Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01-07/Shell to Sea

Where's the dispute?
Several articles related to the Shell to Sea article, including Corrib gas controversy, Maura Harrington, An Bord Pleanála, Corrib gas project, County Mayo, Eamon Ryan, Erris, Garda Public Order Unit, Garda Síochána, Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, Garda Water Unit, Glengad, Rossport Five, Rossport Solidarity Camp, Shell to Sea Fleet, Kevin Moore (An Bord Pleanála) and Statoil. (please list other articles related to the same dispute)

What's the dispute?
There are several issues over sources, weasel words and pov. Some of the previous discussions before mediation can be found here, here and here.

Involved parties
User:Falcon9x5, User:Lapsed Pacifist. User:Garda40 has also been invited, but has not replied so far.

Mediator notes
Note to all parties: As it seems life outside Wikipedia doesn't leave me enough time to effectively mediate this case, I've requested for another mediator to take over this case. I will assist with the mediation as my time permits, but let's hope someone else can be of more assistance to you both than I can at the moment. — Twinzor Say hi! 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Lapsed Pacifist is involved with the Shell to Sea campaign, which he has openly stated himself on his userpage. He is aware of WP:COI guidelines, and agrees to be cautious with his edits related to the subject.

Participants' views
Please state here what in your opinion should be changed in the articles. Please do not refer to other editors' edits or other actions, rather simply list the problems you see at the moment.
 * I think the articles need to stay WP:NPOV (as I think most of them are at the moment) and whenever more detail is added, it should be written in WP:NPOV (stay far away from POV-pushing), use appropriate reliable sources, and be aware of WP:UNDUE. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited some of these articles in months, so am unhappy with a lot I see now. Information in the articles often lacks important context and background. The articles could do with more links to relevant further information. Many articles seem to play down the extent of the police violence around protests against the Corrib gas project, and give little explanation for or background to that violence. The many irregularities surrounding the project are also played down, as well as the strong support for the S2S campaign from the communities affected. For example, there are no excerpts from a very critical planning report into the Bellanaboy refinery in any of the articles listed. There is no picture of a victim of the police violence being hospitalised in any of the articles, when at least one picture has been uploaded. There is no mention of the parish priest of Kilcommon blessing the craft of the marine activists who disrupted work on the project. I think these are a representative sample of the problems with the articles as they read currently. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
'''Please keep discussion on this page. Otherwise it will eventually fragment over several talk pages, and will be very hard to follow. Thanks.'''

Since this is Wikipedia and proper sourcing is of utmost importance, I think we should begin with the disputed sources.


 * Our Story: The Rossport Five (link available?)
 * The Great Corrib Gas Controversy
 * An Phoblacht
 * Newspaper articles on Shell to sea website
 * Policing the Pollution - More4 documentary
 * (please add others as necessary)

I would like to hear from both of you what's your take on these sources. Why shouldn't they be used? Is it possible to find other sources? Do they pass WP:V in your opinion? Please explain your point of view. — Twinzor Say hi! 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I've no problem with Our Story as a source, but I don't like it being blindly quoted (just "Our Story: The Rossport Five" as a source, without page numbers or quotes) - pages numbers and quotes and I've no problem with it being used as a source.
 * 2) The executive director of the organisation behind the Great Corrib Gas Controversy is Frank Connolly. Frank Connolly is the brother of Niall Connolly. Niall Connolly is a member of Sinn Féin (an Irish political party) and is one of the "Columbia Three", three Irish men arrested in Columbia and eventually charged for travelling on false passports - he was originally Sinn Féin's repersentative in Cuba. Sinn Féin supports the Shell to Sea campaign, and so I'm wary of presenting a report as neutral in the controversy when the director has strong links to a group opposing Shell's actions.
 * 3) An Phoblacht is the official party newspaper of Sinn Féin which, again, supports the Shell to Sea campaign. I therefore don't think it can be used as a neutral, reliable or verifiable source. Generally the information can be found in other reliable sources (Western People, Irish Times, Independant, Examiner, RTÉ etc).
 * Thanks for doing this Twinzor! =) Thanks! Fin©™ 16:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to hunt down page numbers and quotations from the book


 * To exclude a report because one of the journalists working on it has a brother in a political party that has an interest in the report's subject matter, is too much. All Irish political parties have an interest in and have issued statements on the Corrib gas controversy. Are we to weed out the reports of every journalist who has a sibling in one of these parties? What about a parent, or a child? Who will do it? Would a cousin prove too much of an influence on journalistic integrity? This argument is risible. As far as I know, Frank Connolly is not a member of any political party. Even if he was, his journalism ought still be judged on its merit. I can't see how having a brother in a political party means the other person has "strong links" to that party; brothers often have different political views. Michael Ring, a Fine Gael TD from County Mayo, has a brother in Sinn Féin; does that mean that Ring's brother therefore has strong links to FG?


 * An Phoblacht is a reputable and reliable news source, and is listed on Google News (many other Irish papers referenced in these articles are not). While I normally use other national or regional papers to reference articles, on rare occasions AP is the only online source I can find. Naturally its articles have a political slant, but the basic facts reported are still the basic facts. The Irish Independent is notorious among Shell to Sea campaigners for its slanted coverage; again, this is what you would expect from a paper owned by a man with substantial oil and gas concessions off southwest Ireland, and strong connections to the most pro-Shell party, Fianna Fáil. While I am aware of this bias, I wouldn't argue this necessitates a blanket ban on Independent articles; often they are the only source I can find to reference certain events. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to have reached agreement regarding the first source. I would still like to point out that this is a primary source and must be used with care. Furthermore, policy states: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." (from WP:PRIMARY). I would ask that everyone takes this into account when using this source. Whenever possible to find the same information in a secondary source, please use the secondary source instead. This does not mean ths book cannot be used as a source at all, as long as it's quoted directly without making conclusions.
 * The same applies to the second source. Could we agree to use other sources whenever possible, and if they are not available make direct quotes of the report?
 * I can understand the COI claim with An Phoblacht, but I also agree that using it as a source should be evaluated on a case-to-case basis. Can we agree to use other sources when possible, online or offline, but also accept this source when it's appropriate, and the source provides relevant information that cannot be found elsewhere? Obviously material that's clearly pov should not be used.
 * I agree that the www.corribsos.com website is not the best possible source to quote, as there's an obvious COI. They do seem to indicate where the articles are from, so it would be reasonable to use those sources. I would not blank the information though, unless it's contradictory to other, more neutral sources, but tag it with Template:Fact until it can be sourced. A good essay related to this is There is no deadline.
 * I'd like to hear the opposition and the rationale to using the More4 document.
 * Regarding Lapsed Pacifist's comment on this page's talkpage about Colm Rapple's articles, I think it would be best to quote the article's from the newspaper if possible, as there is no need to prefer online sources to offline ones. If the blog has information that is critically important to the article which cannot be found elsewhere, and it's not biased or contradictory to other sources, I'd say it can be used, as the policy says: "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (from WP:SPS).
 * These are of course only my opinions. If you disagree, please explain with what, how and why. I would like to hear from both of you what your thoughts are. — Twinzor Say hi! 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict)
 * Not only is his brother in Sinn Féin, but his brother is a very prominent member (because of the Columbia Three). I don't trust Michael McDowell very much (or at all), but he did claim that Frank Connolly travelled to Columbia on a false passport. Also, the funding of the Centre for Public Inquiry was from an organisation set up by American Chuck Feeney, who is Sinn Fein's biggest US contributor. I would consider a report where the director was the brother of a prominent Shell employee, and which received funding by Shell (or an organisation tied to Shell) to be pretty non-neutral! Like, say, you consider the Irish Independent to be non-neutral because Tony O' Reily is involved with oil companies (I think?) - this is the same situation. I don't think I'd trust a report written by Willie O Dea's brother to be neutral either! Also, I think comparisons to all journalists is unfair - if a journalist wrote a particular scathing (either way) article, and it turned out he was strongly linked to a political party, I don't think that article should be included.
 * The fact that An Phoblacht (I don't use AP cos then I get it confused with Associated Press) appears on Google News doesn't make it reputable or reliable. I'd have no problem excluding the Irish Independent if it's felt to be non-neutral in this issue, though while the Irish Independent may have a slant to Fianna Fail, it isn't the official newspaper as An Phoblacht is.
 * I seriously dislike using Corribsos.com as a source, as it is the Shell to Sea website. In rare cases when the original article definitely can not be found online, then maybe referencing the website (as long as there is no commentary or highlighting of text) would be ok, but definitely on a case-by-case basis.
 * I don't have time to watch the entire More4 documentary, but the bits I flicked through seemed pretty pov (lot of emphasis on Gardai tactics, red lettering on black background when statistics were brought up, etc), even the title "Policing the Pollution" is quite pov. I don't think it can be considered a neutral source - though, again, maybe if it was referenced as "a documentary critical of Shell" or "sympathetic to the Shell to Sea campaign", but I'd still be against it.
 * Thanks! Fin©™ 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to Twiznor's comments, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with An Phoblacht being used (if, again, the article is completely free of pov) the way I describe Corribsos above (though I feel tagging this information with fact templates will not do much good because it will never be sourced somewhere else), caution is still required obviously! I still have serious misgiving about the report so I'd like to have it discussed further! I've no problem with Colm Rapple being sourced from his blog. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and various links that were removed according to the talk page (Washington Post etc), these were removed because the sections they were used as sources in were removed (I remember one was total speculation), not because there was an issue with the source itself - I've stated this several times, along with not having a problem if they're reinstated in a different context. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Falcon, can you clarify why you suppose the information on corribsos will never be available for sourcing elsewhere? I appreciate your concern for proper sourcing, but if I've understood correctly, we're talking about using articles taken from newspapers and republished on the website. Do you feel there is a problem with using the original newspaper articles as sources, or have I misunderstood something? — Twinzor Say hi! 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh whoops, no, I misunderstood - I thought you originally said that general information could be taken from corribsos.com as long as it was stuck with a fact tag - not that the articles could be sourced from corribsos but tagged with a fact tag as a reminder to get a better source in future, my mistake (I've struck out what I said above). My bad! Thanks! Fin©™ 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I apologise if I wasn't being clear before. My idea was that if there's an article on corribsos, that's lifted from newspaper X and it has relevant information, that newspaper X be used as a source rather than corribsos. This should be relatively easy to apply, since corribsos does state where their articles are from. I realise not all of those newspapers have their articles online, but offline sources will do just as well. — Twinzor Say hi! 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, sounds good! Thanks! Fin©™ 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty happy with your suggestions, Twinzor. They seem reasonable. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
Ok, so we seem to have sources more or less sorted out. I think clearing the sourcing problem will probably help with some of the other issues raised. If further issues about sources arise, feel free to bring them up. Here's some more questions:


 * Is there some specific issue with external sources links, i.e. certain links which have been disputed?
 * What's the dispute with police violence? Do reliable sources show that police have been using unnecessarily and uncommonly harsh means against protesters?
 * Please provide a link to the image of police violence against the protesters.

Please give your opinions when you have the time. — Twinzor Say hi! 20:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your first question, do you mean sources that aren't referenced from the text but are listed as "External links"? If you watch the More4 documentary, it will give you a small taste of the Garda tactics. There was more footage of Garda violence on Irish national TV, but I don't know how to access these reports, some of which are over two years old by this stage. Snippets of this TV footage have been put up on Youtube, I could try to find them if you like. This is a report by the US NGO Global Community Monitor from February 2007: ; here's an An Phoblacht article about the report ; here's a reference to an elderly man on crutches since being assaulted by Gardaí in late 2006 ; an article from AnP detailing events from the summer of '07; here's a Mayo News article referring to the violence and verbal abuse from the police; . I have to go now, will be back with more. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the first question was supposed to say "external links". I guess I was still thinking about the previous paragraph when I was typing it. I'm a bit short on time right now myself, but will look through the links you gave. I'd like to ask Falcon9x5 to do the same, and comment here. — Twinzor Say hi! 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there was an issue with Irish Mail on Sunday journalist Colm Rapple's blog, which is the only online resource for his newspaper articles. As far as I can remember, that's the only one. This is an Irish Times article from November 2006 with comments from leading politicians on the police violence: . The original is here: , but it's not opening for me. Here's national news footage of the violence put up on Youtube: . Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are a number of articles which describe the violence . The Mayo Echo article reports police reconsidering their careers after what they were asked to do. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right so, apologies taking so long, my schedule is bit lighter today so I'll have a go at responding, I'll order my thoughts on the links by the order they were given:
 * While I think the report is quite well written and such, I question the neutrality a bit - it uses the words "beating up", which I don't consider to be neutral language! Also, despite its claims, the site's objectives appear to be fairly in line with the objectives of Shell to Sea - "...to recreate a clean healthy and truly sustainable environment."
 * Don't consider An Phoblacht reliable here - "The police in Erris seem to have a policy of NOT arresting people if they can avoid it".
 * As I've said, I'm doubtful of the neutrality of GCM.
 * Again, An Phoblacht is pretty biased - "The only way people were able to deal with this dangerous behaviour was to climb on the JCB." (er, isn't that incredibly dangerous too?)
 * Not sure how to handle opinion pieces, like the Mayo News one, but I'd prefer actual articles - the piece itself seems ok.
 * Again, not sure about opinion pieces, but Colm Rappel's blog seems ok too.
 * Absolutely not to the blogspot page - no sourcing or anything.
 * Couldn't access the Irish Times link.
 * The YouTube video is okish, but I'd be against including it - the stupid Rage Against The Machine music A) gives it bias (more aggressive tone to the whole thing); B) means you can't hear the report and C) without the report, there's no context (and as a side point, it also showed protestors throwing punches at the approaching Gards).
 * No problem with the Mayo News articles at corribsos.com.
 * I'm not opposed to saying something like "Gardaí tactics have been criticised as being unnecessary", with a link to those Mayo News articles. I've a problem with something like "Gardai have brutally beaten old men who are now in crutches". I think it'd be more productive for Lapsed Pacifist to suggest changes, which the two of us could then thrash out to an acceptable solution, rather than go through individual sources one at a time (though I might be missing the point so correct me if I'm wrong!).
 * Again, sorry for the big delay, can't guarantee when I'll be able to do so again! Thanks! Fin©™ 17:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I decided to put my comments here instead of the next section as it's not too long yet and it suits better to reply in the appropriate area =) Thanks! Fin©™ 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What I think is the most relevant question here, is what's the encyclopedic value of these external links, and we should of course also take the guideline into consideration. I think links to the websites of the various parties directly related to the Shell to Sea controversy should be there. Blogs however, according to the guideline, should be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)". Do the blogs in question meet this guideline? In my opinion, we should avoid showing images and videos of police violence, and instead include information about this in the prose of the article, citing reliable sources. The music in this video might also be another problem, since the guideline says: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright." I think what we should do is compose a concise list of the most relevant sites that we can all agree on. What, in your opinions, are the most essential sites to link to? — Twinzor Say hi! 15:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't propose linking from an article to the youtube video, I linked to it so Twinzor could get a look at the Garda violence (as 9x5 is Irish, I'm presuming he's already seen or heard of this footage; of course, that might not be the case). I haven't linked to the actual RTÉ footage because I can't use Realplayer to verify it shows what I think it shows; if either of you have the necessary player, that shouldn't be a problem (e.g., , , ). TG4 had even more graphic footage, but I haven't yet figured out a way to access it. I can't think of a good reason why we should avoid showing pictures of police violence or linking to news footage that shows it, if it's relevant to the article in question. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think websites of the parties involved should only be used when prefixed with "Supporters/opposition claim/say/alledge [event] ", so the average reader doesn't automatically think them to be a reliable or unbiased source. Otherwise I've no problem with what you said there Twinzor. I do think Colm Rappel's blog could be cited, as he doesn't use it as a blog, he uses it to reproduce newspaper articles he's written, but it might be better to stick to guidelines. As regards a concise list of sites, I think any Irish Times or RTE article is fine, as Corribsos when it's directly quoting a publication; local newspapers (Mayo People etc) require a bit more caution but are usually ok; other websites require examination before including; I'd be against including An Phoblacht etc unless prefixed with what I've said above, I'd be against including any Irish Independant article as its owner has vested interest in the oil field (I think!). Thanks! Fin©™ 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah, my mistake then. I'll review the linked news content. I'm still a bit concerned about images of police violence. Which images did you have in mind? The reason why I'm not sure if these should be used is because they might give a POVish feel to the article, as to someone who's neutral to the subject like me, such images would seem to mostly have shock value, but if you find a suitable image without unnecessary shock value, I'd have no problems with that. What are Falcon9x5's thoughts? — Twinzor Say hi! 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to Falcon, I was referring to adding links in the external links section, thus not adding them as s. The links' relation to the subject should of course be mentioned. — Twinzor Say hi! 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the images giving a POV feel to the article (I was the one who originally removed a lot of them - one I left is on the Garda page, it's fine), I'd prefer if the violence was just discussed in the prose. And I've no problem at all with them as external links, my mistake thinking you meant refs! Fin©™ 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lapsed Pacifist, what's your opinion on the pov issues with the pictures? — Twinzor Say hi! 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not crazy about removing images like these, it seems to me to be part of the pattern of playing down the police violence I referred to before. The images that have been removed (the picture of a man being carted off by paramedics springs to mind) don't strike me as being especially shocking. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that if the police are not impartial, and use unnecessary violence against protesters, then that certainly is a very important aspecpt of the subject and should be discussed in the article. But are images really required for this? While not directly related, I think show, don't tell, and the guidelines that mention it reference it are indirectly related and should be considered here. I think the best approach to solving this would be if we could take a couple of pictures under consideration, and then decide together which of them would the most suitable for the article. If you wish, we can also ask for other opinions on the matter. If you'd prefer more opinions on the matter, I can post a request at Editor assistance/Requests. Meanwhile, do you have some images in mind that could be used on the articles? — Twinzor Say hi! 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the picture I referred to. Its inclusion isn't important of itself (it might find a better home at a Policing of the Corrib gas protests article), and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this; but like I said, its removal (from the Garda Síochána article) seems to be part of a pattern. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have to admit I'm not 100% sure on what to suggest here. This image is not particularly shocking, but I'm not sure if it would contribute to the articles. I'll ask my mentor to give me a few pointers on what we should do with images on these articles so we can move on to other things. — Twinzor Say hi! 15:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of using these images are they give a strong initial implication to the reader (that the man in the stretcher has been heavily beaten), without any context. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been arguing for more context for quite some time now. It's the same man who's on the picture at Garda Public Order Unit. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take it that context won't be a problem in future. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ? Context is always important. Displaying an image like that without any third party source to provide it up is not WP:NPOV, I feel. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Displaying an image like that without any third party source to provide it up (sic) is not WP:NPOV, I feel." What part of WP:NPOV do you base this on? There is no reference to beating in the photo, so why does the picture make you feel the man has been beaten? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote above (concerning this picture): "...I don't want to spend a lot of time on this..."' That was two weeks ago. We have a lot to get through, folks. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure why I wrote "up" instead of "with context". Odd. If the picture was on something like "Mountain climbing", then I would assume the man had been injured while climbing. You're pushing for its inclusion in Garda-related article, and so in viewing the image, I assume the man was subject to being beaten by the Gards - why else would their be a photo of an injured man - which is hardly WP:NPOV. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (2)
It would be better if we planned our breaks, or at least put a time limit on them. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've been a bit preoccupied lately, for which I apologise. Falcon9x5, how's your schedule in the near future? Perhaps we should all try to commit to checking this page and replying as necessary at least, say, twice a week? — Twinzor Say hi! 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been completely mental busy for the past ages (I was away for a week, now I'm snowed under with college work). I haven't really had time to look at all the links and compose a reply - I'll try to get to it at the weekend. As for a schedule for the future, I'll have to get back to you on that too! Thanks! Fin©™ 15:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still a bit swamped with work today, but I should be able to continue here tomorrow. Sorry for the delay! — Twinzor Say hi! 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, my schedule is looking better now. I'd like to hear Falcon9x5's comments on the links before I post my own though. — Twinzor Say hi! 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be assisting Twinzor mediate this case, if that's ok with everyone. Also my schedule is mostly free tomorrow. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assistance! I'm sure there will be no objections, as both parties seem very interested in resolving the issues (without drama, I might add). I'm not too happy that my current, unexpected situation outside Wikipedia doesn't leave me with enough time to properly mediate this case, so I'm really grateful for your help, as I'm sure Lapsed Pacifist and Falcon9x5 are as well. Currently we've been discussing which external links are appropriate, and whether images of police violence should be shown or not. Again, thanks for the help! — Twinzor Say hi! 13:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break
There has been some recent editing of the Shell to Sea article, and obviously it would be preferable to avoid an edit war. Accordingly, could I ask that future changes are proposed either here, or on the talk page? PhilKnight (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the situation. Because of his aggressive edit-warring, practically all of the articles listed are in a state that suits 9x5, but certainly not me. This is far from satisfactory. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Language
Ok so, I think we need to actual deal with the issues at the core of the problem - the language used in the articles. Here's an example from Garda Public Order Unit.
 * Caption for the photo (emphasis to show added content) - "A sergeant of the POU persuades an injured Shell to Sea..." -> "A sergeant of the POU persuades a Shell to Sea protester...seen bleeding here".
 * I changed this on the one hand due to semantics ("an injured protester" suits the flow of the caption better), I also feel that stating the obvious (I feel "seen bleeding here" is equivalent to "look, can't you see he's bleeding?") is helping to push a POV - it's obvious from the picture which person is the protestor, no need to restate it.
 * "This unit is trained to monitor...events that could lead to violence, often using force." - >"This unit is trained to monitor and deal with events that could lead to violence, often using violence.". After an edit by an editor unrelated to the dispute, "violence" was again changed to "force". LP then edited the sentence to read "This unit is trained to monitor and deal with events that could lead to force, often using force." with the edit summary ("Sauce for the goose....") - I don't quite know what the edit summary means, which is why I included it.
 * The use of the words "often using violence" are weaselwords/POV tone, implying the Gardaí deliberately hurt people when events become unruly. The word force is much better but I've no idea why it'd be added to "events that could lead to force", which doesn't seem to make sense.
 * "A baton-charge had been ordered to enable the government's no-arrest policy concerning Shell to Sea. There had never previously been violence at any Shell to Sea protest." - this was removed in all of my edits, restated in LPs.
 * I didn't like the first sentence because A) it doesn't have a source and B) it is completely speculative without a source - how does anyone know what was in the Garda sergeant's (or whoever gave the order, I don't know who) mind when he gave the order? I removed the second sentence because of its sweeping use of language "never", which I find difficult to believe (that a protester or a Gard had never pushed someone at the protest before). If reliable sources were added for this too, I wouldn't mind their reinstatement (maybe with a small edit for tone).

I'd also like to point out there are two fact (technically a who and a fact) tags that've been present since September 2008 so I think the sentences requiring the source should be removed soon if sources aren't provided. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's not at all obvious from the photo that the protester is bleeding profusely from the nose. It's hard to see unless the photo is blown up. Secondly, the editor you claim is unrelated to the dispute has a history of editing Shell to Sea-related articles with a heavy anti-S2S slant, and has used a sockpuppet to this end, for which they received a ban. This is that user's third (at least) user a/c. Thirdly, I have no problem using either the words "force" or "violence", as in this instance the first is merely a euphemism for the second (although I would rather use the non-euphemism). What I have a problem with is using a euphemism for one side and not the other. Fourthly, Shell to Sea protests began in early 2005; anyone with even a passing knowledge of events would know that there was absolutley zero violence until the autumn of 2006, when the government decided to violently break the blockade of the refinery site at Bellanaboy. This is well documented, for anyone who cares to do even cursory research. Please don't ask me to prove a negative, i.e. find a newspaper report that says "Still no violence at Shell to Sea protests". The first incidents of violence reported by the media were in autumn 2006, for a good reason; that's when the violence began. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's obvious the protester is bleeding, I'm questioning why it should be put into the caption! Please assume good faith about other editors! I'm pretty sure its convention that police use "force" but events may cause "violence", so I'm going to change it back. I have a passing knowledge of events, I don't recall any reports of violence, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. I just don't like the blanket "there was absolutely never any violence at all". I also don't know why you referenced the government, it was the Gardaí that were involved. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've explained before why I find it difficult to assume good faith on your part. What you're describing as "convention" is Newspeak. The protests from early 2005 to late 2006 were well documented. There was not one complaint of police violence or any other kind during that time. Again, this is a matter of record. Your last sentence is very telling. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually meant you should assume good faith about the other editor (who you accused of being a sockpuppet). You keep using blanket language ("never", "the first", "absolutely none", "not one"), which is the bit I have a problem with (never say never)! I have no idea why my last sentence was "very telling", I honestly do not know why you said "the government decided to violently break" - it was the Gardaí on site, not TDs, that were involved. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh whoops, I see GainLine actually admits to being greenlightgo/mustycrusty. My mistake! Thanks! Fin©™ 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)