Talk:Sean Hughes (Irish republican)

message: I am going to rename this article to Sean Hughes (Irish republican) in line with the naming of other republicans and in order to stop confusion with other types of republicans. Would anyone object? Vintagekits 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give it another week before I change it. Vintagekits 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming

message: The article as it stands makes no attempt at being neutral, it's solely designed to disparage and smear the subject based on unsubstantiated tabloid rumours that the tabloid itself isn't certain of, and libellous allegations made by Unionist politicans under Parliamentary privilege. He's never been convicted of any of the alleged offences, this article cannot stand at it is as it's a gross violation of WP:BLP. One Night In Hackney303 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I take exception to that. It was re-written as an attempt to address the issues you brought up at AfD, specifically the notability issues (so I add two more reliable sources) and the lack of information (so I added more information about him from the sources). If you have more information about him to add to balance it, then please do so. But it ain't there, which is why I didn't add it. That may well mean it should be deleted (and that is fine by me), but please don't accuse others of designing to "disparage and smear"  when 'everthing is scrupulously sourced and attributed. Thank you. Rockpocket 08:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrupulously sourced? I think not. It's mostly sourced to a tabloid rag prone for making libellous statements (and being successfully sued for doing so). The article still links Hughes to "The Surgeon" despite the Mirror later saying "The identity of The Surgeon is controversial". One Night In Hackney303 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might wish to read a bit more closely. Firstly he was convicted of something. Secondly, the Mirror sources the charges made against him (do you believe those to be incorrect?) and the petition he made to have his case dismissed (do you believe that to be incorrect?) We don't get to dismiss sources just because we don't like them. I think the Mirror is a rag too, and we have to be careful with what we source from tabloids, but the article sources only records of fact from the Mirror - not libellous accusations.  Thirdly, 4 articles in 3 different sources haved named him as a member of the Army Council. How many independent sources do you require? Rockpocket 09:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot, kettle, black, try reading yourself for once. What has the Army Council got to do with anything? I've not objected to that, as it's sourced by a reputable newspaper. However, the rest is highly contentious. As I just showed you, the Mirror made that claim in 2001, then in 2002 said "The identity of The Surgeon is controversial". They didn't stand by their earlier claim in this 2005 article either. Other sources published since 2001 don't name "The Surgeon" either -     . If you'd read Harnden's book you'd realise where the information in the Mirror comes from, it's them explicitly linking Hughes to "The Surgeon" and taking information from the book, which is libellous. However they no longer stand by their claim that Hughes is "The Surgeon", as I've demonstrated with two subsequent articles. You're just opening the door for more edits like this. He was convicted of something, what on earth are you talking about? He was convicted of benefit fraud, are benefit fraudsters notable now? That's completely tangential to the current problems with the article. Yes, he's verifiably convicted of benefit fraud, but if we take away everything that's contentious we're left with an alleged former Army Council member who was convicted of benefit fraud. I remember earlier this year people were bemoaning the state of stubs on IRA members and dubious sourcing, now an administator (of all people!) is pushing for libellous allegations from unreliable sources to be placed in a skewed stub that only serves to disparage the subject. I give up! One Night In Hackney303 09:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You appear to be protesting something that is not claimed in the article - that the Mirror assumes he is the Surgeon. Nowhere do we claim that, so why is it an issue? What is used, is the information about his court case and how Hughes himself claimed he was named as an IRA member and tried to use this to get the case dropped. The Mirror took the information from the ruling of the QC who rejected his appeal, not from the book. I have now added that to support the information sourced to the Mirror. Happy? I doubt it. Rockpocket 09:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm protesting something that is in the article, this - Hughes was previously charged with membership of the IRA and with conspiracy to murder members of the security forces sometime between August 1984 and February 1985. However he was cleared if all charges after Eamon Collins, an IRA "supergrass", withdrew his testimony. I've looked at the decision which can be downloaded here, and I cannot see where that information is in the document, page number in case I've missed it? It is however in Bandit Country, only Sean Hughes isn't named. One Night In Hackney303 09:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, that is not in there, it is the one thing now in the article sourced only from the Mirror. However, it doesn't make sense that the Mirror sourced this by solely assuming he is the Surgeon. Think about it. If someone was charged and then cleared of a specific crime, they were not done so under s pseudonym, but under their own name. There must be a record of who was changed with those crimes. Admittedly that reasoning is OR, and unless we can find that record we are left with the Mirror's take on it. If that is the extent of the concerns about this article then, fuck it, take it out. I don't care. But I think we both know that in itself isn't going to solve the problem. Rockpocket 10:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it all boils down to how hard-working you think the Mirror's journalists are? There's not a single thing in that article that can't be directly attributed to two sources, the court ruling and Bandit Country. I really can't imagine the average Mirror journalist trawling through Northern Ireland court records from the 80s for that story, when the research in question had already done by a journalist from the far more reputable Daily Telegraph, the author of Bandit Country Toby Harnden. And knowing the Mirror's lack of high quality investigative journalism, I'm inclined to think they went for the simple route and wrote the article based on the court ruling and the book. One Night In Hackney303 10:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point, well made. I'm sure that is exactly what happened. My point was more that one should be able to confirm that information is correct and it is likely that information is correct, rather than the lazy journos at the Mirror did bother checking. I do see your point here about making claims based on an assumption. And I largely agree with you on that. I'm not even that sure this article should remain. However, if its to be deleted it should be deleted for the right reasons, and the way to make sure we have the right reasons is to make the best possible article based on all the reliable info available. That clearly wasn't the case before. If, on doing that, it is NPOV due to inherent lack of balance or BLP considerations, then fine. I think there is a strong argument for that and I may yet !vote that way myself. That is what I tried to do this evening, not create some attack article than fight to have it remain. Rockpocket 10:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged for NPOV