Talk:Brian Crowley

Comment

This page is a little short of information. I'm interested in this guy because I've read that he wishes to become President of Ireland, my home country.

However, the page only includes information that he obtained a degree in law, that he was nominated to the Seanad, and that he subsequently became (and remains) an MEP.

What has he actually achieved to merit the highest post in the land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.173.227 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Music Industry Lobbyist

From the article:

"European Parliament approved a report drafted by Brian Crowley to extend the copyright term of music recordings from 50 years to 95 years"

So we know that Crowley was easily influenced by a lobby group, the recording industry, who are acting in their own self interest. Fifty to 95 years copyright extension, is madness and reflects on Crowley's credibility as a peoples' representative. Seemingly he favours the recording industry instead of the the music consuming public.83.70.242.79 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

European Parliament Contributions

To determine what Brian Crowley stands for in the context of his seeking the Presidency of Ireland, it is necessary to see his parliamentary contributions over his several terms there.

If the record of debates in the European Parliament is searched online for contributions by Brian Crowley, there are questions asked, but little record of other contributions. Previous editors did not point to any significant contributions other than the copyright issue. 83.70.250.168 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

September 25 2011

I have reverted your unexplained deletions (editor Snappy), from this article. The facts that you removed are accurately cited and relevant to the individual's profile. Please explain your edit, which removes accurately referenced fact. Please be aware of the editing guidelines in policy NPOV, which requires controversial edits to remain, but not to be removed by an editor who disagrees. 83.70.252.221 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Octanis, I presume. Snappy (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Name calling is abusive. Please desist. Please address the facts, which are accurately stated. You may not revert edits that are accurately sourced and you are required to edit to substantiate your view by your providing alternative constructive edits in conformance to WP:NOR principles. Crude reversion is not constructive. From NPOV the policy is to;

"Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
83.70.252.221 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is another name for and is redirected to NPOV, which states that; "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." Editors are required to substantiate their view by providing alternative constructive counter arguments in conformance to WP:NOR principles. To remove an item without quoting counter arguments is spurious and in breach of NPOV 83.70.252.221 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling you by your username is abusive? How so? Stop adding an unbalanced section on one issue in a 17 year career. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Another editor has also reverted your edits, so desist from edit warring. There is no consensus for your changes. If you persist in edit warring I will seek page protection for this article. Snappy (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Assertions that I am "your username" is abusive. There is nothing unbalanced in my contribution. Please address the substantive issue. Edit to inform. Edit to improve the article. Reversion of accurate fact is contrary to NPOV. The items listed, which you are reverting are validly sourced and are in accord with informed editing. To revert unilaterally is unacceptable and is in breach of NPOV. Please provide counter opinions. Your assertion that "There is no consensus for your changes" is not credible as no other editor is providing factual edits, or discussing the article's content except to delete, in contavention to NPOV which states
Editors are required to substantiate their view by providing alternative constructive counter arguments
83.70.252.221 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No consensus for your edits. As I already said its per WP:UNDUE. Supported by another editor. Snappy (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Snappy, Your edits by reversion do not seem appropriate. As anon editor says WP:UNDUE is a link to NPOV, which says that controversial edits may not be removed, but must be augmented and improved. Do provide factual information on the subject and do not instinctively revert as there is nothing incorrect in the anon editors contribution. Tayana (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So Tayana, is pretending NOT to be the IP above. Hilarious! Snappy (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE redirects to a specific part of WP:NPOV entitled Due and undue weight. Have a read and report back. JonC^Talk 21:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have looked atWP:UNDUE as you suggested, which is unambiguous in saying; "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. "There is no conflict with my previous assertion in the policy as mainstream media articles were quoted in article. Tayana (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tayana/Octanis/Zubenzenubi/Current IP are identities of a well known sockpuppet. Ask user:Garda40. You will be banned for sock puppetry if you persist in this behaviour. Snappy (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is incredible hubris in the attitude and presumption of unsubstantiated opinion in the assertion of Snappy. Threatening other editors is totally naive and the tone of reversions of accurate fact is contrary to NPOV The fundamentals of editing is the statement of documented fact, not abuse of those who do so. Such behavior is unacceptable editing. 83.70.239.67 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please desist in your editing per WP:UNDUE, they will continue to be reverted by me and other editors if you persist. Snappy (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your editing is removal of fact. The facts are relevant and its removal is in breach of NPOV. Please stop threatening editors who are providing fact. Please improve, don't remove valid information or attempt to browbeat others. 83.70.239.67 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your edits. The consensus is for the current version as it stands now. Snappy (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is unambiguous in saying;
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. "
Please explain your 'consensus' in that context. 83.70.239.67 (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No one supports your changes. They're POINTy and lend too much weight to certain aspects of the man's career with a view to discrediting him. Not to mention poorly formatted and unencyclopaedic. JonC^Talk 06:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. To supress such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV

From WP:POINT
"However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY""
Octanis (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to Zubenzenubi? RashersTierney (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please address the substantive issue. Do not be abusive to other editors. Your reversion is in contravention on NPOV Please explain your edit in the context of:
An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. To supress such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV
Octanis (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for these changes. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. Also, when I wrote "Octanis, I presume" at the start of this section, I was told that this was "abusive and to desist". It turns out that I was right all along. Apology, please! Snappy (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you not understand in this:

An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. To supress such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV Octanis (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop "reverting per talk page". There is no consensus for these changes. Snappy (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is incredible hubris in your assertion. What does Snappy not understand about editing an article that provides validly sourced information.? A basic principle is editing with reliable citations and to disabuse another editor, who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. Deletion of such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV WP:UNDUE declares:
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. "
Octanis (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you do any other tricks or just this one? It's not very interesting. JonC^Talk 06:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment above is abusive of another editor, which is in breach of fundamental editorial guidelines. Please address the facts and do not abuse those who edit accurately in a manner that is different to your viewpoint. Octanis (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for these changes. Snappy (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note WP:UNDUE, which is unambiguous in saying; "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is relevant. If your editorial viewpoint is different, you must provide counter edits, but may not delete on spurious grounds. The question of consensus of validly sourced material is trite per WP:UNDUE. Please edit to reflect alternative opinion to support your view. Deletion of validly sourced edits as being not in accord with a putative "consensus" is in breach of WP:UNDUE and NPOV Octanis (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits have not been removed because they are negative, but because of a determined effort to skew the article by overwhelming it with selectively partisan comments. Edit warring while logged out is unlikely to produce a new consensus on this. RashersTierney (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Illness and attendance

From 2011 to 2013, Crowley had trouble with sores on his legs arising from his paralysis. IP 83.70.230.150, using dead links, is adding the "fact" that because of this illness, Crowley had a poor attendance and voting record. Imagine that, a wheelchair user, who is ill from complications of his paralysis and so cannot attend parliament. If he had no excuse and was just a poor attender of parliament, then there would be no problem adding this info. This is very pointy editing. Snappy (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The links quoted are not dead
http://www.aislingtwomey.me/democracy-and-declarations-the-cost-of-an-mep/

works as does
http://www.votewatch.eu/en/brian-crowley.html

There is cause and effect. To remove is in breach of NPOV and reversion accordingly is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.230.150 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits remind of someone, I can't remember who though? Anyway the links are alive now, they were dead when I checked them and jnestorious noted this in an edit summary too. One of them is a blog, so that can't be used per WP:RS. The other one just list his attendance record but make no mention of his illness. It's WP:SYNTHESIS on your part to link the two. He was sick therefore he could not attend, pointing this out as a "fact" makes no allowances for the illness, unlike other MEPs who may have poor attendance records but have no health issues. Snappy (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

IP 83.70.232.144 has been adding a reference from the blog of Aisling Twomey. Apart from the fact that blogs are not allowed as references, this woman is the Communications Director for Phil Prendergast, Labour Party MEP for South, a constituency rival for Fianna Fail MEP Brian Crowley. There is obviously a political agenda going on here. This IP is using the bloggings of an employee of one MEP to try and discredit a rival MEP. This violates some many wikipedia guidelines, it is mind boggling! Snappy (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The record in http://www.votewatch.eu/en/brian-crowley.html is factual from a reliable source,accurate and pertinent and to remove it is in breach of NPOV. Please reinstate your edits that deny facts. Your editing is not in accord with NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.232.144 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The record that takes no account of his illness; a pretty poor and incompetent reference website then, it probably fails WP:RS and NPOV. Also, your lack of comment on Aisling Twomey speaks volumes. Snappy (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Snappy states that votewatch.eu is "a pretty poor and incompetent reference website then" This is a judgmental statement, without justification, derogatory of the source, that is self-serving to Snappy's viewpoint. It is in breach of NOR. What does your comment of 05:56, 8 August 2013, "speaks volumes" mean? How is it relevant to the factual position?. Twomey's blog sourced votewatch.eu and current edit merely directly quotes the originating source, as Twomey did also. We are dealing with hard fact here, and it is inappropriate to make statements that refer to "incompetent reference". Where is the incompetence or incorrect fact ? What is incompetent in the website? Is votewatch.eu inaccurate in their recording of the parliament's position? Your edits breach NOR and NPOV 83.70.240.167 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Votematch.eu only records attendance but fails to make any provision for an illness of an MEP, therefore this crude measurement is inaccurate for Crowley who was seriously ill for much of last year and unable to attend the European parliament. The reliability of a source also depends on the context, according to WP:RS - Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. This so-called "hard fact" fails to take account of his physical ability to actually attend the parliament due to his being seriously ill. His attendance record cannot be accurately compared to any other MEP due to this failing to even to mention his illness in a footnote. Twomey's blog is a biased source as she works for a rival constituency MEP. Again, she conveniently fails to mention Crowley's illness. This all amounts to a breach of RS and a total breach of NPOV. Snappy (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Biased reference removed

I have the removed this reference [1], it is biased, unreliable and in clear breach of NPOV. It take no account of Crowley's illness and is being used by Crowley's political opponents (see section above) to smear him. Snappy (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Crowley. 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/20120104233356/http://corkindependent.com/stories/item/1430/2011-16/Crowley-likely-to-join-race-for-%C3%81ras to http://corkindependent.com/stories/item/1430/2011-16/Crowley-likely-to-join-race-for-%C3%81ras

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Political Party 2017

Is Brian Crowley a member of Fianna Fail or not? Fianna Fail's website claims that he is, but Crowley's own website has no mention of FF whatsoever. We know he lost the party whip in 2014 but is he still a member of Fianna Fail? Their website claims not withstanding. Spleodrach (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It would seem he is, from this, anyway. Or at least Fianna Fáil are still claiming him as a member, whatever he thinks about membership himself... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting question! If you say you are not a member of a group, but the group says you still are; who is right? Spleodrach (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a failure for Crowley to mention his affiliation on his website means anything. It's not uncommon for politicians to not advertise their affiliation when they want to appeal beyond the partisan divide. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd disagree - it'd be highly unusual to not mention one's affiliation, especially when it's still one of the most popular parties in the country. However, looking at his website, he's always been coy about FF - this version from 2006, for example, just has one sentence mentioning FF. Spleodrach, I do see a FF logo in the bottom right corner of his current website. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Websites of sitting politicians (as opposed to campaign websites), at least in Canada, often don't advertise party affiliation: [2]. And it's not as if his FF affiliation is particularly important in the EP. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't Canada, so that point doesn't apply. All Irish politicians mention their national political party. I didn't spot the (well-hidden) FF logo on his website. I suppose he is still a member of the party but not having the party whip. Spleodrach (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

RTÉ today referring to Crowley as an Independent. https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0117/1023829-brian-crowley-retirement/ Irishpolitical (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And later in the same article quoting him as remaining a proud member of FF. (RTÉ are short of a few copy editors)... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Crowley. 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/20090215223329/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/058-48812-040-02-07-909-20090209IPR48791-09-02-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm to http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/058-48812-040-02-07-909-20090209IPR48791-09-02-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wording of opening sentence

There have been a number of changes between former Irish Fianna Fáil politician and Irish former Fianna Fáil politician. In my view the first is ambiguous and the second is awkward. How about changing to retired Irish Fianna Fáil politician? Pinging Spleodrach and Inexorable Existence. Wham2001 (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. Spleodrach (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are going the retired route, it should read as 'Irish retired' and not 'retired Irish' as per Wikipedia standards. Inexorable Existence (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)