Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill
 | Irish republicanism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus. |
Reliable sources
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)
- Yawn. Doesn't the article on An Phoblacht itself make it abundantly clear that this is a partisan publication? Its website header [1] describes itself as '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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. Tony Gormley was armed to the teeth with a Zippo lighter when shot dead at Loughall, when carrying out a bomb attack. One Night In Hackney 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are making my point for me. Your quotation is entirely speculation.--Major Bonkers 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
Analysis of sources used
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)
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)
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 WP:RS is a guide:
- 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 reliable source) and not a true one in a veto'd outlet, e.g. a blog, because the latter is deemed not to be a reliable source. Wiki does not seek truth per se: that is barred under WP:NOR. It seeks what reliable sources (as defined by wiki) say is the truth. You might know someone is 30 years old, but if the New York Times says they are 40 years old, then that is what we say and reference, until there is either another reliable source that prints 30 or the NYT prints a correction. If NYT says 40 and The Guardian says 30, then we use both: under 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)
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)
- 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)