Talk:Gemma O'Doherty

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021
Add url back to the info box. Her website is back up. 93.107.224.16 (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone put it back already. 93.107.224.16 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And someone took it off again. --78.18.50.107 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if the website status wasn't mentioned at all. I mean, who cares. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not asking for the website status to be mentioned. Asking for the URL to be put back into the info box. It was removed when the site went offline. --78.18.50.107 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem 78.18. Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Jack Frost (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As a side note, am concerned that the article's length presents this minor figure as more than she actually is. Have made a start on trimming; help welcome. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be worth checking if anything removed from this article could be moved to rationalwiki --78.18.50.107 (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your business, not ours. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * (Reply to the 78.18 IP) Yes, I removed the website again yesterday evening, because it still wasn't available then. Checked on computer and mobile. Perhaps the 93.107 IP was a bit premature with their request. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Trimming"
Hi. RE: "Have made a start on trimming; help welcome". I have restored several of the content blocks that were "trimmed". In short: In short: Trimming? Fine. Sure. Wholescale blanking of cited and relevant material? No. Bridge too far there. IMO. Guliolopez (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While, sure, the full list of "almost every controversial Tweet by the subject" could do with summarisation, those that received significant coverage (including those which caused the county councillors to rescind their presidential candidacy nominations/support or those which caused calls for changes to hate-crime legislation) are relevant. Removing those is not "tidying up". IMO.
 * Similarly, while the full detail of "almost every litigious event by/involving the subject" may not be entirely relevant, those that are materially relevant (including the subject's successful action against the Irish Independent for her dismissal) are relevant. Removing this is not "trimming".
 * Also, while receiving a small number of votes in a general election may not be as significant as winning a seat, that the subject sought election (and that adverts posted during that election prompted CIÉ to change their policies on election advertising) is relevant. Removing this is not "flattening".
 * Morning Guliolopez, feel free to restore, but its seems like the article's length gave the impression that she is more important than actuality (that's how controversialists work), and there was too much oxygen given to minor "internet" attention seeking spats. The article should not be a wall of refutations. Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ps, as we have worked together a number of times before, and i'm now "heated" about this: willing to let you call the shots here. Ceoil (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree the "trimming" was excessive, but also agreed that some trimming is needed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks and . In terms of:
 * utterances– I've restored those that stood as more than just successive examples of controversial claims (adverts that lead to calls for change in CIE policy, tweets/threats that lead to calls for change in hate-speech law, claims that lead to loss of presidential candidacy support, etc); But have not restored those that stood only as "and another one and another one" examples of general conspiratorial claims (windmills as "sinister", Soros as continent-destroyer, The Troubles as "staged", Dublin Airport as who-even-knows-what, Notre Dame fire as "act of war", 9/11 as "scripted", etc).
 * litigation– I've restored those that stood as more than just additional examples of general litigiousness (Irish Independent dismissal claim, Twitter ban, etc); But have not restored those that stood as "and another and another" examples of life-by-litigation (claims against Village magazine and David Robert Grimes for stuff the article didn't even really explain).
 * I think we're done with this round of "trimming" TBH. Guliolopez (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021
Please change "It led to O'Doherty being sued for defamation by the late Fianna Fáil politician, Sean McEniff" to "It led to O'Doherty being sued for defamation by Fianna Fáil politician, Sean McEniff", as he was obviously not dead when he sued. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:BC04:592D:CF7A:AD59 (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (courtesy ping ) — LauritzT (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)