Talk:Martin Meehan (Irish republican)

message: Will editors please stick to what the sources say, instead of their own opinion. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 11:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you support confessions produced by torture then, since that is the implication of leaving the wording the way it is. LiberalViews 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I support accurately reporting what sources say. The source doesn't use the word allegedly, and gives detailed information about the situation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like many of the so-called "sources" that infect Rebublican articles, the views of Jack Holland and the Irish Echo hardly count as authoritative and independent. It's just as likely he fell over whilst planting an IED or shot himself. I think we need to get real here; these pages don't "belong" to Republicans, Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. At least it shouldn't; but your campaigns show it can be manipulated in that fashion by a determined group and at the moment, you are winning as the admins vacillate too much and are too weak to resist you all. Well done! LiberalViews 12:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Holland and the Irish Echo don't source the information about the tout. Next? One Night In Hackney303 12:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "The tout"? Pardon? LiberalViews 12:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above is about the tout, not the 47 stitches. I see you've still yet to retract your earlier false accusations, perhaps you'd like to do it now? If I'd really wanted to go overboard then I'd also have added all the information from John McGuffin's book (who's a Protestant, for the record), who says "They had captured Martin Meehan and Tony 'Dutch' Doherty, two of the most wanted local Provisionals. Both were severely beaten up and then tortured in Palace barracks". One Night In Hackney303 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you will apologise for leaving in what amounts to an accusation against a helpless tortured youth that he "confessed" being described in a manner that appears to side with the IRA murderers who did the torturing. Fine. LiberalViews 14:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOT, this isn't a soapbox. One Night In Hackney303 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing your edit history, the words "pot" and "kettle" are the best I can come up with in response to that! LiberalViews 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Allegedly" confessed

message: It's a POV term, perhaps the journalist in question expected Meehan to stand, but perhaps plenty more didn't. As such it'd need attributing, and it becomes a messy and unnecessary sentence to say something like "Meehan was overlooked by Sinn Féin, unexpectedly according to Belfast Telegraph journalist Noel McAdam, for the nomination in South Antrim, being replaced by Mitchel McLaughlin, who won a seat". It's really not that important to have the word in to extend the sentence in such an ugly way, so it's better off without it. One Night In Hackney303 13:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a case of dishonest, it's a case of importance. Both the Telegraph and Irish News seem to imply the shock or unexpected part is that McLaughlin was changing seats (to any other seat, not this one in particular), not necessarily that Meehan wasn't standing. The blog you've linked to (!?!!) doesn't say anything about it being a shock or unexpected. It's still a case of who it was unexpected to. Was it unexpected to SF voters or members? We'd need to say who it was unexpected to, and it makes an ugly sentence for an unnecessary qualifier. One Night In Hackney303 14:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its fair to assume its to the world out Sinn Fein's however many members in South Antrim.  It is dishinest to omit to say it was dishonest.Traditional unionist 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the sources seem to lean more towards McLaughlin not contesting his existing seat and transferring to a different seat that was the unexpected part, not Meehan not standing per se. And sorry I prefer not to have assumptions in articles, we've been down this road before..... One Night In Hackney303 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if you can suggest a tight piece of wording that takes my concerns into account, I've no objection to it going in the article. One Night In Hackney303 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexpectedly

message: "For the 2007 Assembly election Meehan was overlooked by Sinn Féin for the nomination in South Antrim, being replaced by Mitchel McLaughlin, who won a seat"
Seems like dodgy wording as it implies that he was interested in standing. My recollection is that he didn't want to stand again and in fact none of the sources say that he was 'overlooked.' Perhaps better to simply state the fact that he didn't stand again rather than speculating about why? Valenciano 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BT article says he was, and a respected analyst says he was retired.Traditional unionist 11:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, BT says it was unexpected, which it was.  The retirement comment comes from a well cited commentor,{http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/asa.htm}Traditional unionist 11:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously missed the discussion above, it used to say "unexpectedly overlooked"! As I said above, I don't see the need to include speculation about why, it's enough to state that he didn't stand and that McLaughlin did instead. One Night In Hackney303 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't enough.  It was unexpected, and there is evidence that he was overlooked, or retired.  It tells a benign story that isn't there to remove the references to it being unexpected at the very least.Traditional unionist 13:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you to my last comment in the section above. One Night In Hackney303 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "overlooked" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Martin Meehan (Irish republican). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050313024758/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/08/09/nuls09.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/08/09/nuls09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Due to the claim that "it's a private website by a photographer who has personally captioned the image of Meehan" ardoynepics.com is not a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH, which says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". As admitted, it is a private website and there is no evidence the anonymous (as I can find no information as to who runs the site) alleged (as I can find no evidence the same individual is responsible for taking all of the photographs) photographer is an established expert on the subject of Martin Meehan. FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source removed again