Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill

message: 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)
thread_title: Response from Vintagekits

message: 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)
thread_title: Response from Tyrenius

message: :::I'm not nitpicking here just cause VintageKits is now blocked but that is pure bullshit about An Problacht. As we know An Problacht is the newspaper of Sinn Fein, which as we all know is the political wing of a terrorist organisation, the PIRA. Other than mundane things such as dates etc. as a source it can't be trusted especially about events. But we've already sorted that out. My problem is his claims on An Problacht's validity as a source.
:::Does anyone have proof that most nationalists read An Problacht? Just because most nationalists in the smaller state in Ireland voted for Sinn Fein doesn't mean they get their paper in the mail. In fact according to its Wikipedia page it only sells 15'000 copies a week - a very well read newspaper isn't it. And Sinn Fein can only be called Ireland's biggest all-Ireland party simply because it is the only party that stands in both parts of the island. Politically in both halves it is a very conflicting story. 
:::Only in Northern Ireland are they a party with any real electorate backing - in the Irish Republic's general election this year they lost seats and ended up with 4 seats (holding onto one of them by only 60-odd votes) in the Dail compared to Fianna Fails 78! And seeing as Sinn Fein isn't the majority party in either country you can safely ascertain that they are a minority and thus minority views. So it 'would be grossly wrong' to state that they aren't minority views.
:::Mabuska 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mabuska's Viewpoint

message: I'm going to restate my proposals for this page, we've got sidetracked. If we can agree on this page then the criteria can be used on other pages, after appropriate discussion:
#In the opening paragraph the two An Phoblacht sources ( & ) be deleted. The Amnesty source () 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 () only be deleted. Apart from his Basque involvement (which I presume the Tírghrá source covers) all the information is sourced from the Telegraph articles. ( & }.
#The Surveillance operation paragraph is sourced solely from An P. (). 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  tag added until it is sourced from elsewhere. Update This Amnestry reference covers everything in the paragraph and is used elsewhere in the article. There is no therefore no need for the An Phoblacht reference. 
#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. 
Can people state whether agree or disagree with these points. Note the update on point 3. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms on the sourcing proposals above for this article, what do you disagree with specifically? Stu ’Bout ye! 11:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comments VK? Stu ’Bout ye! 08:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stu, after reading the update you added to No.3 then I will allow you to remove the sources you outlined as long as you agree that it sets no precident in the future.--Vintagekits 10:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks VK, glad we're making progress on this one. No, not a strict precedent but I would be suggesting similar changes to other articles. I would list the rationale for each on its talk page. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, that sounds a fair enough system for now.--Vintagekits 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not limited to referencing from An Phoblacht, so moving it to that page isn't appropriate. In the case of An P, there's a difference between a mainstream media source and the journal of a political party. In the case of the other sources (saoirse, troopsoutmovement, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice) they are unreliable (heavily biased, in no way neutral and not subject to any editorial policy or fact checking) and should only be used sparingly and subject to the conditions described by Tyrenius above. I stress that I'm not trying to eliminate these sources entirely. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tyrenius and the policy outlined "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.(Highlighting my own). This is the view I would adopt in relation to An Phoblacht. Would editors agree with this policy or are editors looking to change this. --Domer48 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to (hopefully!) summarise this quickly as I understand it. No information is being removed from this article, merely the removal of (potentially!) biased sources, in preference to more neutral ones. This is not a rejection of these sources entirely, and any information which is solely sourced by them on other articles is evaluated on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the information being sourced. If that is a correct summary of what Stu is proposing, then I'm in agreement. One Night In Hackney303 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadly, that's right. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion started with myself and VK. Also, it wasn't specifically down to Tyrenius to draw a conclusion. But we do have a conclusion. The changes I have suggested to the references used on this article have been (broadly) agreed. VK and ONiH have agreed. And it has been agreed that this rationale can be used as a guide for amending the references in other IRA articles. This discussion doesn't refer only to An Phoblacht articles. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I intend to make the changes set out above in the next few days, when I get the time. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restating proposals for this page

message: Just explaining the basis for my edits today. The section on the song was removed on notability grounds. A notable song by a notable artists about an alleged conspiracy might merit a mention in such an article if there were plenty of independent sources describing it. This was not a notable song by a notable artist. It was sourced to a self-published website. No. No. No
As for the rest. There was lots of sources cited, but only one of them supported the text. That was a report by AI, and much of it was a cut and paste copyvio. I reworded and made it clear that the allegations come from AI, rather than reporting it as a fact. Thats all. Rockpocket 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published website? thus a CoI. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits today 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Diarmuid O'Neill. 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/20061119100311/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-384 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-384
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040530213926/http://www.rte.ie:80/news/2000/0314/inquest.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0314/inquest.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified