Jump to content

Talk:Kit Cunningham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Needs restrictions

[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0124y7n

Due to the BBC programme and related article, this page should be restricted. It may be that the care by Father Kit to children in boarding schools was considered abusive (as most child raising of times past might be so considered today). There may well be allegation of inappropriate touching deemed sexual, however the label of 'paedophile' as a life long choice, or of continuing sexual activity throughout that life to be deemed 'bisexual' is an allegation. It shouldn't be here without referencing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.79.136 (talk • contribs)

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

[edit]

I just deleted Father Kit Cunningham as an attack page in good faith because of BLP concerns, it was referenced to a fairly normal obituary at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8199757/Father-Kit-Cunningham.html but contained mainly claims of child abuse from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/19/kit-cunningham-child-abuse, can somebody just review it please and revert deletion or endorse as necessary, thanks (also some content at St Etheldreda's Church). MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the uncited comment at the St Etheldreda's Church article, the descriptor as if fact when he appears to never have been found guilty of such a crime or even charged seems undue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the BLP concerns? He's dead. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note - its been replaced diff by User:Philadelphia 2009 it seems to be cited to that guardian is free external. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bit more in The Tablet Rosminians sued for abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear I deleted as it appeared to be an attack on Cunningham based on one Guardian opinion piece, I was perhaps hasty hence brought it up here for a sanity check. Although they may be dead they may have relatives. Hence my request to revert my deletion if others thought that appropriate and I would be happy to make an apology to Philadelphia 2009, just looking for other views. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it would as a minimum require a lot of care. Although there seems to have been no legal charges its the subject of a current civil action and three or the people involved are living. It also sounds like all the available details have been leaked by an alleged victim and a party to the civil action. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fr Kit would be charged if he were alive, but agreed about the other three living priests. Also there in a TV prog on the BBC on Tuesday, which may have more info. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that (as recorded in the Guardian) Fr Kit Cunningham did not deny the abuse allegations and wrote a letter of appology and handed back his OBE. The article was by no means the finished article, and I was planning to include more info re Fr Kit's good work in London. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tablet says that Cunningham wrote a letter admitting the abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Philadelphia 2009, He does seem from the obituary to notable-ish (although no one has written an article about him prior to this added issue} perhaps you would like to write a well rounded BLP for the father in your userspace prior to publishing in article space? Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is done - and I suggest caution here, particularly as other living people are involved in the civil suit - please ensure that the page is marked with the NO_INDEX template to reduce the likelihood that it is ranked highly in search engine results. Risker (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article in the Irish Independent there is a documentary being screened tomorrow about this. Fences&Windows 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cover-up" - Catholic Herald

[edit]

"And the worst aspect of all is what looks like a cover up in the Church; not just priests covering up for each other in a local culture of sinful complicity, but the Rosminian order itself: it knew of the truth of the allegations against Fr Cunningham at least a year before his death if not longer – and yet they still held a memorial service in January which duly echoed all the tributes paid to him on his death. This is appalling." http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/06/20/why-didnt-the-rosminian-order-tell-us-the-truth-about-fr-kit/ Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion based on claims

[edit]

Assertions on the article based on the claims of a few, discussion of "crimes", never charged or prosecuted, perhaps "alleged crimes" would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurkledunk (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fr Kit admitted his crimes, wrote letters of appology, and handed back his MBE. He can't be proceuted because he is dead.Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MBE

[edit]

User:Anglicanus removed the letters 'MBE' after Fr Cunningham's name. I am going to restore them. This is not a question of morality, but of accuracy. There is only one way in which an honour can be removed. The Forfeiture Committee submits a recommendation to the Queen through the Prime Minister, and the Queen then directs that the appointment be cancelled and annulled and that the person's name be erased from the register of the order, and the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood places a notice in the London Gazette. This is generally done when a person has been found guilty of a serious criminal offence. Fr Cunningham admitted his guilt, but he was never found guilty in a court of law. Honours cannot be renounced; the mere gesture of returning the medal to the Queen has no legal effects whatsoever. John Lennon, for example, famously returned his medal the the Queen, but his Wikipedia biography nonetheless records him as 'John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE'. Whether one likes it or not, Fr Cunningham remained a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire until his death, and he should be recorded as such here.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Anglicanus, if someone hands back their MBE, then they are not to be called an MBE. There is no obligation to call someone an MBE, if they don't want to.Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oxonian2006 makes a pretty compelling argument. I assume he's correct on the technical aspects. I support his point. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a person lets it be known that he has returned the insignia of his honour to the Queen and that he no longer wishes to be associated with the honour then it is of course courteous to comply with his wishes. In the case of Gareth Peirce it would be courteous to refer to her as 'Mrs Gareth Peirce', not 'Mrs Gareth Peirce, CBE'; in the case of HRH The Duchess of Kent, GCVO, it would be courteous to refer to her as 'Katharine Kent'. However, Wikipedia is not concerned with social courtesy, but with accuracy. The fact is that Kit Cunningham's informal renunciation of his MBE had no legal effects. Furthermore, the medal was returned with no public announcement, as a private act of penance. His obituaries generally appended the letters 'MBE' after his name. His returning the medal came to light only recently. I really think that there is no justification for removing the letters from the lead sentence of the article.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that you are technically correct on these matters but I suggest that it also needs to be determined whether or not he actually remained a member of the order - and whether or not his renunciation it was only "informal". His reasons for returning the medal were quite different from that of John Lennon's and due to these reasons discretion may have been used in not publicly announcing anything about it. I also find it difficult to believe that if a person personally seeks to renounce an honour such as a MBE that the request would not be acted on. Anglicanus (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am as certain as I could be, without seeking confirmation from the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood, that Fr Cunningham remained an MBE until his death. As far as I am aware there simply is no procedure for resignation of an honour. I suppose the Queen, as Sovereign of the Order, must, in theory at least, be capable of accepting resignation, but I am aware of no instance in which she has done so. I also suspect that for constitutional reasons the resignation would in fact have to be submitted through the Prime Minister. Furthermore, once the resignation had been accepted, the Queen could not allow the honour to continue to be used, as it was in Fr Cunningham's case. Fr Cunningham was well connected in media circles and must have been aware that obituaries were likely to be prepared, if they had not in fact been prepared already, and he would surely have been required to advise editors of the fact that he was no longer an MBE. Again, I do not believe that resignation of an honour could be accepted without a notice being published in the London Gazette.
I think that one also has to look at the reasons why Fr Cunningham returned his medal, and also why he did so with no public announcement. My understanding is that the medal was returned as a private act of penance; as a small, personal sacrifice, rather than as a public act of contrition. He was apparently advised at the time that returning the medal, as if the honour had in fact been forfeited, was much too close to an admission of actual criminal guilt than his religious superiors would have liked. This makes it seem all the more unlikely that he actually submitted to the Queen a formal request that he be allowed to resign membership of the Order.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oxonian (even as a Cantabrigian). There is a set procedure for resigning from membership of the Order of the British Empire, and Fr Cunningham did not follow it; it would probably have progressed had he lived, but at the time of his death he was still a member of the Order. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of these comments I am willing to support reinstating MBE after his name. Anglicanus (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate refs

[edit]

I've deleted some duplicate refs. If you need a ref, please check it's not already in the list, before u add it. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kit Cunningham. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kit Cunningham. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation claims

[edit]

@JustAChurchMouse: Why categorize him as LGBT or anything like that? The whole article in prose neither implies nor identifies him as such. Furthermore, I don't see how his.... actions made him as that. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello George, thank you for your comment. The first section of the article "Tanzania and sexual abuse of young boys", mentions Mr. Cunningham's sexual involvement with other males (in this case, the young boys were the subject of his sexual interest). Mr. Cunningham's sexual activity with other males is a matter of public record in the sources for that section. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explicitly justify categorizing him as such, IMO. I don't see how homosexuality and hebephilia/pedophilia are related to each other, despite sex. Not only it is ridiculous, it also potentially misleads a reader into equating both incorrectly. George Ho (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless sources describe Cunningham as LGBT, then WP:Categorizing articles about people is quite clear: Do not categorize people based upon deduction, inference [...] Doing so would be original research. Inclusion of people in a category must be based on verifiability from reliable sources. This is restated in WP:CATLGBT, the section specifically about categorising people as LGBT: For a person who has died [...] there must be verifiable reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia categorises Jeffrey Dahmer under the category of LGBT, because he is notorious for his seeking out of males for sexual intercourse as a matter of public record. Doesn't matter that what that what he is notorious for is largely seen as negative and is defined as criminal. Same applies here. Mr. Cunningham was a male, he is notable in public articles that discuss his life for his sexual abuse of other MALES (he had a penis and was sexually aroused by other males with penises; that is a signifier of either bisexuality or homosexuality). He didn't chose females as his sexual victims (in the minority of heterosexual clerics who abused just females instead, the category obviously wouldn't apply). JustAChurchMouse (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dahmer is categorized as LGBT because he was a gay man. As that article states, Dahmer realized he was gay when he reached puberty, long before he began his killing spree. There are no such sourced claims about Cunningham. Funcrunch (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to reinsert the categories, and why compare Dahmer with Cunningham? Furthermore, what you've been doing is against WP:NOR and WP:V and seems to be pushing the POV. Don't you think? George Ho (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia editors have no business categorizing a subject as gay based on their sexual abuse of minors. Funcrunch (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kit_Cunningham&oldid=1256555760"