Talk:David Norris (politician)

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

Edit Needed[edit]

The article suggests that Stephen Fry endorsed Norris's campaign following Norris's re-entry. This is not true. This endorsement occured before Norris withdrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.118.30 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Moved. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

No mention of his comments on older homosexuals "mentoring" younger (possibly minor) ones? How odd. Biography or hagiography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.237.204 (talk • contribs) 21:54 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows anyone, including you, to mention anything on a page, as long as you provide reference. You could add the 'mentoring' comment if you can provide a ref. If you find confirmation of his intent to refer to minors, you can include that too, but 'possibly' is until then, just your own interpretation and couldn't be added without a ref. If he did refer to minors, the WP mention would need to be qualified to idenitfy if he had a nefarious intent or not, given the obvious possibility of different interpretations of that alleged remark.--Rye1967 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the comment, he didn't say anything about older homosexuals mentoring minors, just younger homosexuals. But that's neither here nor there. I agree with Rye1967: include the quote if you can find it, and if it means what you think it means. If not, please don't just make snarky comments but work to improve the site. Lexo (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar[edit]

I removed the bit that said Norris was the first English Literature and Language Foundation Scholar of Trinity College. If you look at these search results you'll see that there was someone before him. (I checked elsewhere, and that guy was also a Foundation Scholar.)
Ian Cheese (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1916 Rising views[edit]

I have removed the text " An article in The Sunday Times claimed that Norris had, on more than one occasion, denounced the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising as "terrorists".[1] The article described this as a "potential stumbling block" to his presidential bid, noting that "The next president will be in situ for the centenary commemoration of the Easter Rising. It's difficult to imagine President Norris standing proudly at the GPO as the leader of that particular ceremony".[1]"

David Norris never made these claims and the newspaper printed a retraction of this. His views on the 1916 Rising leaders have been recorded in the Seanad http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?gid=2011-01-26.13.0

This also verifies that the retraction of the claims by the Sunday newspaper.

The text should be re-added, since the newspaper's claim obviously caused controversy. That means it was a notable "incident". We can then add something like: "However, Norris denied the article's claim and the newspaper printed a correction at his behest". ~Asarlaí 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So a newspaper published something which was untrue, which they then retracted, presumably under threat of libel action. But it still gets mentioned, seems a tenuous hook on which several coats are hung a la WP:Coatrack to me. Considering the article was untrue should it really be quoted at length? Snappy (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paper only retracted the bit about the Easter Rising; the rest of the article (presumably) is fine. We shouldn't pretend it never happened just because it was later retracted. Like I said, it's notable because it caused controversy. Nevertheless, I've shortened the quotes. ~Asarlaí 18:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Snappy (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV: It seems leading to start with the invocation of the word "neo-unionist" when in fact the Reform Movement describe themselves as Post-Nationalist (http://www.reform.org/site/aims/).
V: the fact that there was a retraction (burden of proof legally is on the newspaper, and it is not pretending it never happened - there is simply no evidence for what was printed), at the least I would suggest a minor revision so that the fact of the situation is put first whereby it is noted that the newspaper retracted what they said. An "uncited article", and something which was later retracted by the claimant is not factual in the manner which this section should be ("In May 2010, he called for the Republic of Ireland to re-join the Commonwealth." All the evidence points in the direction that no, he did not.) Note that I only suggest rearranging how this section is presented, rather suggesting deletion. Fugazilazarus (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am of the opinion that the text should not be included, I edited it to add in Senator Norris' refutation of the claims the day after they were made in the Independent. Hopefully this can address the issue but still be fair to his actual views Petropetro (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link available to the retraction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennycrane101 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis of primary sources[edit]

The previous version of the Views section attempted to sting together selective and disparate claims related to Norris' purported views on Ireland's history with the United Kingdom supported only by primary sources. The novel conclusion hinted at is that Norris is not authentically Irish, but rather a sort of West Brit revanchist. This is contrary to the BLP policy on sourcing and is inappropriate for inclusion. Skomorokh 13:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be your conclusion, but it's certainly not mine. If Norris claims he's an Irishman then that's what he is. The section is merely a presentation of Norris's views. Obviously we can't include his views on everything, but nevertheless I think it's quite balanced. All of the things you removed were reliably sourced and all of them were direct quotes from Norris. Why is that not good enough? This is what you removed:

In January 2011, Norris called the Rising's leaders "men of vision and chivalry" and said he supported the creation of a national monument.

In a 2010 RTÉ documentary, he condemned the bombing of Nelson's Pillar on the Rising's 50th anniversary, claiming "no decent or civilized person was against the pillar".

"We are in a ridiculous situation now that gay couples have more rights in Paisley's Belfast than they do in Bertie's Dublin."

~Asarlaí 14:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely it – they are primary sources selectively chosen from taken from the mass of statements made by this public figure, and presented together in a way that creates a synthesised narrative that no reliable source has advanced. If a secondary source identified the above three statements as indicative of a certain attitude or perspective on Norris' part, that might be appropriate for inclusion, but the current cherry-picked menagerie simply are not. Skomorokh 17:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wher is the narrativ? You make it seem like these three quotes wer given one-after-the-other to make a story.
The first two quotes wer together becaus' they both concern the Easter Rising. Before your edit, that paragraf present'd all of his public views on the Easter Rising. However, becaus' you removed those two quotes, now it only presents some of his views and readers ar not being given the whole picture.
The quote about "Paisley's Belfast" wasn't even in the same section and is about a very different subject, so I don't see how it could be part of a narrativ.
I don't mean to sound rude, but surely you could be accused of (perhaps unknowingly) cherrypicking? By that I mean taking a line or two from section A, combining it with a line from section C, and saying "this looks like a narrativ". ~Asarlaí 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS?[edit]

How reliable a source is http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/ - used as a reference for the Magill article? It seems to be a "home made" site which is pretty much a copyright violation? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I've found a scan of the original article: page 1, page 2, page 3. ~Asarlaí 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which would also seem to be a copyright violation, according to their T&Cs? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly reasonable to quote any Magill article and anyone without a back issue can read it or any other Magill and make notes at the Gilbert Library at 138/142 Pearse Street in Dublin. — O'Dea (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very true - I'm not saying the Magill article shouldn't be quoted or referred to, just that the pages it's currently available online at appear to be copyright violations, which shouldn't be linked to. No problem replacing the links with just the issue/date. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since those images are online, copyrighted or not, the photographed or scanned text can be quoted in the article to spare people in New Zealand buying plane tickets to fly to Ireland to use the Gilbert Library, then they can use a citation like: "The Free Radical" by Helen Lucy Burke, Magill magazine pp. 34–36, January 2002. — O'Dea (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Gael's attitude/citation problem[edit]

Although I admire the subject of this article and think he would make a good president, I notice an attempt by someone to slant the article in the subject's favour by misrepresenting the content of a citation. Article says 'Fine Gael announced its intention to obstruct the nomination of Norris for the presidency in any way that it can.' Citation is to a newspaper article in which the only reference to Fine Gael is 'However, Fine Gael has instructed its councillors to block the nomination of Mr Norris.' That's not quite the same thing as Fine Gael declaring all-out, by-any-means-necessary war on the Norris campaign. Since our first priority must be the NPOV of Wikipedia, I will be changing the sentence in the article to reflect Fine Gael's actual policy, as opposed to what whoever wrote the original sentence would have liked it to be. Lexo (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs and comments about incest and sexual abuse[edit]

I was wondering if I should make changes to the section which gives preferential treatment to Burkes' accusations rather then Norris's denials. I don't know the topic, so maybe I should leave it to others... but then I remembered that this is a WP:BLP. For BLPs, the burden of proof is squarely on those who make damaging statements. If there's any doubt in the foundations of an accusation, that doubt has to be presented to the reader before the accusation. Gronky (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link there now to scans of the entire article, so people can analyse it for themselves. It's a bit late now, over 9 years later, for Norris to be challenging what was written. He could have taken action at the time, but did not. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV may be showing, Rw. E.g., removing a reference to one poll which puts Norris on top "because the campaign hasn't even started yet" - then inserting a reference to Fionnan Sheehan's opinion piece saying his campaign has been damaged? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The removed reference was about a 5-month-old opinion poll, when Norris was probably the only declared candidate. A lot has happened since then. Sheahan is not the only one saying Norris's campaign is dead; ask the dogs on the street. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RW, Norris says that he did challenge the article in 2002, on all radio stations and in all newspapers: [1]
Now, I don't have proof that this is true. Do you have proof that it's false? If you don't, then we've both got no proof, so by default we have to avoid having unproven damaging remarks in BLPs. Gronky (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the scans. They're very useful. But they don't change this discussion: no one questions whether Burke published an article with controversial statements. Everyone, including Norris, confirms this. The question is whether Burke accurately reflected Norris's statements. Gronky (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the recently added paedophilia quote, Norris specifically denies saying those words: [2] and he says he asked for that paragraph to be corrected before publication but Burke went ahead and published it.
I'm not trying to whitewash the affair but Wikipedia has to stick to facts. It is a fact that Magill attributed those words to Norris, yes, but there's no proof (until the tapes surface) as to whether Norris said those words or not. Gronky (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea if Norris complained to radio stations and newspapers at the time. If he really believed he had been misquoted in a way that seriously damaged his reputation, then the place to complain would have been the courts, where the tapes could have been produced, or to Magill's management; he had loads of time to do that, but never did. He left the article effectively unchallenged. The current "oh yes you did, oh no I didn't" spat proves nothing; the only substantial material we have is the original article. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to use all sources available. One source is the article, so let's use that. Another is the subsequent articles and radio recordings of Ms. Burke, and another is the subsequent articles and radio recordings of Mr. Norris.
The article was published, discussions were held, and Norris topped the votes for the election a few weeks later. I don't really remember the 2002 discussions, but if he topped the votes then either the Irish endorsed those views on paedophilia, or the Irish didn't credit the article. The latter seems more likely. If people didn't credit the article, then it's completely normal that Norris didn't go to the courts over it. No? Gronky (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And apparently Burke didn't think it worth raising for the 2007 or 2011 Senate elections, either. Odd, that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a bit more work on this. I'll try to re-jig the paragraphs so that the 2002 and 2011 events are in separate paragraphs. I found a reference showing that Norris publicly refuted the interview back in 2002: Joe Jackson (who interviewed Norris about this in 2002) says it on Liveline [3]. Gronky (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've run out of time. I found this:
which records the votes of the 2002 Seanad elections - he topped the poles *of the Trinity constituency*. Gronky (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube song link[edit]

I inserted the following in a trivia section which was (rightly) removed: "Norris' bid for the Presidency has been praised in musical form by Paul Woodfull, in his alter ego of Republican balladeer 'Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly', with the song A Noble Queen.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw9imRvkFW4 ''A Noble Queen'', by Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly]. Retrieved 15-06-2011.</ref>" I reinserted it in the 'Political career' section. User:Snappy reverted, saying links to YouTube aren't allowed. Actually, they are, and the song appears to have been uploaded by Woodfull himself, so there are no copyright problems. Do people think it's worthy of inclusion, or not? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is its relevance? Apart from promoting Paul Woodfull, I see none. There's all manner of stuff on youtube, I see no reason why this should be included. There's no link to "Rise and follow Charlie" on Haughey's article, and that song is/was actually famous. Snappy (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's trivia policy discourages trivia, so inclusion of individual items must be soundly justified. Most trivia are just that — trivia — rubbish — and they degrade the quality of the encylopædia as information pollution. On rare occasions only, trivia can usefully illuminate a subject. I cannot identify how this particular triviality contributes to the understanding of Norris. — O'Dea (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Association with Ezra Nawi and sex and drug convictions[edit]

Is there a good reason why there should be no mention of Norris’ long-term romantic relationship with Israel activist Ezra Nawi, with a known conviction for a paedophile act? [2],[3], [4], [5] Talk of Nawi’s criminal record in relation to sex and drugs, along with references, have been suppressed from the Wikipedia page in English (but are there in Hebrew). By the way, I believe David Norris is a great guy. And I am sure he would be much in favour of transparency and openness (it wasn’t David that was convicted).

there should be mention of his relationship with Nawi, but we need to be careful of weight. There is a wiki article on Nawi and we can deal with his controversies there and not in the Norris article. --BweeB (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is curious that what is likely a major turning point in David Norris’ presidential campaign gets no mention here. Nor is there mention of Norris or the sex and drug officences on the Nawi page, which is probably Nawi’s biggest claim to fame. Indeed there is a wilful attempt to suppress facts, links and sources. Bigweeboy says “People can read the wiki article on Nawi for more details”. Well there is none in the article on Nawi. Nor is there mention of the affair on the Norris page that would suggest going to Nawi, even if there was something on the Nawi page. Bigweeboy even noted “this story is still developing and is speculation” when clearly it was past that stage. I note that it is users Bigweeboy, Jeff G, Materialscientist and Snappy have undone edits that add some reference to the Nawi controversy, among others. I regularly edit Wiki articles (in several languages). This is the first time I have to confront censorship of facts and sources by people (some doubtless well-intentioned) but which gives the impression of a collective axe to grind. Well I suggest you don’t waste your time on this – it such blatant suppression of information that is not going to work for long. cckkab (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't suppressed any information, so you can leave my name off that list. I removed a reference to Nawi's conviction before the information about Norris' letter came to light. Obviously, given the recent revelations, the facts about his letter should be mentioned. Also, information on politics.ie, says that you (cckkab) are the blogger "The System Works", if this is true then you should absent yourself from editing Norris and Nawi articles, as you are part of the story and that is a conflict of interest. If this is not true, you clearly have an axe to grind yourself, pot, kettle, etc. Snappy (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snappy, you undid an edit when I think there was plenty of evidence to support the facts. The reliable sources since only have continued to pile up since. And no, I am not the "The System Works". I knew David Norris in the 70s/80s and believe he is a great guy, fantastic intellect and very sweet. I'd also be a supporter of similar causes. My interest here is just in getting the facts out with the best sources possible, as ever with Wikipedia. I've never edited before Israeli/gay/sex/ themes. I'm disappointed at the opposition to the facts appearing here. But in due time, other good Wikipedians will doubtless get the facts out there, as they usually do. cckkab (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I’ve been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I think the "The System Works" is reported in the press as in his early 20s. So clearly we are not one and the same! cckkab (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop saying that I removed relevant info when the edit history clearly proves I didn't. Anyway, I don't know much about Israeli gay sex themes, so I'll leave that to you. Snappy (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an interesting twist to this sorry saga (of no relevance to the edits though). I presume that those trying to prevent mention of Nawi’s criminal conviction do so as he has been latterly a pro-Palestinian militant. But the case about the 1992 rape was taken by a Palestinian family against someone they saw as an Israeli (and no obvious proof of militancy at the time), in a position of influence over the 15-year old (at the time). So getting the facts out about rape is a pro-Palestinian cause, I'd argue.
I am obviously not acceptable as a reliable source; but I remember Ezra Nawi as an activist from the late 1980s. The under-age sex case may relate to an incident in 1992, but the trial does not seem to have occurred until 1997, by which time Nawi's partner (who does not appear to have been a party to the case) would have been in his 20s. RolandR (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Nawi as quite a striking figure, not a face you forget. This is some 30 years ago so memories blurred. I remember clearly Nawi’s friend, [David Norris] at different protest meetings at the time (anti-apartheid was the big one, Palestine came later). But can’t remember if Nawi there. Anyway, it is not attending the occasional protest that makes your militancy worthy of Wiki attention. For Nawi in Israel, that came some 10 years after he acquired drugs and sex criminal convictions (in the mid 2000s). Rather unfortunate that it should all boomerang back now. Nawi has maybe more than purged any wrongdoing, and is a great guy for a good cause. Still the facts are the facts and should be open and be reported in a neutral way. RolandR (above ) did ask for the Nawi page to be blocked and still has on my talk page “Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information… as you did to Ezra Nawi. “! cckkab (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not ask for this page to be protected. You did.RolandR (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Profile: David Norris". The Sunday Times. 2010-02-28. Retrieved 2010-10-25.
  2. ^ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0730/1224301621244.html
  3. ^ http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1110480.html
  4. ^ http://www.court.gov.il/BookReader/getbook.asp?path=\\172.25.40.101\idc_repository\125\181\CE0BB4F0D60E4E66A130EC5937F58BC1&OlvDataProto=file&Language=Hebrew&Hebrew=1&ReaderStyle=ILCourts&h=D4E15570A70729F8ABCEE1CA7D964B0A&OnePageMode=1
  5. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/news/leftist-jailed-for-1-month-for-assaulting-police-in-west-bank-1.5708

NPOV dispute [Views][edit]

Hello User:Asarlaí Thanks for your adding of the NPOV tag. I've made changes now to improve.

The Wikipedia rules are: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."

I've added that requested section to talk page. Could you follow the guidelines above with specifics to help improve the article or remove the NPOV tag please? Thanks Is Mise (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N Gt. Georges St. property.[edit]

My edit adding that the property (already mentioned in the article) was acquired with sitting tenants was rapidly deleted as being trivia rather than of note. Nobody saying it's false yet. Interesting! It's 29th September... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.182.234 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter? If you are predicting that this will become some big issue during the forthcoming election then wait for it to do so. (The statement will also be verifiable if it does.) For now, it's irrelevant if the property was bought with sitting tenants or not. --RA (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. So you're deleted it twice now. But your edits have the side-effect of burying (for now) what might be a the start of a very damaging set of facts on a politician who claims to be a civil rights campaigner. Is that your intention - to bury what might be damaging?

Don't you think that this information will come to light anyway and that the sooner Norris clarifies the issue with the sitting tennants and the repairs to the roof the better for him? We won't hear both sides of this story unless it starts somewhere, and I was hoping to start it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.182.234 (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news site. Neither do we predict the future. I suggest you contact the press if you want to start a story somewhere. --RA (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RA. This isn't a forum, but I expect as things reach a head in the election, some, particularly anons, will 'do their bit' to influence events. RashersTierney (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trolls are out in force tonight, adding unreferenced material, semi-protection may be needed. Snappy (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would a scan of a rent book suffice as a reference? Please allow this fact to remain, if you are a fair person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:OR and WP:RS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You seem to be in charge and know the law and how to apply it to get me off this page. I'll just leave quietly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The repeated claim that Norris is a human rights activist is claim and not an undisputed fact. Norris is perfectly entitled to make the claim, but it should not be repeated verbatim without caveat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.186.51 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Norris making the "claim", it's the journalists writing about him. I could have added 20 more references, but it would make the page look ugly. The sources say he's a gay/civil rights activist, so that's how we report it – to say it's dubious is to add your own spin to the statement, which is what we need to avoid. If the sources say it's so, as far as we're concerned, it's so. I've removed the tag pending further discussion. JonCTalk 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note this is the same anon who tried to add the landlord material (see above), clearly someone with an agenda. Snappy (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is well cited to independent third parties and the term correctly. The statement is not dubious in any way. Norris has been an activist for a number of causes and is well-known as one. --RA (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General semi-protection for candidates in the upcoming presidential election[edit]

I've proposed that all articles on candidates on the upcoming presidential election be semi protected until the 28th of October. This is owing to all of these articles coming under increasing pressure from vandals and unregistered/newly-registered editors with obvious axes to grind.

I've opened a general discussion on this at at WikiProject Ireland. --RA (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth membership[edit]

I'm going to remove this section. Norris denies having said any such thing, while Gay Mitchell actually has said he'd be in favour of Ireland joining the Commonwealth, though that's completely absent from his page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norris also denied calling the 1916 leaders "terrorists" and denied saying some of what he sayd in the Magill interview. Should those sections be removed too? Of course not. Why? Becauz they yeelded controversy, thus making them noteworthy.
What Gay Mitchell says should hav no bearing on this article; altho his Commonwelth comments should be included on his page too as they wer controversial. ~Asarlaí 19:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a silly argument, newspapers claims person said x, the person denies ever having said X, someone dutifully puts the whole episode on Wikipedia. The tactic is obvious, throw enough shit against a wall and some of it will stick, and also the old 'we know its not true but lets publish it anyway and see the fecker deny it'. Honestly! Snappy (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should also remove the whole Magill section and the bit about 1916. Why remove this but not those? Either they all stay or they all go. ~Asarlaí 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the 1916 bit going, seeing as again it was something he didn't say. The Magill stuff, on the other hand, is in print, and was raised during the campaign. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somthing he claims he didn't say - let's remember this is Wikipedia, not the David Norris campain website. The Magill, 1916 and Commonwelth statements hav all been raizd during the campain. ~Asarlaí 21:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its Wikipedia where we include the facts like what he did and what he said, not stuff made up about him by other people. Snappy (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's one man's word agenst another. The paper says he sayd it, he says he didn't. Ther was controversy. By leaving it in we'r only reporting that ther was controversy; by leaving it out we'r taking sides and pretending nothing happend. ~Asarlaí 10:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are already taking sides by putting it in, the side of the person who said the false statements. Snappy (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 December 2011 -[edit]

With regard to the section entitled "2002 Magill magazine interview" - with specific reference to the last sentence "the interview was recorded and on 21 October 2011 it was played on the radio talk show Liveline", it should be noted that on the original interview with Joe Duffy Liveline show, Helen Lucy Burke asserted, "I think I have a tape somewhere, but its so old that I don't think it will work on any player", to which Duffy replied "sure technology will get it working".

Also, when Helen Lucy Burke was asked if she had a tape while being interviewed on RTE 6 o'clock news on May 31st 2011 by Caitriona Perry (a link provided), Perry asserted that "despite originally believing that she had a recording of the interview, Helen Lucy Burke is now not so sure". The pictures then switch to Burke asserting "I don't think so, I thought I had a taped cassette, but it turns out that is was in the one, I wasn't able to open it because it was a different length from the one in my existing cassette box". When Caitriona Perry asked "do you think you have a tape anywhere else", Burke replied "it could be under the mountains of stuff that came down when my ceiling came in"

In the last days of the campaign the tape was released and according to the Irish Independent Newspaper (a link provided), Ms. Burke "said yesterday she found the tape recently but only released it in the last days of the campaign for “impact.” She said “it would give people something to think about when they went to the polls. It might incite people to vote against Norris or for Norris.”

Here are the two links that i have cited in my request;

First RTE Interview entitled "Norris hits out at campaign sabotage": http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0531/norrisd.html

And also the Irish Independent article in the last days of the campaign entitled "Burke released Norris tape in final days for maximum impact": http://www.independent.ie/national-news/burke-released-norris-tape-in-final-days-for-maximum-impact-2914247.html


I think to include all relevant facts, including Helen Lucy Burke's assertions relating to this particular issue and the events surrounding the tape should be included.

Karpackie (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the actual text you want inserted into the article and the text (if any) you want replaced? — Bility (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chzz took care of this below. Celestra (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 30 December 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} As per the original article with the section entitled, 2002 Magill magazine interview - "The interview was recorded and on 21 October 2011 it was played on the radio talk show Liveline." - This sentence is very brief in relation to all matters surrounding the tape and its subsequent release. I would like to have the following added.

"During the initial interview on May 30th 2011, Burke explained on Liveline that she had "a tape somewhere around but I cant find it, its twelve years old and I don't know whether it would be viable now". Also, when Burke was asked if she had a tape while being interviewed on RTE 6 o'clock news on May 31st 2011 by Caitriona Perry, Perry asserted that "despite originally believing that she had a recording of the interview, Helen Lucy Burke is now not so sure". Burke explained, "I don't think so, I thought I had a taped cassette, but it turns out that it was in the one, I wasn't able to open it because it was a different length from the one in my existing cassette box". When Caitriona Perry asked "do you think you have a tape anywhere else", Burke replied "it could be under the mountains of stuff that came down when my ceiling came in". In the last days of the campaign the tape was released and according to the Irish Independent Newspaper, Ms. Burke "said yesterday she found the tape recently but only released it in the last days of the campaign for “impact.” She said “it would give people something to think about when they went to the polls.” "


I have already cited my sources by I can provide them here again. The original interview on Joe Duffy I see is already referenced.

For the RTE News Report "Norris hit out at campaign sabotage - http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0531/norrisd.html

Irish Independent article -



Karpackie (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]



"During the initial interview on May 30th 2011, Burke explained on Liveline that she had "a tape somewhere around but I cant find it, its twelve years old and I don't know whether it would be viable now". Also, when Burke was asked if she had a tape while being interviewed on RTE 6 o'clock news on May 31st 2011 by Caitriona Perry, Perry asserted that "despite originally believing that she had a recording of the interview, Helen Lucy Burke is now not so sure". Burke explained, "I don't think so, I thought I had a taped cassette, but it turns out that it was in the one, I wasn't able to open it because it was a different length from the one in my existing cassette box". When Caitriona Perry asked "do you think you have a tape anywhere else", Burke replied "it could be under the mountains of stuff that came down when my ceiling came in". In the last days of the campaign the tape was released and according to the Irish Independent Newspaper, Ms. Burke "said yesterday she found the tape recently but only released it in the last days of the campaign for “impact.” She said “it would give people something to think about when they went to the polls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpackie (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done  Chzz  ►  02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Category request[edit]

Please remove Category:Candidates for President of Ireland and replace it with Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 2011.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.104.255 (talk • contribs)

Done, although the category looks likely to be merged in the near future.... Sailsbystars (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engvar[edit]

I see no valid reason for 'British English' to be prescribed over Hiberno-English at this article. If anything, the local variant should be preferred due to the subject's clear connection with this style. RashersTierney (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So add a Hiberno-English tag. Why are you removing it altogether? And why have you just re-reverted before you even took to talk? — Jon C.ॐ 11:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no pressing need for any prescriptive tag to be added here. If it isn't broke, why waste time and energy 'fixing'? RashersTierney (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose it clearly was broke at some point, which is why the tag was added. One presumes it was riddled with Americanisms, but I really don't have the energy to go rooting around the history. Don't understand what the problem was with it. — Jon C.ॐ 11:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was added a few hours ago with the ES 'testing', whatever that means. RashersTierney (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. No idea what "ES testing" is either. — Jon C.ॐ 12:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions[edit]

The addition of traitors comment is clearly out of context. Eoin McNeill issued an order cancelling the 1916 rising, so those who went ahead were by Norris' definitions "traitors to their own cause", as they disobeyed a direct order from the commander of the IV. Adding this quote on its own is not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV and balance. Snappy (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where your insinuations that I am not keeping to a neutral point of view come from: clearly I directly quoted Norris without adding any point of view or interpretation of my own. Furthermore, I included "to their own cause" to acknowledge that Norris had indeed qualified his accusation of treachery. It is clearly an honest quotation and included the full phrase so that the Norris' own qualification was retained. It does not matter whether your and Norris' opinion regarding MacNeill and countermanding orders is historically accurate or not: what is important is that it is Norris' opinion and it is relevant to a pre-existing section on his wiki page. If you think it is necessary to add even more context to this quote, I don't understand what is stopping you from doing so. I will be reverting your edit and restoring this direct quotation. If you feel it necessary, by all means add the context that you suggest it lacks. If there is some reason the quote shouldn't be on wikipedia, please let me know. Blippityblop (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removed because it was out of context, and I see no point in adding so-called context because it is being clearly used in a npov way. Snappy (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain exactly how 'it is being clearly used in a npov way'? I fail to see a connection. I am reverting your change. Please add context if you wish, I personally believe it is not needed, but if you do go ahead. Let me know how it is isn't a neutral point of view if necessary. Blippityblop (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is out of context. Nothing is served by adding context, it adds nothing to the article. Snappy (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Norris (politician). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on David Norris (politician). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on David Norris (politician). 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) 15:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Norris (politician). 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) 16:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from my own talk page[edit]

Dear Bastun, I have continuously upgraded David Norris' Wikipedia article David Norris (politician) to contain the short account of an online and significant counter-campaign. Unfortunately, I have seen this account (which is legitimate and relevant) continuously undone. I have already raised objections with Spleodrach concerning this on the view history page. He appears to have understood and has since left 'undoing' the addition of my counter campaign. Regrettably, it seems that you have now begun to continuously undo the addition of this account(which, I repeat, is legitimate and relevant). Hence, I wish to re-affirm my former defense of this account. Number 1 - although 'anybody can set up a website' nobody else did set up an online counter campaign and Number 2 - this online campaign reached a considerable degree of attention with the Irish Independent and journal.ie reporting on it. In conclusion, I wish to make it clear, that I will not cease to continue to include this appropiate account (of this counter-campaign). Tomás Deb. --Tomás Deb (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a request to discuss here, you instead re-reverted (that's edit warring) and instead stuck the above onto my own talk page, rather than the obvious place to discuss changes - the article's own talk page. To reiterate my edit summary - you were Bold, you've been Reverted; now, per WP:BRD, we can Discuss. And if you get consensus, you can re-insert what was reverted. Your threats to "not cease to continue to include this" would be enough to get you blocked, but let's discuss first. On the talk page - that's what it's for, and not what the edit summary is for. Spleodrach may also wish to contribute.
So - why do you think one person (no stranger to controversy himself) setting up an attack website, 8 years ago, is worthy of inclusion in the BLP of a noted politician and human rights activist? Be specific. Bear in mind, we don't include every news story about BLP subjects, only significant news items that will stand the test of time and still be relevant news years from now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, Tomás Deb, you've just re-reverted again? You're new and I don't want to see you blocked, so I'll invite you self-revert, discuss, and seek consensus. I've previously advised you to read WP:BRD. From you talk page, I see you've also been advised by Guliolopez to read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:RECENTISM, and (in particular) WP:10YEARTEST. You might want to consider those when responding to the question put to you above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bastun, can we reach a compromise? I think that this campaign is relevant. You don't. Although I wish to include the entire account that I have written, I am willing to compromise, provided that you don't rid the whole account. After all that's what a compromise is (an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions). Thank you for not blocking me - can we both now make concessions? Tomás Deb (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your changes until consensus has been reached, per WP:BRD. (Note I'm not an administrator and can't block you; I can report you to one of the Administrators' Noticeboards, and they can block you.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, if I revert, I'm afraid I will lose my information. Can you edit what I've done, without me having to revert?Tomás Deb (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Your edit would still be there in the page history. You could also hit edit, and copy your edit to either your own userspace (such as your sandbox) or to a text file. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, can you not edit what is already there?Tomás Deb (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read WP:BRD? Seriously, it's not that hard to edit WP. Revert your contentious insertion; then we discuss the content you want to insert. It's really not hard for you to revert to before you inserted the content. Edit, cut, save, paste it somewhere else. If you're not prepared to follow BRD, then you will just be reverted, and you will get blocked. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted back to the consensus version. This attack website was not notable at the time and certainly is not notable 8 years later. Any more edit warring will be reported to WP:ANI. Spleodrach (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, my 'contentious insertion' has been reverted by Spleodrach. I'm surprised that although both of you profess a desire to reach a compromise which is a concession on both sides, Spleodrach has just reverted my insertion without dealing with the issues I raised that the (1) campaign was notable at the time (I have already proved this) and (2) that now, 8 years later, it is historically legitimate and should have a place on Norris' bio page. I find it deeply disappointing that this page seems to have been written and edited with a partisan and biased view of a politician whose life should be portrayed objectively. Tomás Deb (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted correctly, imo. You kept reinserting it, despite WP:BRD. You claimed above you didn't want to self-revert as you'd lose your edits, but the fact that you'd previously re-inserted this content means you knew how to recover it. On the substantive issue of the content, I agree with Spleodrach - this was a non-notable attack site created by a partisan opponent of Norris that didn't merit significant coverage at the time, in contrast to other issues which received significant media coverage. Again - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:RECENTISM, and (in particular) WP:10YEARTEST. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Norris_(politician)&oldid=1208197204"