Talk:Patricia Casey

Husband

I've edited Casey's husband's surname. It's McGuiggan, not Casey. Trust me.

Conservative

This is mostly a very biased entry using the word 'conservative' in a highly tendentious way. Casey is a respected psychiatrist whose positions regarding traditional marriage and child-raising are based on her own clinical experience. There is also a wealth of research by other social scientists which supports the traditional position that children are best raised in a married heterosexual family preferably consisting of the children's natural mother and father. The article refers to criticisms of Casey's position without adverting the reader that this comes mostly from gay activists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmatorDei (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi AmatorDei. Casey is indeed a respected psychiatrist just as David Beckham is a respected athlete, however that is hardly relevant to arguments on marriage equality or adoption, as being gay is neither a psychiatric problem nor a question of sport. If you can provide verifiable sources for your changes, then by all means add them, otherwise please refrain from unhelpful edits. The word conservative is not used in any pejorative or incorrect sense here - by supporting "traditional" roles and positions she is by definition conservative. Whether the criticisms of Casey come from so-called gay activists or the pope himself makes no difference to the fact that she has misrepresented data, per the authors of the report she referenced. Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this comment by GeneralBelly. Professor Casey is primarily a psychiatrist and her clinical experience is highly relevant to issues such as homosexuality, adoption of children by homosexuals, the effects of abortion on women, and the other isses mentioned in the article. Whatever you think, being gay is a psychiatric issue. I would refer you to the organization Narth which is an association of psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and psychotherapists who treat individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions. If these individuals seek psychiatric help for these attractions, then, by definition, it is a psychiatric problem. You might not like this but it is a fact. Your frivolous comparison with a sportsman is completely irrelevant to the the discussion. With regard to the Swedish report, I read this and agreed with Professor Casey's interpretation. Sometimes social science researcher's with a strong ideological bias find it difficult to accept the results of their own research when it contradicts their deeply held beliefs. AmatorDei 01:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) AmatorDei —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmatorDei (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment. The national medicine and psychiatry colleges/associations of the USA, UK, Ireland, and many other Western nations, removed homosexuality from their list of psychiatric diseases or issues decades ago. NARTH is a small organisation which is completely unrepresentative of modern psychiatry. As a physician I know psychiatry colleagues who feel religious belief is a psychiatric problem, however no-one takes them seriously as they are a tiny minority and have no proof to back up their theories... just like NARTH and their ilk. By your definition of a psychiatric problem, anything that people seek psychiatric help for (e.g. listening to country music) would automatically classify the problem as psychiatric.

Professor Casey is a clinical psychiatrist but is not a specialist in any of the areas you mention above - her interest in homosexuality, abortion, etc. stem from her religious beliefs and as such she speaks from that perspective. It would be a logical fallacy to follow her argument from authority. If you can find reputable sources which prove she has expertise in the areas of human sexuality, reproductive health, etc., I would be surprised and delighted to see them. Bear in mind that the vast majority of her peers who have recognised credentials in these areas vehemently disagree with her.

Regarding the Swedish data, it is difficult to take seriously your suggestion. We have no reason to believe that in this case the researchers have any bias or ulterior motive, deliberate or otherwise, and it would be a huge logical fallacy to presume that simply to bolster Casey's false argument. As far as we know, the data is sound and there is no cause to doubt the researchers. Casey, on the other hand, regularly advertises her "strong ideological bias" and "deeply held [conservative] beliefs" - perhaps we should take what she says with a pinch of salt? You argue quite brilliantly against yourself. --GeneralBelly (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The article on NARTH is quite revealing about their, ah, agenda. One of their experts is George Rekers who cited the Bible in testimony.Autarch (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Need a quote for that.Lionel (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionel, as I mention below, if you access the sources you will see it is supported. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

POV

An editor insists on adding unsourced stuff like "right-wing" and "conservative" and removes sourced descriptors such as "leading". For the removal they cited a wikipedia article which is not binding in anyway shape or form. On the other hand, WP:WEASEL supports the addition of "leading" as it is cited. Lionel (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionel. I have described her as right wing/conservative because that is the part of the spectrum her views fall under. It is not a derogatory or POV thing to describe someone as conservative. If you think it is an insult or somehow controversial then I disagree. There is a comprehensive(sourced) list of her documented positions which can almost all be considered conservative. I removed "leading" from the lede because it could be construed as a weasel word, per the page I cited when making the edit.

As an aside, when I created the article I was very careful to give Casey full credit for her career achievements, ample references to which are made in the article. I can assure you that I spent a lot of time digging through articles and listening to podcasts in order to find laudatory material as I believe strongly in NPOV and the importance of having balance in BLP. It took a lot more effort to find positive material than controversial articles, I can assure you.

The issue of the dubious/verify tags confuses me. The Irish Times is the paper of record and if you access their archives you will find the supporting sources, which are documented at the bottom of the WP article. At the time of writing the WP article in 2008, the material could be accessed free on the web, however it is now behind a paywall, similar to the NYT. I presume we are not going to mark all such sources as dubious or requiring quotes? Some articles depend on difficult-to-find books, copies of doctoral theses, pay-to-view journal articles, etc. as sources, and we accept that not all sources will be available 24/7 free of charge. I would ask you to reconsider those tags.

Kind regards, GeneralBelly (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see also WP:SOURCES, viz.: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Roscelese has made constructive edits which seem to have resolved the issue, can we remove the NPOV tag? GeneralBelly (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The irish Times is the paper of record? This article is bordering on defamatory in its biased opinion against Casey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.58.11 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias

This article was revised because of the bias, inaccuracies and prejudiced tone. For example, the use of the politically charged tag "conservative," what exactly does that mean? The sources were very poor, clear misquotes. Just because a journalist writes a story on someone does not mean that the story is accurate or a true representation of what was said. Because of that the revised article was referenced with Casey's own works to properly represent her positions. Another example of an inaccuracy is her being named a pro-life activist without any proof, she is not a pro life activist (a term that itself is very vague, no definition was provided) if she was then the author would be expected to provide evidence. All in all the original article was a disgrace. I believe the new article will give those who disagree with Casey an opportunity to air criticisms of her work in an appropriate manner. --liamfoley

Has she ever described herself as being conservative? I think that is the most important point. Conservativism is completly subjective and depends on where I as an individual stand on the political spectrum. a "very conservative" person might describe Casey as liberal and just about any person who disagrees with her and would prefer to see a more permissive society will dismiss her as conservative. I would like to see more references to support her being refered to as conservative. If she describes herself as conservative all the better but who else describes her as conservative. If it is people who disagree with her on issues then I think that has no place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.229.75 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi liamfoley, I've moved this new section per Wikipedia style/talkpage policy. Casey is patron of the Iona Institute, which has been described by valid sources (e.g. the Irish Times [1]) as a conservative think-tank. The conservative label is not negative or insulting - it is simply an objective description of her public views on social issues. See conservatism. Sourced material should not be removed without discussion. Any additions should be sourced and NPOV, per BLP. All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The above article from the Irish Times is an opinion by the well known critic of the Catholic Church, Patsy McGarry. It is not objective, it is not a fit source for this entry. Just because you agree with him does not make it a "fact." You do not even define what you mean by conservative in this context, for all any of us know you could be an activist yourself. Describing someone as "conservative" like this is hardly "evidence," how does she describe her own views, do you have evidence to support your opinions other than one subjectice source? The Irish Times contains a "Corrections and Clarifications" column almost every day, it acknowledges its own tendency to get facts wrong not to mention opinions. 137.191.229.75 (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Generalbelly accuses Casey of claiming that UNICEF support her position yet does not provide a link to the original article where she makes that "claim", this is either sloppy work or clear bias. This accusation needs to be removed or a link to the original article where she claims such support needs to be inserted at once.137.191.229.75 (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi 137.191.229.75. There are several other verfiable sources for the label, e.g. the CIA factbook [2], another Irish Times piece [3], another IT article [4], also the Guardian [5]... The WP article conservatism defines what may be considered conservative positions, all of which apply to Casey and the Iona Institute, per sources in article.

RE: the Unicef issue, this has been discussed previously and you will find that the sources are appropriate and verifiable. Please consult WP policy and avoid 3RR. All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's avoid edit war; some of this has been discussed above and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive121#Patricia_Casey. I'm only interested in creating a quality NPOV article, so always happy to discuss improvements and help where I can. All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless the CIA have described Patricia Casey as being "conservative" appealing to their Factbook is irrelevant. The same applies for your other "sources." I removed the UNICEF material because you have no reference supporting your claim that Casey made such a claim. In light of this, accusations of unprofessional behaviour is potentially libellous. Eainem (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eainem, there are several sources cited above which note that Casey is patron of a conservative organisation. There is no value judgment, just description. If there are verifiable sources describing her as liberal or otherwise, they should certainly be added.

There are direct references to Casey's UNICEF claims and they are discussed here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive121#Patricia_Casey This is factual reproduction of verifiable sources - there is no libel. All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

GeneralBelly I think you’re somewhat confused about the different types of sources. These kind of articles need primary sources in order to clear up confusion. You have not provided a link where Casey has made the claim you repeat, you do, however, provided links where representatives of the Irish office of UNICEF have said that she made an erroneous claim. That is a secondary source and not enough in itself to support what you wrote. Unless you can provide primary sources for this and other claims you make about Casey this needs to be removed without delay. Liamfoley (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Liamfoley, there are 2 primary sources (letters written by Casey) which are linked to: [6] and [7]. This has previously been discussed here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive121#Patricia_Casey All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• BeneralBelly: at this point both your links lead to a subscription only service. An inaccessible source is not a source that’s appropriate for an article that’s as open and free as Wikipedia. Again I think that it’s not unreasonable to request either a source that is easily and freely accessible or an immediate removal. Liamfoley (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Liamfoley. Unfortunately some articles depend on difficult-to-find books, copies of doctoral theses, pay-to-view journal articles, etc. and we accept that not all sources will be available 24/7 free of charge. Please see Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:PAYWALL#Access_to_sources, which states:

"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

GeneralBelly: unfortunately in the absence of easily accessible sources all that we have is your word. Considering the point that this specific issue is becoming a point of contention it is only fair that you provide a source that is free. Nothing personal, but when it comes to a person’s professional reputation your word is not enough since you can make that accusation under the cloak of anonymity provided by Wikipedia. Once again I think that it’s not unreasonable that you remove the references that require payment or provide references that are more easily accessed. Liamfoley (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Liamfoley, as noted above:

• WP policy does not require free, universally-accessible sources; this is made explicit at Wikipedia:PAYWALL#Access_to_sources
• other editors have discussed this exact issue and have independently verified the sources; I was not involved in that verification and their discussion is at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive121#Patricia_Casey

All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• GeneralBelly. If that is true then the editors you mention need to verify this. You are writing that the professor of psychiatry at Ireland’s largest university misrepresents data and makes false claims of support.. Even if you do produce other editors that is by itself a weak argument unless you can provide sources. If necessary the matter can be brought to the next level and have another authority look at the material and verify that the accusations are true.Liamfoley (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I remind some of the contributors above that one of the fundamental principles on Wikipedia is to assume good faith? Hohenloh ⁺ 17:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Liamfoley. I have just edited several sections to make it as NPOV as possible and can find no outstanding issues. If you are still concerned re: sources, you could discuss with editors who have previously looked at the issue on the BLP Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive121#Patricia_Casey. You could also try: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal, and so forth. All the best, --GeneralBelly (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased to see this article has been modified to reduce the bias of the original writer. I also objected to the tone and terminology of the article when it first appeared in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmatorDei (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patricia Casey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080213025555/http://www.tcd.ie:80/cgws/events/newresearch2001.php to http://www.tcd.ie/cgws/events/newresearch2001.php

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Patricia Casey. 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/20120208020048/http://thedubliner.typepad.com/the_dubliner_magazine/2007/04/the_good_doctor.html to http://thedubliner.typepad.com/the_dubliner_magazine/2007/04/the_good_doctor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209225450/http://www.ionainstitute.ie/personnel_patrons.php to http://www.ionainstitute.ie/personnel_patrons.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/02/09/story815941872.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003060200/http://www.familyandlife.org/newsletter_popup.php?id=40 to http://www.familyandlife.org/newsletter_popup.php?id=40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714090842/http://www.middlekilleavy.com/index.php?artid=2630&option=com_cifeed&task=newsarticle to http://www.middlekilleavy.com/index.php?artid=2630&option=com_cifeed&task=newsarticle
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/mar/23/irish-psychiatrist-in-same-sex-row-with-top-colleg/?q=sarkadi

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) 00:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

She is known for her regular column with the Irish Independent newspaper, and her controversial views on a variety of social issues.

What is controversial in her views? Is it pro-life (and not anti-abortion) controversial by itself because author of the article is obviously pro-choice. Opinion (view) isn't controversial because you don't agree with it! (Where are now human rights?) This sentence is certainly not enyclopedic!--Mudroslov (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Vagueness in opening paragraph.

The opening paragraph of the article currently ends with a statement that Casey is known for her "conservative views on a variety of social issues." I think it would increase clarity if we instead listed the positions on which she has taken conservative positions. Would anyone have any objection to such?Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)