Talk:Joe O'Brien (politician)

Advocating a ban on the sale of Israeli products produced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
This was O'Brien's position for many years. It was also the policy position of the Green Party in the 2020 general election (see their manifesto). They supported Senator Black's bill on same which was quashed by the then government. After the negotiations for the current government, it was dropped as a demand by the Green Party. O'Brien accepted a ministerial position in that government. Today, his personal website makes no mention of his many years advocating a ban on the sale of Israeli products produced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Only his personal Linkedin page mentions it. WIKI does not allow LinkedIn as a reliable source. This embarrassing history has been airbrushed both from his record and the party's blurb about him. Is there some way that this u-turn can make its way inot the article wile avoiding OR & synth? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. The OR and SYNTH policies are really quite straightforward in this regard. Unless or until a reliable third-party (non-UGC) source publishes details of (what you describe as) "this embarrassing history" or "u-turn", then it is we shouldn't. Combining the subject's statements in 2012, with his party's statements in 2020, is OR and SYNTH. In short, unless you are aware of independent and reliable sources which describe what you describe above, then - no - the article cannot describe what you describe. Without it representing your opinion or OR. Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You display a lamentable lack of imagination Gulio. I will ponder this further. Such flexible principles should not go unnoticed. If only I could get a diff on his old/current website, it would be quite revealing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with these citations?

The Green Party supported the Occupied Territories Bill. The bill was also supported by the parties Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, Solidarity–People Before Profit, the Social Democrats, and independents. The bill is not included in the programme for government agreed by the current coalition. This omission has been criticised by the People before Profit TD, Gino Kenny, who asked for the support of the Green Party when the bill is re-introduced in the current Oireachtas.

They clearly refer to the party of which he is a member. Is it OR to say that a Green TD supports his party's position? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . RE:
 * "lamentable lack of imagination". I would rather display a lack of imagination than an excessive amount of it. Otherwise, in the above posts, you have stated that you know and recognise that we have OR and SYNTH guidelines. And what they are about. While also stating (or at least implying) that you don't think they should apply to you or to this article. And then edited in direct contravention to them.
 * "What's wrong with these citations?" Not one of them mention the subject.
 * "Is it OR to say that a Green TD supports his party's position?" Without sources to support such a statement, then, technically, yes it is. Simple as that really.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Tosh. You set the bar too high. "a Green TD supports his party's position" passes the reasonableness test. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * RE: "Tosh/reasonableness". WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are two sides of the same coin. The latter clarifying that, just because something appears obvious to you, doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone.
 * RE: "This embarrassing history has been airbrushed". Editors are allow to have opinions. And to express them. But we're expected to at least attempt to set aside our opinions and biases when editing. You seem to be struggling with that. Declaring an intent to circumvent OR, COI, NPOV and VER (and then doing so) undermines your suggestion that I'm the one who has overstepped any "bar".
 * RE: "A party member supports his party's position". All other things being equal I'd be inclined to agree with you. But it is clear that the motivations for stating as much are not grounded in balance or truth. Are we planning to update the Micheál Martin article such that up to 50% of it covers his (implied) support for the Occupied Territories Bill? Or the Fianna Fáil article? Or the Gino Kenny article? It is not appropriate (or balanced or cited) to land the entire thing at O'Brien's door....
 * If you want to seek input from other editors, then that's cool with me. But I'm not really inclined to have my adherence to the guidelines held as some kind of flaw or an overstep of any bar. Guliolopez (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Micheál Martin article probably deserves to call him out on his u-turn on the Occupied Territories Bill. I might get around to doing same. However, that's not in the same league as a person who was employed to act as an advocate for that purpose and who spent a substantial portion of his life living in the Occupied Territories. So that puts his hypocrisy in a different league from Mr. Martin. For Mr. Martin, it was just 1 of many electoral promises; for Mr. O'Brien, it was a substantial part of his working life. The willingness to ditch all that for a chance to get his snout in the trough is therefore more egregious, more noteworthy and deserves to be called out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If there were sufficient citations for the above behaviour, we wouldn't even be having this debate as it would just be rolled into the article. However, we both know that such citations are hard to find because (1) he's small fry. Nobody really notes what he says about anything. (2) He has done a good job of airbrushing out inconvenient facts from his own website and the party's website. We both know these things to be true. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight. You intend to turn this (and every article on every politician, but for some reason starting with this one) into some form of WP:ATTACKPAGE. To "call them out" on every unmet election manifesto point? You've been here long enough to know that that is not what Wikipedia is about. As before, unless or until a reliable third-party source makes the point that you seem to be intent on making all on your own, then that is OR and SYNTH. And an apparent declaration to engage in behaviours contrary to NPOV and ATP. The only thing here, that I "know to be true" is that your self-declared crusade is beyond the behavioural norms expected of editors. Guliolopez (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)