Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tyrenius (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 14 March 2007 (→‎Conclusion: :Read WP:NPOV. We don't aim to represent every possible viewpoint, only significant ones (as defined by WP:ATT) and then in due proportion to their importance (again as define). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:IR" redirects here. For WikiProject International relations, see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. For image requests, see Wikipedia:Requested pictures. For Wikipedia ignore all rules (IAR) policy, see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
Irish Republicanism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 1 3
GA 1 2 6 3 12
B 12 16 39 28 5 100
C 5 10 54 63 26 158
Start 4 37 171 198 126 536
Stub 1 26 77 29 133
List 1 2 2 10 3 18
NA 1 4 3 175 183
Assessed 24 70 303 382 175 189 1,143
Unassessed 1 1
Total 24 70 303 382 175 190 1,144
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 4,439 Ω = 4.71


Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

Goals

  • Improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
  • Gather interested editors, and provide a central location to discuss matters pertaining to the above.

Scope

  • Topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.

Guidelines

Open tasks

This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Campaigns

Republican Wars

Others

Events

Armed Republican Groups

For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA

Irish Republicans

Note: There are many, many IRA Volunteers of varying memberships, and we cannot list them all here. We have many categories for that. Only particularly notable members should be listed here.

Early Volunteers; the Wars

Later IRA

Other

Participants

This user is a member of WikiProject Irish Republicanism.

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest

  1. Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
  2. Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
  3. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
  4. Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
  5. Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
  6. One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
  7. Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
  8. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
  9. Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
  10. GiollaUidir (talk · contribs) Republican activities from the 1969-mid 80's. Also, biogs of (primarily) dead activists both political and military. Post-1986 is mainly CIRA activity and shoot-to-kill operations by the SAS etc.
  11. Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
  12. Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
  13. Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
  14. Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
  15. Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
  16. United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
  17. Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
  18. Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
  19. Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
  20. Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
  21. Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
  22. Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
  23. Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
  24. Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
  25. BigDunc (talk · contribs)
  26. Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
  27. quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
  28. gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
  29. ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.[reply]
  30. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
  32. Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
  33. Barryob (talk · contribs)
  34. NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
  36. Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
  37. Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
  38. EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
  39. Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
  40. SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
  41. NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
  42. Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
  44. Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
  45. Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
  46. Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
  47. Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
  48. You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
  49. Finnegas (talk · contribs)
  50. Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
  51. High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
  52. Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
  53. AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
  54. Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
  55. Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
  56. CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
  57. KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.
  58. Endersslay (talk · contribs) Enjoy Irish republican music and history.
  59. R0paire-wiki (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present, with particular focus on Socialist Republicanism.

Userbox

Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!

Articles

Featured content

Candidates

Good articles

Candidates

Articles in need of urgent attention

Please provide a short explanation, or leave a note on our talk page if needed.

  • John Sweetman. Article on 2nd President of SF needs more footnotes, and appears to have been compiled largely from reports in The Times of London, which is hardly a neutral source on an Irish Republican.

Suggestions for new articles

Articles in Preparation

New articles

Belfast Pogrom

1923 Irish Hunger Strikes

Richard Goss (Irish Republican)

Joseph Whitty

Thomas Harte (Irish republican)

Patrick McGrath (Irish republican)

Jack McNeela

Seamus Woods

Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican)

Please feel free to list your new Irish Republican Army-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page.

Collaboration

The article listed here is our current official article to collaborate on. Propose new articles in the Nominations section below.

Nominations

James Larkin - Grosseteste (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Peer review
Assessment / Project's Assessment page

Assessment requests:

Language

Gaelic words and phrases should be marked up using {{lang}}, thus: {{lang|ga|Páirc na hÉireann}}.

Templates

To use the following template, simply put {{IRAs}} at the bottom of an article.

To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.

Articles which fall within our scope should be labeled as such on their talk pages. To do so, simply place {{WP IR}} at the top of article's talk page.

WikiProject iconIrish Republicanism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Categories

Regular cats

Project organisation cats

Resources

Using references

  • For a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page.

Reliable sources

It seems that we have a dispute over whether certain sources (particularly An Phoblacht) are reliable enough for use in this article. That matter should be discussed here, rather than via blanket reverts - which in this instance are almost certain to lead to a revert war. I'd like both Vintagekits and Stubacca to weigh in here with their differing views on the matter so that we may settle it amicably. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Doesn't the article on An Phoblacht itself make it abundantly clear that this is a partisan publication? Its website header [1] describes itself as 'Sinn Fein Weekly'. It's in the same category as, and as objective as, Der Stürmer or Le Père Duchesne (and has a vanishingly small circulation). --Major Bonkers 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has a vanishingly small circulation" - Its the largest selling political weekly in Ireland (north and south). Its production is high quality as is it journalism. The only issue is bias - its a paper with a republican perspective that needs to be taken into consideration when there is conflicting report. I would also point out that on a number of occasions the version of "the truth" that was printed in British press has turned out to be false and the An Phoblacht shown to actually been true.--Vintagekits 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of your comments, above, could apply equally well to Der Stürmer. By An Phoblacht's own account it has the 'highest circulation of an Irish political newspaper' (how many are there?) of up to 15,000 sales per week [2], a figure which does not seem to be audited. The quality of the journalism is a subjective issue, but the stories it choses to report and the manner in which it does so are partisan. --Major Bonkers 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.

As long as they aren't sourcing anything excessively controversial, it shouldn't be a problem. Even the extremist sources section doesn't say they can't be used. One Night In Hackney 08:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, much of what is referenced from An Phoblacht, Tírghrá etc are just pure facts regarding family, background, what they did as a job, where and when they were buried etc. The only time the info from An P etc should be questioned and qualified is if there are contradictory reports from other sources. In those cases it should be stated - "Republican sources state,......., whereas XYZ stated............." or something to that effect - and this is what I have been doing when there are different versions of events coming from different sources.--Vintagekits 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The danger is that although these references might be for non-POV points, it is still nonetheless directing the user to an external source that is biased. It would be better all round if we could go for less POV sources. Surely these facts can be found elsewhere. Logoistic 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that if the same facts can be sourced from a more neutral source, then they should be. I've been sourcing several articles over the past couple of days, and the overwhelming majority of sources I've added have been the BBC or The Guardian. One Night In Hackney 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair and valid points raised by both One Night In Hackney and Logoistic. I also agree - I have acknowledged that there can be an issue of bias in these articles but usually its not bias that is the problem its the "peackcock language" that is sometimes used. I always strip that out anyway if I am using an P, tirghra etc as a source. I also agree that if the exact same information can be taken from a more neutral source such as RTE, Irish Indo, BBC then obviously thats source will be more acceptable to everyone and should be used in preference. regards--Vintagekits 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of how bias is creeping in, see Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde#Conflicting accounts of his death, where the subjective sources are quoted first and the (more) objective sources second. (Although it is not relevant to this issue, I raise the point that Bobby Sands#IRA activity was arrested for carrying and using a pistol on his bombing sortie, whereas we are being asked in the Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde case to belive that he was planting his bomb whilst unarmed. Seems a bit unlikely to me, but perhaps he was just a bit forgetful on that occasion).--Major Bonkers 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how alleged POV disputes in a particular article have any relevance to the matter at hand. Your comments actually shows your lack of familiarity with the subject, as Andy McNab's supposedly "objective" account has been called into question by another source. Page 192 of Big Boys' Rules by Mark Urban gives details of both sides accounts, then states;

Both versions are discounted by someone who is familiar with the Army's internal version of the case, who suggests that there was no struggle, as the soldiers suggested in their court depositions, but that the soldiers simply saw MacBride running away and shot him.

Furthermore it is perfectly feasible that MacBride was unarmed when shot. Tony Gormley was armed to the teeth with a Zippo lighter when shot dead at Loughall, when carrying out a bomb attack. One Night In Hackney 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are making my point for me. Your quotation is entirely speculation.--Major Bonkers 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"My" quote? Sadly not. The quote has been published in a non-partisan source, and directly contradicts your "objective" source. I'd actually like you to explain how a soldier involved in the incident is an "objective" source please? Please bear in mind that during the Stalker Inquiry the "objective" comments of soldiers involved in shootings were shown to be false before answering. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both versions are discounted by someone who is familiar with the Army's internal version of the case [eh? Who might that be, then? Private McJockstrap, perhaps; or even an idle author], who suggests that there was no struggle, as the soldiers suggested in their court depositions, but that the soldiers simply saw MacBride running away and shot him.
I 'suggest' that such a quotation is worthless as a statement of fact, even for inclusion in the usual tiresome 'disputed circumstances of death' section. (Incidentally, 'quotation' is the noun, 'quote' the verb.) --Major Bonkers 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unfamiliar with journalism. Most journalists who write about Northern Ireland (including award winning journalist Peter Taylor) describe sources in such a way, as they do not reveal their sources. 'Quote' is also a noun, perhaps you should check your facts first in future? I see you also avoided any discussion of how Andy McNab is an "objective" source, I assume you've conceded that point then? One Night In Hackney 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that, coming from an academic background, I expect a bit more intellectual rigour in (what is supposed to be) an encyclopedia entry than copying out some unsourced speculation from a potboiler. To answer your question: the best sources for citations are obviously academic or specialist; below that is the general history/ potboiler (Urban, McNab); below that, media journalism; and the pits is the bigoted An Phoblacht (although, to be fair to it, An Phoblacht does not claim academic credibility.) --Major Bonkers 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources used

I've tried to do an analysis of the sources used. As per this discussion on my talk page, Tyrenius suggested the following when using sources such as saoirse, troopsoutmovement, An Phoblacht, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice, Tírghrá etc:

  • It would seem to be acceptable that they can be used to show a group's attitude to something or claim about it.
  • I suggest they are also suitable for non-controversial details, such as birth date and place, and mundane details, e.g. occupation, about an individual's life.
  • Where a mainstream source exists these sources should not be cited in tandem.
  • Where a mainstream source does not exist, these sources should not be used to verify a controversial point.
  • However, it may be that they can be used to verify a group's claim about or attitude to a controversial issue.
  • This is not a blanket endorsement of that. It would depend on the issue and on the particular source being used. Sometimes it would not necessarily be valid to quote the viewpoint, e.g. of an extremely small breakaway group that was not even directly involved in the issue, but is simply trying to make propaganda.

Based on this, I propose the following:

  • In the opening paragraph the two An Phoblacht sources ([3] & [4]) be deleted. The Amnesty source ([5]) covers everything in the paragraph. To quote Tyrenius "Where a mainstream source exists these sources should not be cited in tandem". It could be claimed that the An P sources are being used to "verify a group's claim about or attitude to a controversial issue". However no claim is being made in the article. Also, to only state one side's attitude is unbalanced.
  • The the Background paragraph, I propose the the An P source ([6]) only be deleted. Apart from his Basque involvement (which I presume the Tírghrá source covers) all the information is sourced from the Telegraph articles. ([7] & [8]}.
  • The Surveillance operation paragraph is sourced solely from An P. ([9]). As per "Where a mainstream source does not exist, these sources should not be used to verify a controversial point" this should be deleted and sourced from elsewhere, or a {{fact}} tag added until it is sourced from elsewhere.
  • In the Hotel raid paragraph, the schnews source be deleted as the numerous other sources cover everything mentioned.
  • In the Criminal Investigation Bureau paragraph, I suggest all the references be deleted and replaced with this one which is used eariler in the article. The four used at the minute either do not mention the outcome of the investigation, or are better replaced with a more reliable source such as the Amnesty one.

If this proposal works, I'm going to apply it to other articles, after discussion. Out of the sources I've contested, this article only uses An Phoblacht and Tírghrá which I see as more reliable than others like blogs, saoirse, troopsoutmovement, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit and relativesforjustice. I've started a new section for this, as the above conversation is getting into other articles, I want to focus on this one for now. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Vintagekits

Great work Stu, well thought out and pretty fair.

  • It would seem to be acceptable that they can be used to show a group's attitude to something or claim about it.

- If these just show a groups attitude then British papers and media should be identified as being the British perspective.

  • I suggest they are also suitable for non-controversial details, such as birth date and place, and mundane details, e.g. occupation, about an individual's life.

- no problem with that.

  • Where a mainstream source exists these sources should not be cited in tandem.

If the others source gives the exact information that any of those which you consider questionable then I dont see a problem with that, as long as we are getting all the information needed then I am happy with that.

  • Where a mainstream source does not exist, these sources should not be used to verify a controversial point.

- Here is where we start to part in our views. Whats mainstream - An Phoblact reflects the views of those who support the largest All Ireland political party and the majority of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland - why attempt to whitewash out information from good articles?

  • However, it may be that they can be used to verify a group's claim about or attitude to a controversial issue.

- If there are conflicting reports then this is fine but only when there are conflicting reports. As highlighted above why should we just accept the official reports given to the media as the only version of events when they are always going to be biased and have often been shown to be false a the reports in alternate media been shown to be true.

  • This is not a blanket endorsement of that. It would depend on the issue and on the particular source being used. Sometimes it would not necessarily be valid to quote the viewpoint, e.g. of an extremely small breakaway group that was not even directly involved in the issue, but is simply trying to make propaganda.

- I take issue with what you are try to state is "an extremely small breakaway group" - again Nationalist make up the majority of Ireland and a very large minority in Northern Ireland and the views reflected in An Phoblact reflect the views of largest Nationalist party in Northern Ireland so it would be grossly wrong to state that they are minority views.--Vintagekits 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Tyrenius

Good work. This is a very clear starting point. Some of it has already been agreed without dispute, so any other points can now be taken one by one and if necessary separated out below with a sub heading for each to keep things clear.

This excerpt from WP:RS is a guide:

Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources
The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties, companies, organizations and religious groups should be treated with caution, since they may be used to advance particular political, corporate, institutional or religious viewpoints. Of course such political, corporate, institutional or religious affiliation is not in itself a reason to exclude a source.[my underline]
Extremist sources
Extremist organizations and individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities, and even then should be used with caution.

As you say Vk: "An Phoblact reflects the views of those who support the largest All Ireland political party," but nevertheless a political party. I don't know enough about it to know whether An Phoblact can be treated as a reliable source for a controversial fact when there is no other source. A solution might end up along the lines of "An Phoblact, the journal of blah blah, claims blah blah, but no other sources report this". Or it might be that that particular "fact" will end up being omitted. It needs working through.

Some other points:

  • "e.g. of an extremely small breakaway group" — this is just one example. It is not a definition.
  • The British press is not the organ of the government or one political party. It is commercially driven and frequently reveals scandals about authority (you get more sales that way). Besides which, why just refer to the British press? There is also the mainstream Irish press, which is equally acceptable.
  • Irrational as it may seem, wiki will use a false report in a mainstream outlet (because it is deemed to be a reliable source) and not a true one in a veto'd outlet, e.g. a blog, because the latter is deemed not to be a reliable source. Wiki does not seek truth per se: that is barred under WP:NOR. It seeks what reliable sources (as defined by wiki) say is the truth. You might know someone is 30 years old, but if the New York Times says they are 40 years old, then that is what we say and reference, until there is either another reliable source that prints 30 or the NYT prints a correction. If NYT says 40 and The Guardian says 30, then we use both: under WP:NPOV it's not our role to judge which is correct. If all the world's media says 30 and only NTY says 40, then I think it's safe to assume a typo.

Tyrenius 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Response from Major Bonkers

I think that Stubacca's proposal is a good first step. The ultimate aim should be the removal of almost all An Phoblacht citations where used to support fact (as opposed to opinion). An Phoblacht is not, and nor does it claim to be, a neutral source.

Frankly, there is a good argument to be made that citing An Phoblacht is offensive per se, in the same way that citing the Völkischer Beobachter and Der Stürmer would be in articles about Judaism.

(I have my doubts about citations from Tírghrá as well.)

--Major Bonkers 12:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

argument - not arguement. - Kittybrewster 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if your arguement (sic) comes down to poor spelling then you are on shakey ground!--Vintagekits 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice regarding correct spelling. - Kittybrewster 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The % is irrelevant. Please go to the guideline quotes above. The publication has a question mark as that of a political party (by Vk's account), just as the publication of the UK Labour party would (which represents electoral majority). It is not the same as an independent newspaper. We would prefer not to use the Labour party publication, but there may be occasions when we would. I agree with Major Bonkers' first paragraph, which is phrased precisely "almost all ... fact". The fact that it is may be offensive to some people is unfortunate, but not in itself a reason for not using it. Tyrenius 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

% is wholey relavent if you are trying to say it is extremist.--Vintagekits 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok: population of Nazi Germany in 1939: 69,314,000; circulation of Völkischer Beobachter: 1.7m. Proportion: 0.025%
Population of Ireland in 2006: 6m.; circulation of An Phoblacht: up to 15,000. Proportion: 0.0025%.
That's a whole order of magnitude. --Major Bonkers 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero parallel between the two publications. Also did Völkischer Beobachter have 100,000 hits on its website a week. Maybe you should go on the An P website and tell me what you think is extremist about it!--Vintagekits 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've had this argument before, in your attempt to rename the Falklands War the 'the Malvinas War'. Continuing your argument will simply lead into arguments about the similarities/ differences of Sinn Fein and the Nazis. Let's stick to the subject. For once, I agree with Tyrenius: the way ahead is to differentiate between (what he calls) 'partisan' sources (and I would call 'biased' sources) and 'extremist' (/'bigoted') sources. An Phoblacht is clearly a partisan source: there is nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that should be treated with an element of caution when citing it. I would also argue that it is an extremist source: it is, after all, the official newspaper of the political wing of a terrorist organisation.
I have had a look at the An Phoblacht website and it seems to have toned itself down since the late 1980s (which is the period most often cited in articles about IRA members), probably due to the recent 'peace process' in Northern Ireland. However, in the '80s, the editorial tone was, alternately, simplistically 'anti-Brit'; gloried in stories about IRA activities; and had a strong maudlin streak when reporting IRA deaths. In my personal view, that editorial stance is carried over in certain Wikipedia articles, including, as noted above, those articles which include a 'disputed circumstances of death' section referenced entirely to partisan sources.--Major Bonkers 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exact opposite could be said about the British press in the 1970's and 80's. Their reporting was entirely partisan and biased. Again, the paper reflects the views of the majority of nationalist in Northern Ireland and to single out An Phoblact would be ridiculous and an attempt to whitewash the opinion of the republican community – most papers in Northern Ireland (as well as throughout Britain and Ireland) have a political bias so to single out An P for special treatment is setting a dangerous precedent which I will make sure is enforced. Your posts and AfD votes seem to espouse blatant anti-republican POV this just seems like another attempt to whitewash the republican perspective and have a pro-British perspective on every article on the English language wiki and anyway, what exact are the views in it do you consider "extremist". An P is a well known, well recognised, well written, well edited and well produced publication and because its views are not those that the mass British populous have been fed over the past 40 years is not a reason to try and discredit its reporting and contents. You stated An P is "the official newspaper of the political wing of a terrorist organisation" - Jesus that is a poor effort! You also state that it is "bigotted" - please provide ONE instance of bigotry in its contents. Try backing up your arguments with evidence.
And more cliqued glib comments like "simplistically 'anti-Brit'; gloried in stories about IRA activities" – do you mean that it’s wasn’t pro-Brit and referred to republicans as "psycho murdering, blood thirsty criminal baby killers" - like the was once said about the British tabloid press coverage of Irish affairs "open wide! I think I could fit another spoon full of propaganda in". Let’s stick to facts eh!
Finally, it is wrong to say I tried to change the Falklands War article name to 'the Malvinas War'. This is another example of the POV that you argue. I started a discussion to say that "the Malvinas War" is an alternate name for the "Falklands War" and that that should be stated in the article and given due prominence. here. Your statement could be construed as an attempt that you are trying to distortion things.--Vintagekits 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For links between the IRA and Sinn Féin see the relevant extract from the Sinn Féin article; see also the article on the Armalite and ballot box strategy. The article on Gerry Adams (which you have previously contributed to) sets it out:
Adams is a spokesman for the Irish republican movement or the "Provisional movement" which encompasses Provisional Sinn Féin and the paramilitary Provisional Irish Republican Army (Provisional IRA), an illegal paramilitary organisation in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
That sounds fair enough to me.
If we can break down the points that I am making; Firstly: that An Phoblacht is a partisan publication (Tyrenius's point) and its citations should be treated with caution. From what I read in your response, above, you appear to accept this (although you point out, immediately above, that the British press is also capable of bias). If I have understood you correctly, then we broadly agree. My only response would be that the British press is (supposedly) independent of political parties whilst An Phoblacht is the house newspaper of Sinn Féin (and describes itself as such); thus (I would say) the British press may display bias but is not partisan. Secondly: I have made the argument that An Phoblacht could be considered an extremist publication, again using Tyrenius'/ Wikipedia's guidelines, in which case its citations should effectively be removed. However, in my submissions, whilst I have set out that argument, I have not myself adopted it. My own view (for what it's worth) is that An Phoblacht was certainly at least on the borderline of partisan/ extremist in the 1980s, but could probably nowadays be regarded as merely partisan.
Moving on, I make the point, again, that what we are supposed to be building is an encyclopedia. Constantly citing partisan sources is pointless because regardless of the political views of those who comment on AfD forums, the article itself is academically worthless. The next stage will simply be to tag all of these articles with 'neutrality disputed' templates and you simply won't be able to respond to that charge convincingly.
PS - if you can find some articles from An Phoblacht praising British policy in Northern Ireland, I'd love to read them!--Major Bonkers 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the debate is An Phoblact v the British press. Here are Irish newspapers:

National & regional newspapers in Ireland Ireland

Currently existing
Evening Echo | Evening Herald | Foinse | Herald AM | Ireland on Sunday | Irish Examiner | Irish Independent | Lá | Limerick Leader | Metro | Sunday Independent | Sunday Tribune | Sunday World | The Belfast Telegraph | The Irish News | The Irish Times | The News Letter | The Sunday Business Post

Defunct
An Claidheamh Soluis | Daily Ireland | Daily News | Dublin Evening Mail | Evening Telegraph | Dublin Evening Standard | Evening Press | Freeman's Journal | The Irish Press | The Sunday Press | Sunday World (19th cent) | The Nation | United Irishman

See also: List of newspapers in Ireland

These should also be used as sources. An Phoblact has a limited use, which will have to be seen on a case by case basis. It can certainly be used to show the view of the organisation publishing it on an issue or event, but not, I think, relied on to substantiate a challenged fact. That is examined above in the light of wiki policy and guidelines. Tyrenius 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Are we anywhere nearer to a conclusion on this? Stu ’Bout ye! 14:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrDarcy (who started this mass debate) has gone on wikibreak. I've left a note with Tyrenius asking him to draw it to a conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath.--Major Bonkers 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I might make a comment on the above dispute, with a question. Why is this discussion being conducted on the Dirmuid O’Neill discussion page, when it relates to An Phoblacht? Should it not take place there? Anyone interested in the subject, would find it difficult to find this discussion, and yet be bound by its conclusions. Thank you, Regards --Domer48 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not solely to do with the Diarmuid O'Neill page. This is a "test case", where we are trying to sort out one article before applying any methodology agreed to other IRA member articles. My talk page will give you an idea. See The Reference deletion section and others following it. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been putting together an article on An Phpblacht, and have left message here [[10]] with no reply, while on this page I came across this discussion, [[11]] and found out this has been going on awhile.[[12]] The bias of some editors against An Phoblacht is obvious, clearly POV motivated. The Telegraph is a RS? What utiopa are you living in. So let me get this right, the establishment press = RS, alternative views are not? So we should all get our information from Anti-Republican sources, for a balanced point of view. Lets bring back section 31? This discussion should be moved to the An Phoblacht page, instead of hidding it away here. The Article I am putting together is sourced from An Phoblactt, were else should I get it? This is all bang out of order! --Phoblacht 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not limited to An P references. Have a read at my talk page for a summation. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, feel free to copying this whole discussion to the An P talk page. I think between us we are close to an argeement on the use of this source anyway.--Vintagekits 13:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to come to a conclusion on all the sources, not just An Phoblacht. And by the way, using An Phoblacht as a source for the actual An Phoblacht article is fine. That is not what is being discussed. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not going to advocate a whitewash sources of a republican nature or to say that source which are pro-republican should be treated different than other reliable sources - we already have WP:V for that. regards--Vintagekits 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my case clear above VK, and I don't really want to set it out again.
By the way, ONIH's referencing of Dessie O'Hare is an excellent example of how an article can be sourced. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have posted the following comment on User:Stubacca talk page also, From reading the discussion on both this page and the Diarmuid O’Neill page, I take it that you will not accept any republican source as reliable. From reading through the republican sources you have mentioned, there is not one of them who have claimed to be anything other than republican. Therefore, it is safe to assume that you are getting a republican view point. Can you in the interest of fairness, cite to me, one paper in the UK that represents the views of conservatives, one which would represent the views of liberals, and one that represents the views of labour. If you wish, you can use the Irish equivalents. It would be my contention that all references used, should be treated with care, and if there is opposing opinions from a different referenced sources they should be included. That way you get an all round view. If no opposing referenced source can be cited, to claim it’s not a RS, is not a valid complaint. --Domer48 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPOV. We don't aim to represent every possible viewpoint, only significant ones (as defined by WP:ATT) and then in due proportion to their importance (again as defined by WP:ATT). If you want to change that to an alternative way of assessing things, you should do it on the policy talk page to gain consensus for a change. Tyrenius 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diarmuid_O%27Neill&oldid=114942658"