Talk:Justin Barrett

message: The sentence, "" is misleading. Reference 36 is  in April 2004, which calls him a "right-wing, self-styled republican" (not the same thing as a self-described 'right-wing republican'), but doesn't anywhere suggest that he would be attractive to IRA or Sinn Féin members. Reference 37 is a May 2004 story of how Gerry McGeough is defecting, but not because he sees Barrett as a republican, but rather because he supports his "Catholic patriotism". To splice the two together like that is to add two and two to make five, or, in Wiki parlance, synthesis. I'm taking out the first part of that sentence. Even with it in, it doesn't belong anywhere in the lead. WP:LEAD says that the lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." That Barrett is leader of the far-right National Party is an adequate introduction to the article. Saying in the second sentence that he is a "self-described 'right-wing republican does not summarise any important part of the article.  Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Self-described right-wing republican' 

message: Central discussion here on the removal of content and replacement with flowery prose more suited to an election leaflet. In the meantime, reverted to status quo veriosn per WP:BRD. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waffle 

message: The article says Barrett supports giving abortion doctors the death penalty, but the only source is an article about an interview published by comedian Jim Jeffries.
It's recently been documented that Jeffries slices and rearranges the statements of interviewees to put words in their mouths:
* https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jim+jeffries+exposed
A Jim Jeffries interview (or an article based on one) is not a reliable source.
But no fear!  With such a clear position, surely Barrett has made similar statements elsewhere, so we just have to get a reliable source and then everything's fine.
(Or are we to believe that Barrett, of the National Party, gave this opinion as an eternal exclusive to an Australian, in England, for broadcasting in the US?)
Get a reliable source. Great floors (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a reliable secondary source, thanks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with . I hadn't watched the video before, but there is no way that it could be called reliable. We see Jeffries (nobody else in frame) saying "What should happen to the doctors who give the abortion?" Cut to Barrett saying "death penalty". That might be an answer to any question. Or it might be just part of a sentence. There is no footage of Barrett saying "the doctors who give the abortion should get the death penalty." Per BLP it needs to go.  Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source isn't the YouTube video, it's the Daily Edge report (the Daily Edge is an imprint of thejournal.ie, a RS). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the Daily Edge story. All it is is a summary of what's on the video, therefore no more reliable than the video. Take it up at WP:BLPN if you like, see what they say.  Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also sourced to the Irish Times. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:NEWSORG. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece you link to is an opinion piece, not news reporting. You can't just say "Irish Times = reliable source". At best, the article could say "Ferdia MacAonghusa has accused Barrett of advocating...". This is a serious BLP issue. Please don't revert again until you have content and sourcing that satisfies BLP.  Scolaire (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  Worth noting as well Barrett's ever shifting tie position between scenes which makes it obvious there was lots of cutting going on. Since Jim Jeffries was exposed as a fraud in other interviews through duplicitous editinh, this removal is a good move, per WP:BLP. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted! Also worth noting that the video was posted on 24 April 2018, the Daily Edge piece appeared on 25 April, the sentence in this Wikipedia article was added on 28 May, and the Ferdia MacAonghusa piece was published on 28 August. Where do people get their facts nowadays?  Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion doctor death penalty - reliable source needed 

message: The article says that Mr. Barrett is a nationalist -- would it not be more accurate to say that he 'claims to be a nationalist'   there is after all no evidence for his nationalism at all other than his assertion that he is a nationalist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.158.66 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Nationalists are generally self-described. Applying the proposed qualifier would likely require agreement or convention that similar qualifiers be applied to the articles on almost every political activist who espouses nationalism (over cosmopolitanism or globalism or internationalism or liberalism or communism). Unless or until the subject is elected to an office where the application of nationalist policies can be evidenced, the article (the lead and the body) is reliant on how the subject is described in the sources. In that sense, and in line with Wikipedia policy, the text in the lead ("A nationalist, he initially began activism in the 1990s") reflects the text and the refs in the body. Which refs describe the subject as "nationalist" in outlook. Including those sources which cover the subject's calls for a Catholic Republic, an "Ireland First" approach, and leadership of the National Party. The latter, as per the source, which describes Barrett as "the president of the National Party, whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform". The text in the lead therefore reflects the text in the body and sources. Guliolopez (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalist

message: The description of Justin Barret political leaning as 'far right'is incorrect. The correct description is 'Conservative'. 78.19.10.250 (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple reliable sources refer to the subject as "far-right" (and indeed his party). For example, the Sunday Times (UK) refers to the subject as a "far-right leader". The current article text therefore reflects the reliable and verifiable sources. Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justin Barrett political leaning. 

message: Bastun, am I missing something in my readings of WP:TWITTER? It appears to say that Twitter can be used as a source of information by people about themselves. The poster here appears to be Mark Malone rather than Justin Barrett, so I don't think it's a reliable source in this case. If I'm missing something here do let me know but otherwise I don't think this is suitably sourced for inclusion. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're correct. I missed the "about themselves" bit in my hurry. I've reverted. But I do hope we can find a usable source for this! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, and ditto. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Agree with  that the Examiner article with the photo is evidence enough. The photo is a source in and of itself, regardless of whether the Examiner explains the info or not. Xx78900 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehhh. Not sure about that one. If the article doesn’t state that he’s wearing this uniform, then we’re interpreting the articles ourselves and that surely falls afoul of WP:SYNTH. If it was verifiable I’d say they’d be reporting it, no? — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:TWITTER? 

message: Recently, Justin Barrett started a political group (?) named Clann Éireann that seeks to be a secondary group to the National Party. Actually, a lot of this is just me guessing because it is unclear to me what the organization's purpose is. In the "launch speech" given on YouTube, Barrett claims that he will soon have full control over the National Party again but Clann Éireann will be the main focus. I'm not sure it's worth any addition to the article yet but it's worth looking out for. Additionally, it doesn't seem like there's a news article out there about it yet. 173.0.34.229 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's not overly clear at the minute quite what it is nor how important it's gonna be. I'll be keeping a close eye. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clann Éireann 

message: The latest edits were rolled back by Ser. With respect, I think the version I had made earlier today had edits which were relevant but which are not given the prominence deserved. Once a public figure moves into activities like outright Holocaust denial, I think that should be foregrounded in their wiki article. Would there be support for using a label like 'neo-Nazi' at this point, using a page like Richard B. Spencer as a precdent/example of this. Also with regards to Ser's question on who cares what James Reynolds thinks, I do think that condemnation was relevant as it indicates reasons underlying the split within the NP. Mikebarrett0 (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say I rolled back your edit, moreso copyedited and moved to a different part of the article to give it due weight. He absolutely is a Holocaust denier after this comment, I agree, but the lede summarises what someone is known for - in this case, Barrett is notable for being a far-right politician and anti-abortion activist, which are what reliable sources refer to him as in articles about him. (I've left conspiracy theorist in because some articles do call him this, so I'm willing to hear a case for calling him that in the lede.) Thing is, we can't really call him a neo-Nazi in the lede until reliable sources actually call him that like they've done for Spencer, given this is a WP:BLP and just saying "he's said Nazi shit, he is by this definition a neo-Nazi as opposed to any other type of Nazi" runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. I appreciate your reasoning for including what Reynolds has said, and I could perhaps see the need to include it in the relevant section about the party split, but having it in the lede feels like giving undue weight to an otherwise relatively unnotable person's viewpoints.  ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In honesty, I have to agree with @Ser! on the first sentence. And am also confused by the characterisation of the additions as being "rolled back". The added text (about holocaust denial and antisemitic statements) was not removed and remains in the lead. If perhaps not as the 8th/9th words in the first sentence. As noted, "far right" seems a reasonable short-hand for the first sentence. Adding every other/possible adjective or descriptor to the opening sentence seems a little overdone. And could lead to suggestions of WP:ATP/WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE. Guliolopez (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits