Talk:Families Acting for Innocent Relatives

Untitled
This article needs sourcing. I wikified the set-up, but certain parts of the article appear to either be biased, or misleading. SOURCES ARE NEEDED!!! Strongfaithin1 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)strongfaithin1Strongfaithin1 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't know much about the subject matter but much of this article seems to be written from an anti-Families Acting for Innocent Relatives point of view. I have tried to correct this as much as I can but it would benefit from an editer who has a better understanding of the issues.

I wanted to not that I completely removed the following block quote from the ==Controversies== section. Its inclusion lacked neutrality and does nothing, in my opinion, for the clarity of the article. I don't think that this type of viewpoint is helpful in an encyclopedic entry. I put it here in case folks feel a need to discuss my decision.

Susan McKay, the author of Northern Protestants: An Unsettled People has said: "Fair, Frazer admitted to a House of Commons select committee hearing... 'We are seen as the bad boys within the victims sector,' he said. This is largely because of its aggressive insistence that there are 'innocent' and 'genuine' and 'real' victims, and there are others who have no right to call themselves victims at all.  According to Fair and the DUP, Eugene Reavey is in the latter category. It is an appalling lie."

[1] ^ McKay, Susan (2005). Northern Protestants: An unsettled people. The Blackstaff Press. ISBN 978-0-85640-771-0.

Hippychick 02:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
Proposals for change can be discussed here. Wholesale deletion of referenced content you don't like is unreasonable. --Flexdream (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not about like or dislike, this is an encyclopaedia. Content that does not use Wikipedia style (e.g. bracketed "source" after various sentences, rather than ref tags) is highly likely to be fixed or deleted. Likewise interpretations that are not supported by the cited source, and any terminology that suggests a point of view that is not neutral as regards the subject of the article. I have reworked that section to take in the more significant of your points from the News Letter pieces, but omitted minor details that give undue weight to this section - e.g. a WP article doesn't need to tell the world what the ex-leader of a minor party felt about this or that. Brocach (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Broach. That's a much more helpful approach than previous. Thanks for the edits. I wouldn't be so dismissive of Empey and I'll have to think if it's best to quote him and others may have a view, but you have now left the reference in. I've no objection to 'fixing' tags, but I do object to that being used as a reason to delete content. What you've done now is much better than the previous attempts to delete sections and which seriously unbalanced the article. It always best to leave claims and counter-claims in and let the reader make their own judgement. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)