Talk:David Quinn (columnist)

message: The Iona Institute is Roman Catholic, see here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Iona Institute does not identify itself as Catholic. 2. The Catholic Church does not affiliate itself with it. 3. Non-Catholic member(s) serve on Board. 4. Your reference is written by adversaries of Iona Institute position (objective bias in that organisation is being defined by known adversaries) Smugairleróin (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My reference meets WP:RS as does this one Darkness Shines (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree.  Your second source is an opinion piece from the editor of "The UKs leading online gay magazine."  Your previous reference is a book written by well-known campaigners for Marriage Equality.  See  for objective source contradicting your references.  Also, why use the phrase "self-styled" when it is serves no objective, informative purpose? Smugairleróin (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sources are WP:RS, have you an issue with gay rights campaigners? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: "the Iona Institute (a socially conservative Catholic advocacy group);" Constitutions and Gender p29 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Schools and the Politics of Religion and Diversity in the Republic of Ireland Oxford university press p54 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text:  My contention is that your sources are adversarial to the positions supported by the Iona Institute.  I do not believe you, or I, would like to be defined thus.  Lastly, can you answer why you insist on retaining the phrase "self-styled."  It is inaccurate and pejorative. Smugairleróin (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-styled is exactly what it is, Quinn founded and named it, so it's self-styled. And I have given four sources now, and according to you they are all adversaries of the institute? Unfortunately for your position it does not matter as our policy of WP:RS means they are perfectly acceptable.  Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: "your sources are adversarial to the positions supported by the Iona Institute" That isn't reason enough to disregard that source. Are you suggesting that only sources which support an organisation can be used in Wikipedia? why you insist on retaining the phrase "self-styled." You have said the Catholic Church doesn't affliate with them, which surely proves that they are 'self-styled'. ____Ebelular (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: "Your previous reference is a book written by well-known campaigners for Marriage Equality." And? That doesn't make them not a reliable source. The newspaper it was published in, is a relatiable source. ____Ebelular (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv, why 

message: I note that the section on abortion is written in the present tense, even though the constitutional amendment in question has now been repealed. I would suggest we update the language, and perhaps expand the section to include Quinn's exact views on abortion and/or his stated reasons for campaigning on this issue - I'd have to check but I imagine this is something which has been written about, either by him or a separate source. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on abortion section