Talk:Youth Defence

January 2020
If you have improvements you want to make to the article,, get consensus here. You will not do that by assertion, removing referenced content, and adding comments to 2, 3, and eight-year-old talk-page sections. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC) What is the point in her trying to get consensus when you have ensured that the page is a series of attacks against an organisation you clearly hate? Gaelach2019 (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, you know SailOg, do you? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Amazing that all of these completely different accounts make the same edits... There is an Irish Times reference for de Faoite. That's a verifiable and reliable source. We will go with that, rather than your hearsay that it's an error. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Any claims on wikipedia must be backed up my reliable sources. What is on the page is backed up. If, as yous say, it is false, then you need to provide sources showing that. Until then, don't remove the sourced content. 109.193.182.124 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Is it perfectly obvious that Bastun is biased and that the whole entry - as others in the talk have noted - is just a series of attacks on the organisation. The use of wayback machine to capture a National Library description which was immediately amended BY the National Library is especially lame, and is dishonest. Eoghan de Faoite is not chair of Youth Defence. And Justin Barrett has not represented the organisation on any level for years. Gaelach2019 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Bastun should be removed as a moderator on the page. He damages the credibility of this platform Gaelach2019 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Bastun, at least, does not remove referenced material, repeatedly, with no consensus to do so. There are no less than three references naming de Faoite as chairperson. If you want to update that with somone else's name, fine - show us a reliable reference. We won't do it based on nothing but your say-so. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Gaelach2019, you may also want to have a read of WP:COI. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Let's deal with these one at a time so. Firstly, Bastun is using a reference to the National Library to justify calling this group Neo-Nazi. But the ref is not on the National Library website, since it has long been removed because it was incorrect. Do you - as a fair, unbiased moderator - think it is right to use a dead reference, relying on Wayback machine, and which the National Library removed - to call an entire organisation of people, 'neo nazi' possibly one of the most derogatory things you could say about anyone? You then are linking people who are alive to this neo nazi tag, when they had nothing to do with it. Only Justin Barrett attended that meeting Gaelach2019 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing anything with you until you stop removing referenced material. That's vandalism, disruptive editing, and will get you blocked. Take this as your final warning to stop. The process to follow if you want something changed, and you've been reverted, is to discuss your changes and get consensus. Read those links. Then, by all means, discuss. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC) who put you in charge? YOU are the disruptive editor who clearly has an axe to grindGaelach2019 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC) SO deal with my first point on your frankly laughable use of wayback to try to justify a non-existent National Library ref please : : :Firstly, Bastun is using a reference to the National Library to justify calling this group Neo-Nazi. But the ref is not on the National Library website, since it has long been removed because it was incorrect. Do you - as a fair, unbiased moderator - think it is right to use a dead reference, relying on Wayback machine, and which the National Library removed - to call an entire organisation of people, 'neo nazi' possibly one of the most derogatory things you could say about anyone?19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My answer from 9:26 hasn't changed. Using sockpuppets will get your accounts blocked. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Are we 'discussing' your use of a deleted line in the National Library? Are any other editors involved here or is this clearly biased User Bastun deciding what's happening?Gaelach2019 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My answer from 9:26 hasn't changed. Using sockpuppets will get your accounts blocked. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Update
I would like to update this page to reflect current leadership of Youth Defence Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are the Eoghan de Faoite named in the article, then I wish to draw your attention to the WP policy on conflict of interest, particularly the section title COI editing. WP requires verifiable editing that uses reliable sources.  No reliable sources have been supplied to show that de Faoite resigned, left, or has been replaced.  Until that happens, reliably sourced content should not be removed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no source that Eoghan de Faoite was chairman other than in 2015 and 2018 or that he continued beyond 2018. I will edit the lead to reflect this.SovalValtos (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I resigned as chair and left the organization. What sources do you consider acceptable here....your 2018 reference has also been redacted by that sites administrator as it was incorrect and outdated information. Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In answer to your original question, we would need a source stating who the current leader(s) of YD are. I'm sorry, I don't know what this means: "your 2018 reference has also been redacted by that sites administrator as it was incorrect and outdated information." What reference on what site?  As you are claiming to be the person mentioned in the article, I'll inform the CoI Noticeboard so someone uninvolved can take a look here.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am the person mentioned. I don’t know who if anyone is chairperson as I left and have not had dealings with the group since. You cite a 2018 site where I attended a Banquet in which the organizers listed me as YD chair, I was not YD chair then, I informed the organization involved and they have since removed it. I don’t know how Wiki works really I only found out last year that I featured on this site as Chair of YD and then saw all these links to people that I’ve never had any dealings with. I have left the group and If this page is to be accurate it should reflect that. Thanks Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I can find no reliable source for there being a chairperson in 2020 so with WP:BLP in mind I am removing Eoghan de Faoite's name from the info box and the 2018 mention as not being reliably sourced by a fundraisin site.SovalValtos (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you that is more accurate. An administrator has also incorrectly linked a Medical Council registration as a referenced source. This is not factual, that belongs to someone else, I am not registered with IMC. Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, your 2015 IT article does not mention me as doctor as I do not have this title. Is that also something that could be amended to bear facts. Thank you Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the Dr. title for the moment. The medical council link doesn't work, but the registration # in the URL refers to an Eoghan White, which seems like it's probably an Irish/English translation issue (de Faoite = White?), but I'll leave it for someone else to reinsert. I moved the reference to de Faoite out of the lede, since one article in 2015 doesn't seem enough to support having him be the only person named there. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If moderators require additional info I can provide my email Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the doctor should go back, unless clarification is provided. "My name is Dr. Eoghan de Faoite. I am a medical doctor and a member of Youth Defence, a pro-life group". FDW777 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What clarification is needed Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that was obvious. Have you ever been a doctor? If so, when did you cease to be a doctor? What other information is there regarding your doctor status? FDW777 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: I worked as a doctor. I volunteered with Youth Defence. I was Chairperson of that group in 2015, which is really a title only, it was run by a committee. I have since resigned and left the organization and have not had communication in years. Most of this page has nothing to do with me and refers to periods in time when I was a child. Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with - the doctor title needs to go back.  It is referenced to a reliable source per our policies, WP:V and WP:RS, and sorry, Eoghan, but we only have your word that you are the person named in the article. Please note that you should not edit this article yourself as there is a conflict of interest. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As a medical practitioner, I believe the current Medical Council's guidelines are crystal clear on the question of intervening in pregnancy when a woman's life is at risk. was said during the Joint Committee on Health and Children debate. While I have no objection to out-of-date information being corrected where necessary, particularly in relation to current membership, I see no reason why the doctor should be left out give it is directly related to Youth Defence. Had it been an occupation of no direct relevance to Youth Defence I could see why it should be left out, but Eoghan de Faoite's own statement makes it directly relevant. FDW777 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed - I find the request to remove the title somewhat disingenuous, given the use made of it in the Oireachtas committee. I've added the Oireactas reference to the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that a moderator could include that I have since left the organization. What source would be needed for that? Thanks Eoghan de Faoite (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please indent your talk page edits Eoghan de Faoite by adding colons. A careful read of WP:RS and links should answer your question about sourcing.SovalValtos (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What source would be needed for that? well… anything? At the moment, you have provided nothing, All we know is that someone has a wikipedia account with the same name… But that doesn't prove anything! I think you'd agree it would be irresponsible for an encyclopedia to just accept anything anyone says without evidence. So give us something. Is there any statement from YD that you (Eoghan de Faoite) are no longer involved? Has any newspaper published anything saying ”Eoghan de Faoite is no longer involved” (even the tinest snippet of a sentence _anywhere_)? Do have some sort of a (verifiable!) website where you can publish press releases that are reliable? anything! I'm an outsider to YD, I don't know you from Adam, and I see a statement in an Oireachtas Committee versus… a random person on the internet… Sorry but you have to give us something ___Ebelular (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi links
This entire section is highly misleading and extremely partisan. The first sentence "The National Library of Ireland formerly described Youth Defence as "a pro-life organisation and lobby group with strong neo-Nazi links"" which is just outlandish and links to a an archive of a archived document that doesn't even identify itself or give an author. The National Library is a repository of books and pictures, not a political analysis organisation. The whole section violates a litany of WP policies.Aerchasúr (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Does it? Which ones? Provide links. I see a section that has no less than 27 references, so... is it perhaps a case of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I studied the acceptable Wiki sources page and one issue that concerns me on the youth defence page is that many of the sources are not meeting Wikipedia:Acceptable sources because they are not Traceable to the author(s). The national library reference is not Traceability to author and neither is the link to the the defaced website.These have to be cleaned out Aerchasúr (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You are mis-stating the WP:RS policy (if that's the policy you're talking about). Identification of a specific author is not a requirement. Do not remove referenced material without getting consensus. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Collections in the national library do not count as being published by the national library unless claimed as so, they are very clear about when they publish something and they do not which is not occurring in the case. News articles on news websites have authors which are traceable even if they are not present on the article page. A link to to is not an acceptable source. Unethical and unwikipedia. Do not revert this correction unless you can provide more information.Aerchasúr (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again - do not remove referenced content without consensus. Your sentence above is incoherent. The NLI publishes its catalogue, which is what was used as a reference. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This link doesn't appear in the National Library catalogue. It could be a fake for all we know. It isnt authorative, it cant be verified. It can't be traced. it doesnt identify what it proports to be. WP policy is that cContentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately Aerchasúr (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again, you're demonstrating WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ICANTHEARTHAT. If you are going to claim that the Internet Archive has been compromised and isn't, therefore, something that can used on Wikipedia, to archive and snapshot websites and other resources - fine. We won't decide that here, though. You'll need to open a WP:RFC at somewhere central, such as the Teahouse, to get consensus for that. If your RFC succeeds (it won't), will you then assist in removing it from the 380,000+ citations it's currently used in? Look, you're new, I get that, but maybe spend some time learning the ropes around WP making uncontroversial edits to uncontroversial pages, before you start trying to right great wrongs and storm the Reichstag. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)