Talk:Na Piarsaigh GAA

message: Content from the Na Piarsigh website (relating to the use of the Red Hand logo) has been inappropriately "copied and pasted" from a primary source without consideration to Wikipedia's copyright, NPOV and cite policies. Further, content unsupported by the reference provided (and incorrectly linked) has also been reinserted without appropriate discussion. For example, "due to the very Gaelic, symbolic, red hand of Ulster", "very Irish", etc are inappropriate. Not least because these assertions are not supported by the reference, or in any way relevant. The existing wording is perfectly fine, states the facts in appropriate tone, and is supported by the reference. Leave the facts speak for themselves. Further embellishment is not necessary. (Also please read WP:3RR and don't revert again without discussion). Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting either. I'm stating that it's not relevant in this context, and unsupported by the reference provided. As stated, it's most appropriate under the relevant policies to state simply and factually that "this is the crest, and this is why". And not digress into commentary, discursive essay style assertions that rely on POV terminology (like "Very Irish", "Very Gaelic", etc.) The other content I removed is also unsupported by the reference. Where - exactly - does it state that the club motto is "when Ireland itself is united, they will return the thumb to the hand to symbolise 'Ireland complete' and create a strong hand"? In short, please don't use Wikipedia to push agenda's or POV (yours or anyone elses). Just keep it factual and referenced. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: OK. But that's part of the problem - selective interpretation and representation of POV. And I still think you're missing my point on the "describing points of view" guidelines. This whole extract about "what some members of Na Piarsaigh think or though tabout the unification of Ireland" is opinion. If describing it in Wikipedia therefore, we have to be very VERY careful when stating "this person believes X to be true" - to avoid confusion with "X is true". In the case of this assertion, it is my belief (given that this is a primary source, and therefore subjective) that it's not appropriate for inclusion. Simply put, because this is ONLY published to represent a POV, and is unsupported by a secondary source - as well as being only partially related to the subject - it's just best left out. (Wikipedia:No original research: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. You might also want to read "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not". Focusing on WP:NOT#OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply put, just because a "fact" (in particular one representing an opinion) is published on another website, it doesn't make it appropriate to include it here. Leave it where it is and link to it if neccesary, (as is done already) but we shouldn't grab random snippets from other websites and slap them in here as "fact". All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The Website I was quoting from was the Official site, not just an 'other' site as you mentioned. Therefore it is fact...is it not? Regards.--Eireabu (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That's the point. "Official" status doesn't ascribe infallibility. If the "official" site of ManUtd said "ManUtd are the coolest and most brilliantly fantastic club in the known universe", that would still represent a POV. Not fact. I appreciate that we are talking about a description of a different type of opinion here, but it's still an opinion. Guliolopez (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Hand crest