Talk:Roderic O'Gorman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roderic O'Gorman. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the word 'far right' . There is No organisation in Ireland called 'the far right' and no evidence any such organisation was responsible for the protests against roderic o'gorman

thank you

46.7.119.173 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far right references[edit]

Celtbrowne . Members of a certain political Party being present at a rally does not mean they organised the rally or indeed everyone else who attended was members of that party .

for example , members of Golden Dawn sit in the European Parliament , this does not mean everyone in the european parliament are members of Golden Dawn or share those views .

You cannot describe an event as being organised by the 'far right' when there is no evidence that it was .

Irelandwatch (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne: What did you mean by the phrase in your edit summary " Extrapolations from Youtube videos"? What exact extrapolations did you see? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A photo published by the National Party themselves on their official Flickr account

The event has been characterised as "a far-right rally" by multiple reliable sources. The Journal.ie, in an article discussing specifically the far-right, covers the rally here [1]. The Irish Times, in an article discussing specifically the far-right, covers the rally, noting By their own measures the event was a success for the far right. About 1,000 people stood and listened to an address by Barrett, the National Party leader, who has previously spoken at neo-Nazi rallies in Europe. Some of the crowd held up placards depicting a noose. [2] The Irish Examiner, in an article discussing specifically the far-right, covers the rally here [3]. Another article by the Journal specifically states that the rally was organised by the far-right: The continued promotion of this link culminated on 11 July 2020, when ‘anti-paedophile’ rallies were organised by far-right groups in Dublin. On 5 July, the Irish Freedom Party endorsed a ‘Hands Off Our Kids’ rally for 11 July 2020 in Dublin, while supporters of the National Party promoted a ‘March for Innocence’ to be held on the same day [4]
Furthermore, Gript.ie is not a reliable source. It's an Irish equivalent, in terms of content, of Breitbart. Breitbart is a blacklisted source as per WP:BREITBART.

Irelandwatch suggests there's no evidence of "far right" involvement. There absolutely is, and the characterisation of the rally as "far-right" should remain. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________

Before I respond to @Celtbrowne , I think questions about his impartiality need to be addressed . One of the First contributions he made on wikipedia was about a Green Party leadership contest !!

@Celtbrowne is attempting to "make guilty by association" everyone involved in the Roderic O'Gorman protest .

For example he wants to include this statement - .. "a rally held against O'Gorman outside Dáil Éireann by members of the Irish far-right such as the National Party" .

how can there be - "members of the irish far right" when no such organisation exists ? , secondly , he singles out the national party ... "such as the national party" , this is a "guilty by association" technique to make it appear those involved were all of a certain political persuasion .

Secondly , he wants to have this heading - "Peter Tatchell Controversy and harrassment by far right activists" instead of simply "Peter Tatchell Controversy" . By using his heading he creates the impression that everyone involved in the affair was 'far right' when there is no evidence to support this claim.

If Celtbrowne has evidence of far right involvement , this can be included in the paragraph below the heading but to put it in the heading is aimed at creating the impression everyone involved was far right

Finally , Gript.ie is a reliable source . Its editor John McGuirk is well respected and has appeared in debates on National Television and Radio , including RTE's Prime Time Programme .

Irelandwatch (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "One of the first contributions [I] made on Wikipedia" was in 2018. It wasn't until 2019 I became a regular editor, at which point I began editing 20th-century Irish historic figures. I didn't edit anything from present-day politics until quite a time later. You can see all of this in my user contributions page. Irelandwatch thinks "One of the First contributions he made on wikipedia" was 2020 Green Party leadership election because it's listed first on my user page under "Articles I have created". That list is in alphabetical order, not by order of creation. There are entries in the list that predate the 2020 Green election by years. You need to improve your research skills.
Secondly, you've got some nerve to accuse me of impartiality when my edits are across a wide range of topics, while your own are seemingly exclusively in relation to the National Party, Justin Barrett and Gemma O'Doherty.
I'm not going to take the rest of the post point by point. I'm simply going to point out that I have cited reliable sources which state that the event was in fact organised and promoted by members of the Irish far right, while Irelandwatch has not cited anything to contradict this characterisation. The singular person he has cited, Paddy Manning, doesn't contradict the characterisation of the event as far-right. Manning objects to the characterisation of the event as homophobic. Coincidently, the article of Manning's that Irelandwatch cited[5] heavily relies on the concerns of John Connors, who later retracted those views, apologised, and he himself later characterised what was going on as homophobic. Mr Connors said he had “battled bigotry my whole life and my deranged pursuit of Minister O’Gorman played a huge part in the homophobic backlash he received from the very bigots I despise”. [6]
What has been written by myself and others reflects what has been written in reliable sources. If Irelandwatch wishes to alter that, he should cite reliable sources that contradict this view instead of just citing his own opinion on the matter. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________

Celtbrowne says I'm citing my own opinion on the matter . If you look at the changes I made to the article , absolutely nowhere did I cite my 'own opinion' on anything .


I am trying to make the article more impartial by removing the "guilty by association" tone

the following statement below should be removed - 

.. "a rally held against O'Gorman outside Dáil Éireann by members of the Irish far-right such as the National Party" .

how can there be "members of the irish far right" when no such organisation exists ? , secondly , he singles out the national party ... "such as the national party" , this is a "guilty by association" technique to make it appear those involved were all of a certain political persuasion .

Secondly , he wants to have this heading - "Peter Tatchell Controversy and harrassment by far right activists" instead of simply "Peter Tatchell Controversy" . By using his heading he creates the impression that everyone involved in the affair was 'far right' when there is no evidence to support this claim

Irelandwatch (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asserting that "how can there be "members of the irish far right" when no such organisation exists ? , ". As I've already stated and cited, groups such as the National Party and Irish Freedom Party have been characterised as far-right by the Irish Times, Irish Examiner and the Journal.ie. I'll cite an example again: The continued promotion of this link culminated on 11 July 2020, when ‘anti-paedophile’ rallies were organised by far-right groups in Dublin. On 5 July, the Irish Freedom Party endorsed a ‘Hands Off Our Kids’ rally for 11 July 2020 in Dublin, while supporters of the National Party promoted a ‘March for Innocence’ to be held on the same day [7] You've cited nothing but your opinion that these groups are not far-right. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting. I see no reason to exclude Manning. It is cited by a reasonably reliable source. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into too much of a debate about Gript here, because that might be something that has to be done over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. All I'm going to say is that I do not consider Gript to be reliable at all; it's a website that makes quite clear to its audience everything it publishes is done so through a biased prism. Nothing is presented in neutral terms on Gript, instead, everything is written from an unashamedly right-wing political perspective and in the style of Yellow Journalism. That kind of journalism resulted in both WP:Breitbart and WP:Daily Mail becoming blacklisted and deprecated, respectfully. Left-wing publications that do the same thing but from the other side of the spectrum have also faced the same fate. Users such as @Bastun: have already discussed in the past the possibility of creating a request for comment about the reliability of Gript. @Ser!: in a previous revision also expressed the view that Gript is not a reliable source, so my point would be maybe don't go charging ahead with another gript reference in the article, because we might have to discuss Gript over at somewhere like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard first. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will confirm that Gript is not a reliable source whatsoever imv, but saving the full debate on its relevance for any potential RS debate as @CeltBrowne: said. ser (forgot to sign at first) 23:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually open a discussion on Gript at WP:RS/N and the consensus was that it is not a reliable source. I will find a link to the discussion tomorrow. Irelandwatch's PoV is well on the record. If we do want to shorten that section title, "Harassment by far-right activists" will work well. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting. I see no reason to exclude Manning. It is cited by a reasonably reliable source. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're here long enough to be familiar with WP:YOUTUBE, I presume. Why do you want Manning included, and more importantly, why would he warrant inclusion? Yes, he involves himself in various causes, always taking a notably contrarian position, but if he's not notable enough to merit his own article, including him here would be very WP:UNDUE. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because it tends to rebut the claim that the protest was only by far right groups. I wonder did a source other than YouTube pick up Mr. Manning's presence on the day? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, even if there's a reliable source, Manning isn't notable. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While Manning himself may not be notable, his rebuttal of a govt minister would be notable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't "rebut" anything, though. He spoke at a protest. A non-notable person was one of the speakers at a protest organised by the far right, that sought to intimidate and threaten a government minister. The notable person who took part later apologised. I think we've covered everything relevant, there, really. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for this ("And harassment by far-right activists") addition to the title of the sub-section. It is not 100% of the picture as Mr. Manning's evidence attests. Since it is not completely true and is in any case unnecessary, it should go. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the same issue as discussed above, so doesn't need its separate section. I'm unclear why you're so focussed on one non-notable person who may have spoken at a far-right protest. Perhaps speaking at a far-right protest that was organised by far-right parties including Renua, the Irish Freedom Party and the National Party, where a banner featuring nooses was unfurled might make one far-right - and it might not. But there's no disputing that the protest was organised by far-right elements, as is reliably referenced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The heading should be no longer than is nececessary while maintaining NPOV. There is no need for it to contain POV elements. Let the body of the sub-section discuss those parts, along with any contrary evidence, if it exists. It's not the job of the title to be the judge. It suffices that there was a controversy so that's all that's strictly necessary for the title to contain. Anything longer is POV pushing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you can demonstrate where you got consensus to change the heading? It is accurate and neutral, as it has been sourced in the section thereafter. Let's leave it at the original version, in any case, until a consensus to change emerges. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irelandwatch, again, you do not have consensus for these changes. A change to the section heading is being discussed right here - wait until a consensus emerges. As discussed above, gript is not a reliable source for anything, and if you're going to conribtute, use proper English - nOt Rndomly Inserted Camel Case Captial Letters. Hmm, who else edits like that... Also, consider this your 3RR edit-warring warning. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun , I have consensus from Laurel Lodged to make said changes . Your the only one right now holding it back . Also , what do you mean by this statement ".. Hmm, who else edits like that" , I hope your not implying I have another account here because I dont and its not nice suggesting such . Irelandwatch (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The punctuation thing is interesting, too... How does Laurel Lodged give you consensus? S/he can't. There isn't a consensus. You can't see CeltBrowne's contributions, above? Absent a consensus to change, the status quo applies, and in any case, the heading is a) accurate, and b) neutral. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun if you have something to say about multiple accounts then say it. Otherwise drop the insinuations. The heading is not neutral. How can something that is only a couple of weeks old be deemed to be the status quo? Something being discussed is not the same as something having consensus. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're both here long enough to be well aware of WP:BRD, the three-revert rule, etc. You don't keep changing something while a discussion is ongoing. That's edit warring. Actually, you've both had blocks for it in the past, so... What is not neutral about the cited fact that far-right activists harassed O'Gorman, because of the photo he had taken with Tatchell? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is undisputed that there was a controversy regarding Tatchell. It is up to the body of the sub-section to tease the various parts out: who did what; whether they were misled; whether they were misinformed; whether all were far-right. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also undisputed and referenced that O'Gorman was harassed by the far-right. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also undisputed and referenced that O'Gorman was harassed by non far-right people. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced where? Aside from the completely unreliable source of Gript I don't see any source for it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Ser! just said, what we're referring to as harassment, ie threats made to O'Gorman, was primarily carried out by far-right people. Moderates were not threatening him on social media or holding up noose imaginary. We're not conflating criticism with harassment. The "harassment by far-right activists" in the title refers to threatening behaviour, not anything else. If it's undisputed that he was harassed, then saying he was harassed in the title should not be an issue. The further point is that this harassment was carried out by far-right people. So for example the title does not infer that the referenced Ciara Kelly is far-right or that she harassed O'Gorman. It is referring only to the threatening actions of far-right people such as the National Party. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to call upon the services of a Third Party at this time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Irelandwatch has reverted without explanation or further participation here, against consensus, and Inserted Camelcase Capitalised Commentary, perhaps that third-party should be an administrator? The consensus is clear here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus was clear, then I would not have suggested he services of a Third Party at this time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is getting utterly ridiculous at this stage. Given the constant reverting to the same Poorly Written Version using an Irish port of Breitbart that is quite simply not suitable for Wikipedia as a source, and trying to force through edits multiple times by choosing not to hear what's been said on the talk page (despite multiple attempts to reach out to the user), not to mention the unfounded allegations of bias levelled against other editors, it's becoming clear we're gonna need to get an admin on case. As I've no experience in this procedure I'll leave it to ye to get the third party involved, but I agree totally that it needs to be done at this stage. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on subheading title wording[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the request for comment was as follows: there is no consensus for the words "and harassment by far-right activists" to remain in the sub-heading title. Although half of the commenting participants considered that the section is well-sourced and relevant enough, the remaining half were concerned that the section was about a broader controversy and the language of the additional words may not comply with WP:NPOV. (non-admin closure) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Should a subheading in the article Roderic O'Gorman contain the wording "and harassment by far-right activists"? Proponents contend it is an accurate summary of the contents of the section and of events themselves, while critics argue the inclusion of the wording in the subheading is not neutral in tone. Please read the rest of the talk page for further context.

  1. "and harassment by far-right activists"? should remain
  2. "and harassment by far-right activists"? should be removed
  3. A different wording should be used (please suggest an alternative)
  4. Other (please explain)

CeltBrowne (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A. Well sourced and relevant enough to belong in the title of the section. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, without taking a position on the sourcing/accuracy/neutrality of the disputed content. The section is about the Peter Tatchell controversy, including aspects unrelated to harassment by far-right activists, and should therefore be titled "Peter Tatchell controversy". A subsection within that section titled "Harassment by far-right activists" might be warranted if it is determined that there's enough sourcing to support it. ezlevtlk
    ctrbs     22:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, for the reasons stated by Ezlev. I couldn't say it better myself.Raellerby (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per Ezlev rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The harassment is well sourced and relevant. Frankly, without the subsequent harassment and threats, the whole section would likely need to be removed, per WP:DUE - we're talking here about criticism of a photo taken two years before O'Gorman was appointed to a ministry, and the "controversy" actually relates to remarks made by someone else. In 1997. O'Gorman was 14 at the time, and extremely unlikley to have been aware of them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C - The whole section should be renamed; it's not just about Tatchell or far-right critics, but about O'Gorman being a target because of his sexuality and the culture wars. They just picked ways to attack him. Also suggest making much more concise. It's not such a big deal if he is going to have a career as a politician. He's been in the public eye a very short time. Parkwells (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per the points made by EzlevSea Ane (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, due to sourcing and relevancy. Idealigic (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at WP:Ireland and WP:LGBT studies. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A - Well sourced and an important part of the section. Placing far-right harassment under the subtitle "Criticism" or "Controversy" seems a bit off too me, as it was the same thing as a columnist criticizing a politician. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, it's not only unnecessary but appears to be OR/POV. Crossroads -talk- 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what now? The National Party and Irish Freedom Party turn up outside your workplace with banners featuring nooses (see photo in previous section), but this is OR?! No. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: This is a RfC and not the place for bullying. You made those same points in the previous section. It is unnececessary to repeat them here. Stop bullying contributors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this is an RfC, I've never bullied anyone (but accusing someone of it doing so is a personal attack); but in an RfC, if someone is claiming OR for what's referenced and even pictured, I'll call that, lest their statement mislead anyone else. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can editors please stop changing the heading while the RfC is ongoing? It stays as is until the RfC is concluded - that's how these things work. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any scope for getting an admin on the case? It's becoming pretty clear that Irelandwatch is WP:NOTHERE to engage constructively and is just continuing to change something 1) without consensus and 2) during an RFC, despite multiple attempts at outreach. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A-The wording is quite relevant and well sourced hence it should be included.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C as per Parkwells. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B the language of "A" per appears to violate WP:POV. "A" as proposed appears to have editorial bias. "B" removes the editorial bias. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - There have been many articles by the Irish national media outlining that O'Gorman was a specific target for abuse by the Irish far-right during the "controversy" such as here [8], here [9], here [10] and here [11]. Given that the Irish national media characterised this incident as an instance of harassment against O'Gorman, it is not improper for the heading to reflect that. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Question - This RfC has been open for over a month now. Is there an outcome, what happens next? Spleodrach (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for an uninvolved admin to close is probably best, I think? I'll post to AN. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And done at AN/I. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
And re-done at WP:ANRFC, here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nice Picture[edit]

File:Roderic Meeting 01.jpg
Campaigning during lockdown: use of Zoom to facilitate public meetings.

An editor has deleted a nice picture of this politician doing what politicians do - electioneering and canvassing. The nice picture was supported by a neutral caption and by a citation from the politicians own website confirming said activity. The deleted section ran: "Many politicians have had to adapt their political campaigning to the restrictions imposed by Level 5 restrictions. Ministers such as O'Gorman, conducted meetings of the public online, facilitated by Zoom software, instead of face-to-face.[1]

So we have not had a pandemic in this country in over 100 years. Yet the editor thinks that politicians would not be affected by it. That might not have to re-think how they do politics("Not in any way specifically relevant to O'Gorman - or, indeed, to any one politician's article."). I disagree. I think that the nice picture and citation should be restored. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The editor" is me, and you know how to ping. So what happened is a) you inserted the photo, with a disingenuous and misleading POV caption: "O'Gorman poster advertising a public meeting during level 5 lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic". CeltBrowne correctly reverted your addition, with the edit summary "Public Meeting" - The poster literally says "Online via Zoom" and doesn't list any physical location, it's not advertising what you think it's advertising. I called you out on your talk page for the clearly biased addition, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Laurel_Lodged&type=revision&diff=1021833719&oldid=1021829426&diffmode=source and you responded on mine. You then re-added the content here, with a much revised caption ("Campaigning during lockdown: use of Zoom to facilitate public meetings.", and added similar photos and captions to the pages of two other west-Dublin politicians.
As you say, this is a photo of a poster belonging to a politician, doing what politicians do - electioneering and canvassing. Why, then, is it WP:DUE to include it specifically on the pages of O'Gorman, Varadkar, and Emer Currie - the latter two expanding into quite large and very specific advertorial chunks - and not on the pages of every other politician who has done exactly the same? It's simply not relevant on the BLPs of individual politicians. As I said when removing these additions, it might warrant a line or two in the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland article. But that's it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And done. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admirable efficiency. However, having originally put it there myself, I self-reverted it. Instead, I found a better home for it in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics in the Republic of Ireland. You might want to self-revert. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Are you sure? It wasn't this edit by Edl-irishboy? Odd. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you self reverted yet? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really not seeing why I'd need to - it works on that article, too. Feel free to remove it yourself if you're that bothered. Then you can tell people you self-reverted that one, too... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's so easy to become attached to one's edits, isn't it. I can understand your reluctance to self-revert, even when you know that the alternative is probably better. Much like this thread, which is essentially about "I don't like it" and little more. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The information is superfluous to the individual politician's articles. Other editors correctly pointed out that it might warrant an inclusion in COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland but that's about it. I felt the information was irrelevant to the article from the first time I saw it but didn't move on it because I don't want to have to be constantly engaging in edit wars on this page. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. The way I see it, the section on online campaigning, though included in good faith, is superfluous as Bastun and CeltBrowne have said. However, I think as an image of the subject it should be included within the article, but with a caption along the lines of "Poster for a public meeting held by O'Gorman" rather than anything about adapting to Zoom. Image is relevant to the article as it's something O'Gorman did and is an image of O'Gorman himself, so I see no reason for complete exclusion rather than just cutting the caption. Thoughts? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Public Meeting on Phoenix Park Transport and Mobility Consultation". 24 February 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2021. I will be hosting a public meeting for constituents on the 2nd of March 2021. The meeting is in relation to the consultation currently taking place on the Phoenix Park Transport and Mobility Options Report which was published earlier this year. The meeting will take place via zoom and will start at 7pm

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about second photo in Peter Tatchell Controversy section[edit]

Now that Laurel Lodged has posted Summary This is a discussion about whether to have a discussion. It ends now. and started a new thread at #Picture showing the "Hands off our Kids Rally" mentioned within the article., there is no point to keeping this thread open. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is Picture being removed I added a picture showing the "Hands off our Kids Rally" mentioned within the article. Yesterday, It was removed for the second time (without any reason or justification). Can the Mods please ensure other Mods and senior members are acting impartially when decisions are being made to remove such images. Thank You, Irelandwatch (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an image related to this event, which is of a higher quality than the mobile phone camera photo you're uploading. Two photographs for a three-paragraph section of this article is overkill. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ser! - under what wikipedia rule are two images not allowed ? and under what wikipedia rule are mobile images not allowed ? and who makes you an expert on image quality. The image I posted shows the entire crowd present at the hands off our kids rally while the existing image only shows a few guys holding a banner. also User:Ser! you use the word "we" .. you say - "we" already have an image related to this event" , who is "we" ??? I thought wikipedia was for everyone ??? maybe other users like User:Laurel Lodged or User:Black Kite would like to take a fresh look at this .

Here's the image in question (Please Dont remove this image from the talk page. Other users need to see for themselves the image being discussed)
"Hundreds attend Hands off our kids rally in dublin"; alternatively "Hundreds stand on Dublin street"

Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY: Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images - dark or blurry [...] and so on - should not be used unless absolutely necessary. The image you've attached is evidently low quality, which you don't need to be an expert to note! As for the excessive number of images: there's not a specific policy but it seems common sense that two images for three paragraphs is too much. Finally, when I say "we" I mean Wikipedia as a project. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, The image is good quality, Its not dark and its certainly not blurry. Its a perfectly good image of the event and there is no reason not to include it in the article Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a piece of crap. There is no consensus to add it to the article. Don't need to see it here either. Spleodrach (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor RfC This should have been discussed before opening up an RfC. This just seems like a simple content dispute that could have been resolved without opening an RfC. Unless there's a clear call to action this should be withdrawn. Nemov (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor RfC. Concur with the above. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why RFC is important . NO RULES are being broken by including the image yet users User:ser! and User:Spleodrach are intent on stopping its inclusion. One would have to ask WHY? I'm concerned User:ser! and User:Spleodrach are removing the image because they dont like the content of the image which is concerning from a neutral point of view perspective and also there is no difference between the quality of this image and the one already attached to that section. Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained to you why I feel the image shouldn't be included. Do not cast baseless WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who came here because of the RfC it's not clear what I'm supposed to do here. This should have been discussed here first and if there was no way forward a clear RfC with a path forward should have been presented. Find consensus for your change. If you don't like the consensus move on to something else. Nemov (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:ser! why did you remove the Image from the Talk Page. People need to see the subject being discussed. Please leave it be. thank you. Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed it once? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

apologies User:ser!, it was User:Spleodrach (at 13:47, 8 December 2022‎) after he described it as "a piece of crap" Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor RfC: 1) Discussion before RfC, not as a first resort. 2) Section started as "Why is Picture being removed" (sic) and had at least one reply before being reframed as an RfC. That's not on. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include pic. (summoned by bot- to me it is perfectly clear what to do here and edit conflict with below) The picture on the talk page is of good quality, it shows a crowd, as opposed to the existing photo in the article and is interesting. I feel it should be included on the article page. but I would not use the caption "Hundreds attend..." - simply state date and place
  • I think Spleodrach did not show good spirit, calling the picture crap and removing pic from talk page, which is very aggressive.
  • I think User:Bastun s comment of "poor RfC" is beside the point, thus counterproductive- the point of an RfC is to discuss an issue with people not involved in the page.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wuerzele, I am well aware what an RfC is for, thanks. You (and Irelandwatch, for that matter) might do well to read WP:RFCBEFORE, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (I came here by courtesy of the bot, I offer a service) I think User:Bastun s comment is aggressive, biting a newbie to the page, the lecturing is argumentative and counterproductive. I am not choosing sides here on the content. He continues a stalemate. It is no wonder that no other helpers come along - who wants to get torn apart in this minefield? --Wuerzele (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you already said you were summoned by a bot. WP:NEWBIES? Seriously? Dude, you have 10,000 more edits than I do, and have been here for 9 years. You are not a newbie. (There is nothing in my comments above attacking Irelandwatch, so I can only assume you think you should be treated as the newbie here?) Yet, despite not being a newbie, you seem to be unfamiliar with WP:RFCBEFORE. Seriously, read it. You (or Irelandwatch, an editor with less than 200 edits, total) don't see your edit reverted, open a talkpage section, and then reframe that section as an RFC when only one person has replied. That's not how we do RfCs here. It just isn't. As everyone here has said, with you being the sole exception. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Bastun, 100%. And stop calling everyone with whom you don't agree "aggressive". People may say things that you don't agree with. That's Wikipedia. Spleodrach (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor RfC and poor photo - two are not needed and the proposed photo illustrates almost nothing - it could be any small-ish crowd near any public event. Pincrete (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RfC as it is poorly worded. It appears that it should be a chance for WP:3O instead. Gusfriend (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • This RfC needs to be withdrawn. In its current state it's just a mess and a waste of valuable time for editors coming here to review. @Irelandwatch: I recommend removing the RfC. You can resubmit later if it's necessary. Thanks Nemov (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agreed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this RFC is closed and a discussion follows, I hope to see none of the above unparliamentary language. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So - four people are stating this is a poor RfC, only one person has engaged directly with the RfC itself (other than the formulator), and Irelandwatch has not engaged since the first day. It's been three days now. Is there a method for closing it? Requests for closure? Or do we let it limp along for another 27 days? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is important because there are two admins in particular who refuse to allow anybody to have an input on the Bio or make improvements to the content such as adding the image above. Without the RfC , the two admins in question will rule with an iron curtain, I dont know what their game is but its very counter productive for everyone concerned who just want to make improvements to the page Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which admins? Be specific, because you're making a specific accusation. Include diffs. Have you read WP:RFCBEFORE yet? You still haven't indicated why you think it shouldn't apply (as in, why did you not allow discussion to proceed beforehand?) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC) ping Irelandwatch BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it fair that Irelandwatch can accuse two admins of ownership, editwarring and tag teaming without providing any evidence, in breach of WP:AGF, yet I'm not allowed to close an out-of-process RFC by a user with two blocks in under 200 edits, without obtaining consensus??? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could leave a request at WP:CR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days. if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious"

— WP:CR
as the consensus is not clear in relation to this matter and No explanation has been given as to why certain admins are refusing to allow a perfectly good image from being included in the page, its very important we get more input from admins who have not been involved in editing the page before . Thank You and Kind Regards to all Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're completely failing to address WP:RFCBEFORE, Irelandwatch. Why do you want an RfC before we have an ordinary discussion on content? Please address that, or I'll look for a close of this out-of-process RfC. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary This is a discussion about whether to have a discussion. It ends now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversy Section Violates WP:CRITS[edit]

It appears there is a lack of familiarity with WP:CRIT in regards the title of this sectioin. The title that @Irelandwatch reverted to[12] violates WP:BLP guidelines.

In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative. Segregation of text or other content into different subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. There is no requirement to include criticism or controversies in an article.

The information about it can be included if it's reliably sourced, but the title should describe the section from a NPOV and not frame it as a "controversy." You don't have to use the title I used, but "controversy" needs to go. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it to your edit per WP:CRITS - contrary to the edit summary, there was no consensus found on including controversy in it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 ??? How is it fair that User:Nemov and User:ser! can remove a heading that was in place for over a year Without obtaining any Consenus yet I'm not allowed to add a simple image to the page unless I get a consenus . something very wrong with this. There is some sort of agenda going on here and I'd ask Admins not involved in the page to take an impartial look at this situation . Thank You ??? Irelandwatch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally read the two comments above yours. The heading was in breach of Wikipedia policy, hence why it was removed. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was brought here because of your RfC. My only agenda is following guidelines. Quit reverting edits without discussion. You've been blocked for this behavior in the past it seems like you should have learned how this works. I left a comment on your TALK and here before you left this silly comment. I recommend withdrawing it. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture showing the "Hands off our Kids Rally" mentioned within the article.[edit]

This is the pre-RFC discussion. It might proceed to a RFC. The question is, "Should we remove a picture showing the "Hands off our Kids Rally" mentioned within the article?". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking the right question, there, Laurel Lodged? I don't think anyone is seeking the removal of the photo currently in the article (the one of NP members holding a banner with a noose, standing outside Leinster House), are they? Irelandwatch was seeking the inclusion of the photo from further up this page, showing hundreds of people standing on a street (Molesworth Street?),
FWIW, I oppose inclusion of the additional photo. It would add nothing to the article, and could be of literally anything, from any random protest to people watching buskers. Omit per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY and the fact we absolutely don't need a second photo of the one event - it would be WP:UNDUE - and the other image already in use is much clearer. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roderic_O%27Gorman&oldid=1207982326"