Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). project's importance scale .

Ireland Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It seems that we have a dispute over whether certain sources (particularly An Phoblacht) are reliable enough for use in this article. That matter should be discussed here, rather than via blanket reverts - which in this instance are almost certain to lead to a revert war. I'd like both Vintagekits and Stubacca to weigh in here with their differing views on the matter so that we may settle it amicably. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Doesn't the article on

Sinn Fein Weekly'. It's in the same category as, and as objective as, Der Stürmer or Le Père Duchesne (and has a vanishingly small circulation). --Major Bonkers 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• "has a vanishingly small circulation" - Its the largest selling political weekly in Ireland (north and south). Its production is high quality as is it journalism. The only issue is bias - its a paper with a republican perspective that needs to be taken into consideration when there is conflicting report. I would also point out that on a number of occasions the version of "the truth" that was printed in British press has turned out to be false and the An Phoblacht shown to actually been true.--Vintagekits 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of your comments, above, could apply equally well to Der Stürmer. By An Phoblacht's own account it has the 'highest circulation of an Irish political newspaper' (how many are there?) of up to 15,000 sales per week [2], a figure which does not seem to be audited. The quality of the journalism is a subjective issue, but the stories it choses to report and the manner in which it does so are partisan. --Major Bonkers 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From
  WP:RS

The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.

As long as they aren't sourcing anything excessively controversial, it shouldn't be a problem. Even the

extremist sources section doesn't say they can't be used. One Night In Hackney 08:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I agree, much of what is referenced from An Phoblacht, Tírghrá etc are just pure facts regarding family, background, what they did as a job, where and when they were buried etc. The only time the info from An P etc should be questioned and qualified is if there are contradictory reports from other sources. In those cases it should be stated - "Republican sources state,......., whereas XYZ stated............." or something to that effect - and this is what I have been doing when there are different versions of events coming from different sources.--Vintagekits 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The danger is that although these references might be for non-POV points, it is still nonetheless directing the user to an external source that is biased. It would be better all round if we could go for less POV sources. Surely these facts can be found elsewhere. Logoistic 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that if the same facts can be sourced from a more neutral source, then they should be. I've been sourcing several articles over the past couple of days, and the overwhelming majority of sources I've added have been the BBC or The Guardian. One Night In Hackney 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair and valid points raised by both One Night In Hackney and Logoistic. I also agree - I have acknowledged that there can be an issue of bias in these articles but usually its not bias that is the problem its the "peackcock language" that is sometimes used. I always strip that out anyway if I am using an P, tirghra etc as a source. I also agree that if the exact same information can be taken from a more neutral source such as RTE, Irish Indo, BBC then obviously thats source will be more acceptable to everyone and should be used in preference. regards--Vintagekits 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of how bias is creeping in, see Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde#Conflicting accounts of his death, where the subjective sources are quoted first and the (more) objective sources second. (Although it is not relevant to this issue, I raise the point that Bobby Sands#IRA activity was arrested for carrying and using a pistol on his bombing sortie, whereas we are being asked in the Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde case to belive that he was planting his bomb whilst unarmed. Seems a bit unlikely to me, but perhaps he was just a bit forgetful on that occasion).--Major Bonkers 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how alleged POV disputes in a particular article have any relevance to the matter at hand. Your comments actually shows your lack of familiarity with the subject, as Andy McNab's supposedly "objective" account has been called into question by another source. Page 192 of Big Boys' Rules by Mark Urban gives details of both sides accounts, then states;

Both versions are discounted by someone who is familiar with the Army's internal version of the case, who suggests that there was no struggle, as the soldiers suggested in their court depositions, but that the soldiers simply saw MacBride running away and shot him.

Furthermore it is perfectly feasible that MacBride was unarmed when shot.

Loughall, when carrying out a bomb attack. One Night In Hackney 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You are making my point for me. Your quotation is entirely speculation.--Major Bonkers 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My" quote? Sadly not. The quote has been published in a non-partisan source, and directly contradicts your "objective" source. I'd actually like you to explain how a soldier involved in the incident is an "objective" source please? Please bear in mind that during the

Stalker Inquiry the "objective" comments of soldiers involved in shootings were shown to be false before answering. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Both versions are discounted by someone who is familiar with the Army's internal version of the case [eh? Who might that be, then? Private McJockstrap, perhaps; or even an idle author], who suggests that there was no struggle, as the soldiers suggested in their court depositions, but that the soldiers simply saw MacBride running away and shot him.
I 'suggest' that such a quotation is worthless as a statement of fact, even for inclusion in the usual tiresome 'disputed circumstances of death' section. (Incidentally, 'quotation' is the noun, 'quote' the verb.) --Major Bonkers 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unfamiliar with journalism. Most journalists who write about Northern Ireland (including award winning journalist Peter Taylor) describe sources in such a way, as they do not reveal their sources. 'Quote' is also a noun, perhaps you should check your facts first in future? I see you also avoided any discussion of how Andy McNab is an "objective" source, I assume you've conceded that point then? One Night In Hackney 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that, coming from an academic background, I expect a bit more intellectual rigour in (what is supposed to be) an encyclopedia entry than copying out some unsourced speculation from a potboiler. To answer your question: the best

sources for citations are obviously academic or specialist; below that is the general history/ potboiler (Urban, McNab); below that, media journalism; and the pits is the bigoted An Phoblacht (although, to be fair to it, An Phoblacht does not claim academic credibility.) --Major Bonkers 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've tried to do an analysis of the sources used. As per this discussion on my talk page, Tyrenius suggested the following when using sources such as saoirse, troopsoutmovement, An Phoblacht, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice, Tírghrá etc:

• It would seem to be acceptable that they can be used to show a group's attitude to something or claim about it.
• 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.
• Where a mainstream source exists these sources should not be cited in tandem.
• Where a mainstream source does not exist, these sources should not be used to verify a controversial point.
• However, it may be that they can be used to verify a group's claim about or attitude to a controversial issue.
• 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.

Based on this, I propose the following:

• In the opening paragraph the two An Phoblacht sources ([3] & [4]) be deleted. The Amnesty source ([5]) 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 ([6]) only be deleted. Apart from his Basque involvement (which I presume the Tírghrá source covers) all the information is sourced from the Telegraph articles. ([7] & [8]}.

• The Surveillance operation paragraph is sourced solely from An P. ([9]). 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 {{fact}} tag added until it is sourced from elsewhere.

• 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.

If this proposal works, I'm going to apply it to other articles, after discussion. Out of the sources I've contested, this article only uses An Phoblacht and Tírghrá which I see as more reliable than others like blogs, saoirse, troopsoutmovement, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit and relativesforjustice. I've started a new section for this, as the above conversation is getting into other articles, I want to focus on this one for now. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Vintagekits

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)[reply]

Response from Tyrenius

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

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
  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)[reply]

Response from Major Bonkers

I think that Stubacca's proposal is a good first step. The ultimate aim should be the removal of almost all An Phoblacht citations where used to support fact (as opposed to opinion). An Phoblacht is not, and nor does it claim to be, a neutral source.

Frankly, there is a good argument to be made that citing An Phoblacht is offensive per se, in the same way that citing the Völkischer Beobachter and Der Stürmer would be in articles about Judaism.

(I have my doubts about citations from Tírghrá as well.)

--Major Bonkers 12:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that really the best arguement you can come up with, there is no parallel between the two. What % of the German population do these papers represent?--Vintagekits 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

argument - not arguement. - Kittybrewster 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if your arguement (sic) comes down to poor spelling then you are on shakey ground!--Vintagekits 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding correct spelling. - Kittybrewster 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The % is irrelevant. Please go to the guideline quotes above. The publication has a question mark as that of a political party (by Vk's account), just as the publication of the UK Labour party would (which represents electoral majority). It is not the same as an independent newspaper. We would prefer not to use the Labour party publication, but there may be occasions when we would. I agree with Major Bonkers' first paragraph, which is phrased precisely "almost all ... fact". The fact that it is may be offensive to some people is unfortunate, but not in itself a reason for not using it. Tyrenius 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

% is wholey relavent if you are trying to say it is extremist.--Vintagekits 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: population of Nazi Germany in 1939: 69,314,000; circulation of Völkischer Beobachter: 1.7m. Proportion: 0.025%
Population of Ireland in 2006: 6m.; circulation of An Phoblacht: up to 15,000. Proportion: 0.0025%.
That's a whole order of magnitude. --Major Bonkers 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero parallel between the two publications. Also did Völkischer Beobachter have 100,000 hits on its website a week. Maybe you should go on the An P website and tell me what you think is extremist about it!--Vintagekits 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've had this argument before, in your attempt to rename the

'bigoted') sources. An Phoblacht is clearly a partisan source: there is nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that should be treated with an element of caution when citing it. I would also argue that it is an extremist source: it is, after all, the official newspaper of the political wing of a terrorist organisation.
I have had a look at the An Phoblacht website and it seems to have toned itself down since the late 1980s (which is the period most often cited in articles about IRA members), probably due to the recent 'peace process' in Northern Ireland. However, in the '80s, the editorial tone was, alternately, simplistically 'anti-Brit'; gloried in stories about IRA activities; and had a strong maudlin streak when reporting IRA deaths. In my personal view, that editorial stance is carried over in certain Wikipedia articles, including, as noted above, those articles which include a 'disputed circumstances of death' section referenced entirely to partisan sources.--Major Bonkers 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The exact opposite could be said about the British press in the 1970's and 80's. Their reporting was entirely partisan and biased. Again, the paper reflects the views of the majority of nationalist in Northern Ireland and to single out An Phoblact would be ridiculous and an attempt to whitewash the opinion of the republican community – most papers in Northern Ireland (as well as throughout Britain and Ireland) have a political bias so to single out An P for special treatment is setting a dangerous precedent which I will make sure is enforced. Your posts and AfD votes seem to espouse blatant anti-republican POV this just seems like another attempt to whitewash the republican perspective and have a pro-British perspective on every article on the English language wiki and anyway, what exact are the views in it do you consider "extremist". An P is a well known, well recognised, well written, well edited and well produced publication and because its views are not those that the mass British populous have been fed over the past 40 years is not a reason to try and discredit its reporting and contents. You stated An P is "the official newspaper of the political wing of a terrorist organisation" - Jesus that is a poor effort! You also state that it is "

bigotted

" - please provide ONE instance of bigotry in its contents. Try backing up your arguments with evidence.

And more cliqued glib comments like "simplistically 'anti-Brit'; gloried in stories about IRA activities" – do you mean that it’s wasn’t pro-Brit and referred to republicans as "psycho murdering, blood thirsty criminal baby killers" - like the was once said about the British tabloid press coverage of Irish affairs "open wide! I think I could fit another spoon full of propaganda in". Let’s stick to facts eh!

Finally, it is wrong to say I tried to change the Falklands War article name to 'the Malvinas War'. This is another example of the POV that you argue. I started a discussion to say that "the Malvinas War" is an alternate name for the "Falklands War" and that that should be stated in the article and given due prominence. here. Your statement could be construed as an attempt that you are trying to distortion things.--Vintagekits 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For links between the IRA and Sinn Féin see the relevant extract from the Sinn Féin article; see also the article on the Armalite and ballot box strategy. The article on Gerry Adams (which you have previously contributed to) sets it out:
Adams is a spokesman for the Irish republican movement or the "Provisional movement" which encompasses Provisional Sinn Féin and the paramilitary Provisional Irish Republican Army (Provisional IRA), an illegal paramilitary organisation in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
That sounds fair enough to me.
If we can break down the points that I am making; Firstly: that An Phoblacht is a partisan publication (Tyrenius's point) and its citations should be treated with caution. From what I read in your response, above, you appear to accept this (although you point out, immediately above, that the British press is also capable of bias). If I have understood you correctly, then we broadly agree. My only response would be that the British press is (supposedly) independent of political parties whilst An Phoblacht is the house newspaper of Sinn Féin (and describes itself as such); thus (I would say) the British press may display bias but is not partisan. Secondly: I have made the argument that An Phoblacht could be considered an extremist publication, again using Tyrenius'/ Wikipedia's guidelines, in which case its citations should effectively be removed. However, in my submissions, whilst I have set out that argument, I have not myself adopted it. My own view (for what it's worth) is that An Phoblacht was certainly at least on the borderline of partisan/ extremist in the 1980s, but could probably nowadays be regarded as merely partisan.
Moving on, I make the point, again, that what we are supposed to be building is an encyclopedia. Constantly citing partisan sources is pointless because regardless of the political views of those who comment on AfD forums, the article itself is academically worthless. The next stage will simply be to tag all of these articles with 'neutrality disputed' templates and you simply won't be able to respond to that charge convincingly.
PS - if you can find some articles from An Phoblacht praising British policy in Northern Ireland, I'd love to read them!--Major Bonkers 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the debate is An Phoblact v the British press. Here are Irish newspapers:

National & regional newspapers in Ireland
Currently existing Evening Herald | Foinse | Herald AM | Ireland on Sunday | Irish Examiner | Irish Independent | Lá | Limerick Leader | The Sunday Business Post
Defunct An Claidheamh Soluis | Daily Ireland | Daily News | Dublin Evening Mail | Evening Telegraph | Dublin Evening Standard | Evening Press | Freeman's Journal | The Irish Press | The Sunday Press | Sunday World (19th cent) | The Nation | United Irishman
See also: List of newspapers in Ireland

These should also be used as sources. An Phoblact has a limited use, which will have to be seen on a case by case basis. It can certainly be used to show the view of the organisation publishing it on an issue or event, but not, I think, relied on to substantiate a challenged fact. That is examined above in the light of wiki policy and guidelines. Tyrenius 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuska's Viewpoint

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)[reply]

Are we anywhere nearer to a conclusion on this? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrDarcy (who started this mass debate) has gone on wikibreak. I've left a note with Tyrenius asking him to draw it to a conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath.--Major Bonkers 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I might make a comment on the above dispute, with a question. Why is this discussion being conducted on the Dirmuid O’Neill discussion page, when it relates to An Phoblacht? Should it not take place there? Anyone interested in the subject, would find it difficult to find this discussion, and yet be bound by its conclusions. Thank you, Regards --Domer48 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not solely to do with the Diarmuid O'Neill page. This is a "test case", where we are trying to sort out one article before applying any methodology agreed to other IRA member articles. My talk page will give you an idea. See The Reference deletion section and others following it. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been putting together an article on An Phpblacht, and have left message here [[10]] with no reply, while on this page I came across this discussion, [[11]] and found out this has been going on awhile.[[12]] The bias of some editors against An Phoblacht is obvious, clearly POV motivated. The Telegraph is a RS? What utiopa are you living in. So let me get this right, the establishment press = RS, alternative views are not? So we should all get our information from Anti-Republican sources, for a balanced point of view. Lets bring back section 31? This discussion should be moved to the An Phoblacht page, instead of hidding it away here. The Article I am putting together is sourced from An Phoblactt, were else should I get it? This is all bang out of order! --Phoblacht 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not limited to An P references. Have a read at my talk page for a summation. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, feel free to copying this whole discussion to the An P talk page. I think between us we are close to an argeement on the use of this source anyway.--Vintagekits 13:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to come to a conclusion on all the sources, not just An Phoblacht. And by the way, using An Phoblacht as a source for the actual An Phoblacht article is fine. That is not what is being discussed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not going to advocate a whitewash sources of a republican nature or to say that source which are pro-republican should be treated different than other reliable sources - we already have

WP:V for that. regards--Vintagekits 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've made my case clear above VK, and I don't really want to set it out again.

By the way, ONIH's referencing of Dessie O'Hare is an excellent example of how an article can be sourced. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the following comment on User:Stubacca talk page also, From reading the discussion on both this page and the Diarmuid O’Neill page, I take it that you will not accept any republican source as reliable. From reading through the republican sources you have mentioned, there is not one of them who have claimed to be anything other than republican. Therefore, it is safe to assume that you are getting a republican view point. Can you in the interest of fairness, cite to me, one paper in the UK that represents the views of conservatives, one which would represent the views of liberals, and one that represents the views of labour. If you wish, you can use the Irish equivalents. It would be my contention that all references used, should be treated with care, and if there is opposing opinions from a different referenced sources they should be included. That way you get an all round view. If no opposing referenced source can be cited, to claim it’s not a RS, is not a valid complaint. --Domer48 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:ATT). If you want to change that to an alternative way of assessing things, you should do it on the policy talk page to gain consensus for a change. Tyrenius 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

An Phoblacht is the largest selling political newspaper in Ireland. This would make it very “significant,” in Ireland. It is also an Irish Republican newspaper, which makes it very “significant,” to matters relating to the Republican Movement. The fact that it deals with subjects that the “mainstream” press don’t lends to its significance. That it is labile to all the same standards, and responsibilities as the mainstream press, suggests implicitly that its information must be verifiable and therefore reliable. In relation to bias, it is as biased as all the mainstream publications, and therefore should be treated as such. I have read the WP:NPOV, and WP:ATT, and am satisfied, that what we are discussing here is the NPOV of editors, and not the NPOV of An Phoblacht. --Domer48 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Domer, An Phoblacht is a highly professional well edited publication - see its website for further reference. Also as to state the arguement that "We don't aim to represent every possible viewpoint, only significant ones" - its the largest selling political weekly in all of Ireland and relects the views of a large percentage of the Irish population - see details of last weeks election for further details of that - hardly fringe views!--Vintagekits 23:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] You're going round in circles. The

therefore reliable and any bias arises from editors!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The Dessie O'Hare article is an example of how an article such as this one can be referenced properly. The references in it are a mixture of the British and Irish press as well. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again,

here.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

An Phoblacht is either a reliable source or it is not! Stu (13th March) has already conceded that An Phoblacht can be used as a source in compiling the An Phoblacht article, which is the history of An Phoblacht, and therefore contain historical facts. You can not be a little bit biased, and you can not be selective in what you deem to be reliable one minute and not the next. As to M. Bonkers, An Phoblacht is not a Pro- Republican paper, it is a Republican Newspaper. Stu has conceded that all newspapers contain an element of bias, but not all papers advertise their bias! An Phoblacht dose! Therefore the caution used when citing sources, should be treated the same as any other. I read An Phoblacht for its “Remembering the Past,” section which deals with Republican history, according to Wikipedia policy, this would be deemed a secondary source, which is what it is. This whole discussion revolves around editors wanting to use the NPOV policy, which governs the edits of User’s to be applied to particular sources of information, which is therefore selective, and goes against the very policy they are using. --Domer48 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. In the opening paragraph the two An Phoblacht sources ([13] & [14]) be deleted. The Amnesty source ([15]) 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.
2. The the Background paragraph, I propose the the An P source ([16]) only be deleted. Apart from his Basque involvement (which I presume the Tírghrá source covers) all the information is sourced from the Telegraph articles. ([17] & [18]}.
3. The Surveillance operation paragraph is sourced solely from An P. ([19]). 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 {{fact}} 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.
4. In the Hotel raid paragraph, the schnews source be deleted as the numerous other sources cover everything mentioned.
5. 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)[reply]

• Disagree - I agree with some of the points but not all - this is an attempt to whitewash information which may come from what is percieved from a republican background. I will not stand be and allow sources which adhere to
  WP:ATT to be discounted because it provides informatio which some editors may not like.--Vintagekits 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

Any comments VK? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cool, that sounds a fair enough system for now.--Vintagekits 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. I would refer editors to my previous comment, and would strongly agree with this discussion being moved to the An Phoblacht discussion page. This whole discussion is POV led, and an attempt to restrict both a reliable and valid source. I would again challenge editors to point to one completely unbiased “main stream” media source? --Domer48 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Broadly, that's right. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that this whole discussion, such as it is, is a complete waste of time. User:MrDarcy has kicked it off then abandoned it. User:Tyrenius has declined to draw the matter to a conclusion. User:Vintagekits doesn't want to agree to a binding policy. And this discussion refers only to An Phoblacht articles, let alone the other dubious sources which pad out these mendacious articles.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Self-published website? thus a CoI. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]