Talk:NORAID

message: After the 9/11 attacks, im sure the government made all organizations funding terrorists illegal, perhaps this article needs updating? andyjm 86.137.151.21 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It appears that one is the fundraiser, and the other is the recipient.  Which is the US charity, and which is the one in Ireland?
Fredsmith2 21:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are Irish Northern Aid and NORAID related? 

message: Can someone or some people who know about NORAID produce a fuller article. Thanks --81.132.246.132 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and perhaps someone can address my point on the scope of the article to include predecessor organizations.--Mantanmoreland 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigger Article Please

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: are other editors so blinded by their own beliefs/nationality that they are unable to make a neutral edit. there are enough claims that noraid have funded terrorists to warrant the section. BLP is nothing to do with it, these claims have been made many times and I have given one additional source. 
It would seem common sense to anyone without an agenda that the category is fine, sensible and not in conflict with BLP. please discuss here and get some unbiased 3rd opinions before reverting me again. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Noraid has openly expressed support for the IRA but says it gives money for humanitarian aid, and denies its donations are used for the purchase of arms. If you add that category as fact it's stating Noraid members (who are living people) fund terrorism, which is a BLP violation. BLP violations are removed without discussion, and are not added back without consensus. One Night In Hackney303 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see. So what you are trying to say is that any organisation that has at least one member, cannot be mentioned because one/some/all members might be offended, and therefore all organisations are protected by BLP?? I have not heard anything quite so absurd for a long long time. BLP has nothing to do with this. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it does. One Night In Hackney303 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now I am wondering why you removed my message from your talk page? After taking the liberty of templating my talk page with a final warning, you might have the manners to let me put a message on yours. nice. real damn classy. 
anyway, since it might disappear from your page if i put it there again, lets put the original message here instead
"== last warning ==
I am sorry, but maybe you dont understand the difference between a content dispute and a disruptive edit. Perhaps you dont consider my source (the BBC) to be verifiable, however I imagine most wikipedia editors would consider them to be pretty reliable. I put a category on an article, that was backed up with a reliable and verifiable source, you removed it with an acceptable reason, despite my article talk page message. Please point out where in BLP it states that organisations are protected in the same way that inviduals are. Please also explain why you consider my source not to be reliable, and please in future dont put annoying templates on my talk page.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Given above. It's a BLP violation, and will be removed without discussion. One Night In Hackney303 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for the tips on BLP issues, are you trying to tell me that I can remove anything I want, that is related to an organisation, because of the BLP rules and the fact that a member of the organisation (even when specific members are not mentioned)  might take offence. I hope you can clarify this for me. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that Noraid cannot have that they fund terrorism being stated as fact. What has taking offence got to do with anything? I take it you don't even realise the gravity and seriousness of the edit you made? One Night In Hackney303 15:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  enough reliable sources have claimed that they have funded terrorism, to warrant the category. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is not "organisations claimed to have funded terrorism". Ty 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest you read this and the BBC article much more carefully. One Night In Hackney303 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh dear  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NORAID. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://inac.org/mission
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified