Talk:Breda O'Brien

Existing page
There's already an article at Breda O'Brien. Which one should be the main article? GeneralBelly (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They should be merged. Sarah777 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (the discussion above was merged from Talk:Breda O'Brien (columnist) tedder (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Forcible or statutory?
Hey, Moloney! Would that be forcible incestuous rape or merely statutory incestuous rape you're talking about here? I mean, we don't want to mislead anyone about the Church's "opinion" here, now do we? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Views on abortion
The article previously mentioned her views on abortion, namely her opposition to it even in cases of rape. I believe it would be appropriate to include that within the article. After having read WP: Biographies of living persons, I fail to see how this doesn't deserve a mention. Please feel free to share your views. O lockers (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it factually correct and supported by numerous reliable sources? If so, I'm sure it's fine to include - A l is o n  ❤ 08:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is factually correct in that she expressed that opinion on several occasions in her weekly column, which subsequently gathered some attention elsewhere. I think it is a notable opinion that she has expressed and since the article mentions her stance on the hijab, it should be included. Best, O lockers (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And it is also true that her position is in precise accord with church teaching, iterated by Pope Francis. We already state she follows church teachings - I am unsure that we need to then add that she believes in Transubstantiation and the like going through every controversial doctrine. Collect (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. But she has dedicated a number of articles to the issue of abortion so I assume this counts as a notable view. As it stands the article mentions another notable view with regards the hijab so I think it should stay. Best, O lockers (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be notable if she opposed the Church on an issue -- it is not notable that a person who strongly follows Church teachings actually strongly follows Church teachings. Collect (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is notable when she's a spokesperson, taking part in numerous media debates, and devoting numerous newspaper columns to espousing her views, especially around the time of controversial votes and referenda. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Radio interview reference
I am unable to find anything in WP:RS that states that a transcript is necessary in order for a radio broadcast to be used as a reference. What RS actually says is "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

I am therefore going to revert Collect's removal of the Marian Finucane show reference. I will also add in the word "now" to "supports civil partnerships" as that wasn't always the case, per published Iona documents. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pray tell -- what are the exact words in the radio programme which support the claims you wish to use it for? Collect (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for, but for me it'd be the large part of the interview where O'Brien outlines her reasons for opposition to same-sex marriage. I'm not going to type it all out, I don't have that kind of time. Listen to it, or alternatively, there are commercial transcription services. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC
Should the lead include the sentence from the body of the article:
 * ... and to same-sex marriage, but does not now oppose civil partnership.[6][7]

Or should the lead remain simply:
 * O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage.

14:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I suggest that where the claim in the body of the BLP is quite nuanced and neutral in tone, the excision of the balancing part might run afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP - we can not make an unbalanced statement in one part where the source clearly supports a more balanced statement of her opinions. Collect (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * if you are going to get into the details in the lead, you will need to really get into the details "didnt oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples but drew the line at marriage as children become involved." and include the "but think about the children!!!!!" rationale.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why does the lede need to mention it at all? I'd be just as happy leaving it just in the article with the Iona Group info. It would also make sense to move the info about the Iona Group up to the lede instead of just picking out one of their positions. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree -- to the extent that her position is identical to the Catholic Church (which considers "marriage" to actually be a specific Sacrament) it appears utterly non-notable.   Sort of like saying a Southern Baptist pastor believes in baptism by immersion.  In fact, the support for civil unions appears to be the far more notable claim. As for including anything more than "fact" here, I find such to be an odd misapprehending of the purpose of WP:BLP.  Collect (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Collect, you continue to misrepresent O'Brien. She has not said that she "supports civil partnerships" or civil unions and no reference to support that claim has been presented. She has, as of 2015, stated that she doesn't oppose civil partnerships - which is quite a different thing.  WP:V - we report what the sources say, neutrally.  Not what we would like them to say, so that we can introduce "nuance".  This is all a moot point, in any case, as civil partnerships have been legal in Ireland since 2010 - what is there to oppose?  In 2008 and 2009 and earlier, however, the Iona Institute was actively opposing civil partnerships. See http://www.ionainstitute.eu/assets/files/civilunionweb.pdf, for example.
 * Which makes the change notable. By the way, "double negatives" are an extraordinary beast --  "I an mot opposed to doing that" means what? And since the Irish Church is more opposed to same-sex marriage than she - as it is theologically a Sacrament,  the Church is fairly stuck.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if you're aware of the context for this, but there's a referendum due on May 22nd to change the Irish Constitution, which, if passed, will allow for same-sex marriage. O'Brien and the Iona Institute lobby group are vocal opponents of the referendum. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "She has been a leading voice against amending the Irish Constitution to allow same-sex marriage" would make it notable enough for the lede, if that phrasing is accurate. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (e/c) SarekOfVulcan does have a point though. The lead should reflect the major points of the body, and the body should reflect the major coverage of the subject. Is her opposition to same sex marriage one of the main points of coverage in the body reflecting the major points of coverage of the subject's notability? My limited knowledge of the extent of coverage seems to be leaning "yes", but that is really where the focus of the discussion should probably be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, aside from her newspaper column, O'Brien is notable for three main things: her advocacy of the pro-life position (I've never heard of 'Feminists for Life of Ireland' and it generates only 9 Google hits(!), most of which quote this article), but she's certainly involved in several other large campaign groups, and that should probably be expanded); her involvement in the "Pantigate" affair (which saw her named in the course of a European Parliament debate and apparently led to her feeling that she may be in physical danger); and her opposition to same-sex marriage (media and broadcasters must devote equal time to both sides in a referendum - no organisation apart from Iona appears willing/able to supply spokespersons for the "anti" side, therefore O'Brien is much in demand). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * UM -- being called a "homophobe" is an important item to place in a BLP? Unless she used the word, it is a mighty stretch indeed.   I am sure there have been people called "Humpbacked Whales" but that does not make it utile in their BLP. Collect (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this needs to be an RfC. I will add two things: (1) Her opposition to gay rights appears to be at least somewhat notable. (2) I do not think her support of civil partnerships needs to be in the lead. That, unlike gay marriage, is not a hot-button issue. And because this is a relatively short article, that added explanation can stay in the body. User:SarekOfVulcan's suggestion (re constitutional amendment), if accurate, should be fine. --Precision123 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Opposed to same-sex marriage" and is compatible with the statement that she supports civil partnerships. It's neither misleading nor inaccurate, given her prominent position in Ireland. Macrowriter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of her support for civil patnerships if her position on same sex marriage is to be included in the lead, the two are interconnected. Fraulein451 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, she has never said that she supports civil partnerships and no reference has been produced to back that claim. What she has said is that she "is not opposed" to civil partnerships. Not being opposed to something is not the same as supporting it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is to present what the subject is notable for. She is most certainly NOT notable for not opposing same sex civil unions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Pantigate discussion

 * To be clear, I am not saying to include that O'Brien was called a homophobe, I am saying that the Pantigate affair should be included. The Pantigate affair doesn't refer to O'Brien being called a homophobe, it refers to the aftermath of the original interview with Panti/Rory O#Neill. In summary, Panti/Rory O'Neill, in an RTÉ TV interview, called the views of Iona and John Waters homophobic. Iona members got their solicitors onto RTÉ. RTÉ offered an apology and right of reply. Iona members and Waters declined and demanded compensation. RTÉ gave them €85,000, without any court action for libel, slander or defamation having actually been initiated. RTÉ is partly funded by taxpayers via a licence fee.  Many commentators and politicians objected to the payment, including referring to the issue in the Irish and European Parliaments.  In the latter, in a debate on homophobia, an Irish MEP also referred to O'Brien's views as homophobic.  Panti/Rory O'Neill recorded the [www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0 Noble Call video] about the incident, which quickly went viral. O'Brien subsequently complained about feeling threatened. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pantigate" belongs in that BLP - not in others. You seem affronted that an organization facing a defamation suit wished to settle -- that is what lawyers tell them to do.  Your comment of "without any court action for libel, slander or defamation having actually been initiated"  belies a lack of understanding of how courts work.
 * At 300 euros per hour for a minimal team of 10 mediocre lawyers (3000 euros per hour) plus fees - as soon as the trial preparation reached 30 hours, RTE would be significantly worse off -- and the history of judgements in Eire for defamation might have cost it well over 200,000 euros (in one case it cost RTE 800,000 euros) for the case.
 * A defamatory statement need not necessarily name anyone. It may suggest a person or persons by - for example - their profession, location or connections. A former Garda Commissioner was awarded £30,000 damages for the use of a graphic which featured his ears in a television programme on corruption! And a senior barrister settled a High Court action against Irish television for an undisclosed amount for using a graphic of her car in a story about drunk drivers. But defamation differs from other torts in that a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise. If a defendant wishes to plead justification as a defence, he has to prove the truth of the statement. No matter how old the allegation or how obscure or how intrusive of a person's privacy, a complainant is not entitled to bring a defamation action in relation to publication of a true statement.
 * RTE is actually held to an especially high standard: The Article goes on to say that, because of the importance of educating public opinion, the State will try to ensure that the organs of public opinion such as the radio and the press (it doesn't mention television or the internet) keep their right to liberty of expression, but they shall not be used to undermine public order, morality or the authority of the State.  The right of freedom of speech is also guaranteed by Article 10 (1) of the European Human Rights Convention, which provides that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."  But Article 10 (2) subjects this freedom to such restrictions "as are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".  Of course, the Irish Constitution does not only guarantee freedom to the media. It also guarantees to respect the personal rights of citizens. Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution says "the State shall, in particular, by its laws, protect as best it may from unjust attack (and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate) the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen." 
 *  The national broadcaster, RTE, reportedly paid Fr Kevin Reynolds €800,000 for libelling him in the Prime Time Investigates programme "Mission to Prey" in May 2011.  so you can see why RTE had to settle.  Collect (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pantigate" belongs in that BLP - not in others. " - clearly no. It takes two to tango and it was the payoff to O'Brien which was the notable aspect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Where to begin? As TRPoD says, two to tango. The whole affair was very newsworthy item in Ireland and internationally, and O'Brien was directly involved. "You seem affronted that an organization facing a defamation suit wished to settle". Do I? I'm not. Many were, such as Paul Murphy, MEP, and they made the points I repeated above, when explaining why the issue is notable.  "Minimal team of 10 mediocre lawyers"... um, what?  This is not America.  A solicitor and a barrister, possibly with a junior counsel, too, for your average High Court case, but whatever, the next couple of paragraphs are irrelevant.  "Eire".  Well, yes, I am affronted by that.  There is no such thing as "Eire" Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The implication that O'Brien greedily sought outrageous sums of money fails - RTE was prepared to offer much more. And if RTE fought - it could have been out three to thirty times the money. No -- RTE sought the settlement- as the news stories bear out. Collect (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For RTÉ to seek a settlement would first require them to have been sued. But your unsourced speculation aside - I'm not proposing to put anything unsourced about Pantigate into the article!  To return to the original topic: do you accept the consensus that a) there is no need to, and b) no source to support putting "O'Brien supports civil partnerships" into the lead? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What world are you in? Lawyers seek to settle before any suit makes it to court - by which time the settlement would have been far higher. Tell ya what -- find a friendly lawyer what his (or her) advice would be.  And I demur that using "part of a source" is proper on any WP:BLP much as you seem to wish to make sure we all know how evil O'Brien is (I even edited on  Kim Jong-un)  that is not a proper goal. Collect (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Here, actually, in defamation actions, it's often the case that a settlement is agreed between parties after the initiation of an action. This is not America. Or "Eire". Ad hominem ignored.  Back on topic. Do you accept the consensus that a) there is no need to, and b) no source to support putting "O'Brien supports civil partnerships" into the lead? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And note also common before any actions. We opened correspondence with the shop and its insurers and settled the case before Christmas for €10,000 plus costs, before court proceedings were issued.     Lawyers routinely in all venues suggest and recommend settlements where they feel their client is in an untenable position.  Which is exactly what RTE stated.  An RTE source yesterday said that it made the decision to settle on pragmatic grounds, as it believed that going to court could potentially have cost the cash-strapped station "hundreds of thousands of euros", according to the station's legal advice.  and note also The remaining Iona Institute members who threatened legal action against RTE were Dr Patricia Casey, the well-known psychiatrist; Dr John Murray and Ms Maria Steen which clearly states that the litigation had not begun.
 * UK: The costs of defamation cases can be extremely high and the damages awarded by the jury can be crippling. Libel cases will often be settled out of court in order to avoid the potentially huge legal costs. Hence, journalists in the UK have to be very careful not to publish defamatory claims which they cannot fully substantiate.
 * In the end, the question did not have to be decided in court, as the parties were able to agree an out of court settlement. However, the total amount agreed – £550,000, which was donated at the McCanns’ request to the Find Madeleine Fund – suggests that the Express Group may have accepted that there was a real risk of an exemplary damages award being made against them if the matter did ever come to court. 
 * Any corporation holding only a 7 in their hand is well advised to stop betting -- the potential costs are far higher than the cost of settlement - which was about the cost of one week's fees for a team of lawyers. And you absolutely can and should settle at the very start before any papers are filed.  Cheers - but this is a well-known area where settlements are always advised. Collect (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Er, you do know that Ireland is not in the UK?


 * My opinion (whatever you think that that is) on whether or not RTÉ should or should not have offered compensation prior to litigation, whether the individuals concerned should or should not have accepted it, and having accepted it, whether they should have donated it to charity is all irrelevant, in any case. We report on what is notable.  The Pantigate affair was discussed at length in the media, in the Irish parliament, and in the European parliament.  That is what we would be covering.  In a neutral and sourced way.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Third time to ask. - do you accept the consensus that a) there is no need to, and b) no source to support putting "O'Brien supports civil partnerships" into the lead? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider that using a source for one half of a claim and then not noting the other half is intrinsically intellectually dishonest. The source specifies both halves (unless you would prefer the double negative formulation "does n0t oppose civil partnerships" lest we mislead readers.   Collect (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)