Talk:Niall O'Dowd

Untitled
I find it hard to accept this shoud be deleted.there are ample sources when you press on the links to Niall O'Dowd verifying his role as founder and publisher of irish Voice Newspaper and Irish America Magazine as well as his role in the Irihs peac eprocess and his book "Fire inthe Morning" James

See no reason why this individual does not qualify for inclusion without caveats --he is the leading publisher of irish American publications and has been the subject of a book"Daring DiplomacY and an Irish television/PBS hour long profile "An Irish Voice." John O'Neill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.89.45.94 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out COI Notability Copyedit, as not justified in my view, and I have no axe to grind. I enlarged intro   comment added by Cckkab (talk • contribs) 12:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Niall O'Dowd. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622085116/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2000/09/02/current/ipage_5.htm to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2000/09/02/current/ipage_5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Irish slaves myth
This article currently attempts to tie the bio subject to far-right nationalists for allegedly promoting the Irish slaves myth. The heart of the dispute of the Irish slave myth is whether Irish indentured servitude should be treated equivalently to the chattel slavery of Africans. Reading the articles written in 2015 by O'Dowd, they have a pro-Irish slant but not an anti-African slant.

This myth can have pernicious uses but O'Dowd doesn't seem to have made such uses in his articles. Instead, articles he wrote in 2015 are being critiqued based on a NYT article that did not appear until 2017. I am also puzzled why Irish footballer Liam Hogan is linked here as a critic of the bio subject. This section in its present form does not belong in anyone's BLP. I am removing it. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Re; Irish slaves myth
Folks, I am going to reinclude the entire of this removed section, as well as parts of the others. If there are good editorial reasons for removing them, fine, list them. Otherwise they should be included as part of this article. Fergananim (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For editorial and policy reasons to remove "Irish slaves myth" see the Talk page article immediately above the section you just created: the section as written (and as re-added by you) falsely attempts to tie some 2015 remarks by O'Dowd to white supremacist meme of "Irish slaves." If you have evidence that O'Dowd has espoused white supremacy, tried to make light of African slavery, or something similar, please find RS to show that. The tendency to conflate Irish indentured servitude with "slavery" was widespread not many years ago, but ignorance is not malice and should not be presented as such. If you can defend or improve the "Irish slaves" discussion, why not start there? Other sections removed were similarly slanted, poorly referenced, and otherwise flawed. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with inclusion, and, please watch the accusations you're throwing around there. Nobody was or is saying "O'Dowd has espoused white supremacy, tried to make light of African slavery, or something similar" - what they have said is right there in black and white and in the referenced sources. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying by moving, not removing, a sentence
Wikipedia's "show changes" doesn't always work well, and it created some confusion about a recent edit that saw as simply removing the sentence "The op-ed then goes on to draw comparisons between indentured servitude and slavery."

What I meant to do was to move the information contained in this sentence in order to clarify, in the very next paragraph, what Liam Hogan objected to: "Liam Hogan, among others, criticized IrishCentral for being slow to remove from its website two articles (one of them based on a piece that Scientific American quickly withdrew), and for the editorial's drawing comparisons between indentured servitude and slavery." (my change in bold-face.) I believe that wording is much clearer (and less POV) than what I replaced "for the ahistoric comparison in the editorial." I am restoring that change, because I believe it was reverted due to a misconception, and pinging Bastun to take a second look, because I think he will agree once he looks at it carefully that it is an indeed a clarification and an improvement to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup, 'show changes' caught me out - apologies. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 06:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)