User talk:195.54.230.100

March 2023
Hello, I'm ButterCashier. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Gemma O'Doherty have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ButterCashier (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is ample evidence that Gemma O’Doherty is an antisemite. She is currently restricted on Twitter (as from yesterday) following complaints regarding antisemitic tweets. Your definitions of ‘unconstructive’ and ‘vandalism’ might need a little thinking through. 195.54.230.100 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gemma O'Doherty. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ComplexApe (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is ample evidence that Gemma O’Doherty is an antisemite. She is currently restricted on Twitter (as from yesterday) following complaints regarding antisemitic tweets. Your definitions of ‘unconstructive’ and ‘vandalism’ might need a little thinking through. Here are two URLs which may help:
 * https://twitter.com/RealGemmaOD/status/1633249530429710339?cxt=HHwWhoCxre3yu6otAAAA
 * https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/12/12/award-winning-irish-journalist-tweets-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory/ 195.54.230.100 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Gemma O'Doherty. Tommi1986 let's talk! 15:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Here’s a recent example of her antisemitism from Twitter:
 * https://twitter.com/RealGemmaOD/status/1633249530429710339?cxt=HHwWhoCxre3yu6otAAAA
 * Here’s an article from a few years ago referencing antisemitism on Ms O’Doherty’s part:
 * https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/12/12/award-winning-irish-journalist-tweets-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory/ 195.54.230.100 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would reinserting the word ‘antisemite’ with either or both of the URLs I cited be adequate for Wikipedia’s purposes? If not, why not? 195.54.230.100 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of Gemma's either, but adding "anti-semite" to the lead does not comply with Wikipedia's manual of style. Per Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch, terms like that should be avoided. Instead, rather than placing labels in the lead with no backing, we should describe to the reader what this person has said. So if you find reliable sources indicating she's spread anti-semitic conspiracy theories and you want to add to the body of the article, by all means do. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can accept that the lead paragraph may not have been the best placement. However:
 * (a) ‘antisemite’ is a descriptor, not a value judgement;
 * (b) the issue is not one of ‘conspiracy theories’, a singularly vapid term, but of expressing and encouraging hatred against a specific people and their culture;
 * (c) a key problem with Ms O’Doherty is that as her antisemitic tweets are removed so too is the direct evidence of her behaviour and her attitude I imagine this is true of her activities on other social media;
 * (d) you chose not to comment on the two URLs I submitted. 195.54.230.100 (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A current example from Gettr is this advert for The Irish Light. Note that the image carries the words ‘The Jewish war on the nations of Europe’.
 * https://gettr.com/post/p2al5lpb1c4
 * Are citations of this sort, which are direct evidence, of any consequence? Or must one instead waffle on about conspiracy theories? 195.54.230.100 (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A core tenet of Wikipedia is no original research. Even if you find ads on behalf of the Irish Light with blatantly anti-semitic overtones, to mention them in the article would require coverage in reliable sources. Regarding the URL you posted from the Algemeiner, that seems like a fair enough one to add to the "Conspiracy theories" section of the article, but again, one cannot add the label "anti-semite" (which is a value-laden label, regardless of whether it's called a descriptor or not) empirically to the article based on that. You can state that she spread an anti-semitic conspiracy theory, which is backed by the source. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I find your response sophistical to a degree.
 * (a) Wikipedia’s own wording of its *no original research* policy (‘The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source’) does not, I think, support your argument that Ms O’Docherty’s own published material is somehow a less ‘reliable, published source’ than someone else’s published description of that source. There is such a thing as informational degradation.
 * (b) You cannot simply wave the ‘descriptor’ point away by callng the term ‘antisemitic’ value laden. At that level of generality all cats are grey and no one can say anything useful about about anything because we all have different conceptions of what is objective.
 * At any rate I’m giving up at this point; simply put, I’ve better things to do with myself. 195.54.230.100 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)