconian in quite a few respects and I'm not convinced this article at present really reflects the perception of him that seems to be common amongst those Irish Catholics whom I know. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And this. There are loads more. It isn't about tarring him but rather presenting a neutral, balanced article. It is important to bear in mind that people such as Prof Keogh grew up in the McQuaid era & as such were directly influenced by it: their opinions are valid but perhaps skewed. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Good catches. It's clear that you're quite invested and so I wonder if you might consider taking on the project of a modern, accurate and neutral re-write of this musty, blinkered and biased article yourself? forestflyer (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Forestflyer I don't know masses about him and am editing/researching using a mobile phone at the moment, which isn't conducive to anything major. It's just so blindingly obvious that this article is terrible! - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I hear ya. While it is a travesty, it's not worth ruining your eyes over. Your observations will help others re-do it, though! forestflyer (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs significant cleanup, including expansion of the intro to summarize the article, and reduction in size of the body, including removing the excessive quotations. I agree with the two maintenance tags {{Non-free}} and {{Improve lead}}. Consigned (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Homosexual abuse claims are rumour, not fact

At the moment we have a section, tagged with "undue weight" where far too much attention is given to a footnoted rumour from an unpublished essay by Noel Browne, where the unproven story says that McQuaid "attempted" to engage in homosexual activity with a boy in a Dublin pub. This is not a scenario like Brendan Smyth (for example) where it is all proven and a matter of public record. Perhaps it needs to be subsumed under the section on his handling of abuse? JustAChurchMouse (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)