Jump to content

Talk:Youth Defence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gaelach2019 (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 31 January 2020 (→January 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deleting references

Just reverted some edits that removed non-YD references. Editors should keep in mind that third party references are preferred, as self-published sources have limited use. Also claims made should have references. Autarch (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying

Just fixed a link - it was described as the official website, but was to a discussion on boards.ie.Autarch (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Looking at this page, it looks like krank.ie uses user-submitted content, making it more likely to fall under WP:SPS rather than WP:RS. Any thoughts? Autarch (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This source is totally biased against Youth Defence, I don't think it's a reliable source.85.240.22.108 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too Biased

Anyone can look at their Facebook page that the claims that they use to "censorship" people who aren't pro-life is untrue. I myself already entered in several debates there with people who aren't pro-life. Its impossible to change people minds through censorship. The removal of "trolling" its not the same and its usual standard in Facebook. Take a look at their Facebook page: [1].85.240.22.108 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses WP:Reliable sources, and a group's Facebook page is not one of them. There is nothing that can be learned here by watching the Facebook page. Instead, Wikipedia takes news articles and such as the basis for facts. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about RS who don`t tell lies? By Wikipedia standards Krank.ie isn`t a reliable source. The site founder says that: "Founder and admin at Krank.ie. A news and current events nerd who likes cats and fighting with politicians on the internet. I’m a mean ol’ man. QRG has called me a “maverick Irish blogger” but I’m mostly just being an opinionated jerk. You can find me mouthing off on the Twitter-machine @Nerin_". Is this for real? Blogs aren`t reliable sources. Where are the news from the Irish press. This article needs an expert.81.193.189.44 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to follow Wikipedia guidelines: "Explanation of the neutral point of view// Policy shortcut: WP:YESPOV Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." 81.193.189.44 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Here is a reference that can be used for the entry: [2]. From the RTÉ News: "Thousands attend "vigil for life" at Leinster House, 6 December 2012".81.193.189.44 (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Connell

The entry tried to show a bias from Desmond Connell, but he is 100% pro-life and to claim that "Archbishop Desmond Connell made veiled comments" is like meaningless. Does anyone can provide if he has any particular opposition to Youth Defence tactics and agenda? He has criticized harshly abortionism several times.82.154.209.113 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether Connell is pro-life or not. He "distanced" himself from the tactics of Youth Defence. Here's what the source says:

Even the Catholic church maintains a distance. Archbishop Desmond Connell made veiled comments about his dislike for the "American-style tactics" some Irish pro-lifers practise. "I'd like to meet the archbishop. I don't think he would have said those things if he knew us," maintains Barrett

— http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-man-wired-to-fight-abortion-510801.html
The topic here is not abortion but Youth Defence. If you can find Connell saying he was pleased with Youth Defence then you would have a case. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May we ask the exact context of what Desmond Connell said? "Archbishop Desmond Connell made veiled comments about his dislike for the "American-style tactics" some Irish pro-lifers practise."85.242.238.139 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might inquire of the Independent reporter. Regarding this article, Wikipedia takes the wording as published, not as investigated by Wikipedia editors. Have fun... Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the source

Things NOT in the source:

  • Catholic Euroskeptic group
  • and other closely-related pro-life groups (Life Institute, prolifeinfo.ie, the Pro-Life Alliance)

Needs to be fixed. --Errant (chat!) 22:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whatever connection can be traced between Youth Defence and the other groups (using better sources to do so) must be placed in the article body, not in the lead section. This information is too trivial, not foundational enough for the lead. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Company names

According to the CRO, "Youth Defence" and "Friends of Youth Defence" are registered business names, which means the organisation does not need to file annual accounts. It is affiliated with the group, Precious Life, which is registered with an address in Kanturk, County Cork.

The above content is not appropriate content; you'd need a source that explained "which means the organisation does not need to file annual accounts". The business directory is a primary resource which is not usable in this context. Same with the Precious life content - I saw nothing in the listing that notes the affiliation. Writing sentences with two pieces of information in; one of which is cited from a source, one of which is not, is disingenuous and against our policies. --Errant (chat!) 14:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from references, because it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:RS. It's now in External links. I've also restored mention of complaints about YD protest outside Rósín Shortalls' home.Autarch (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RTÉ Deleting articles

RTÉ (maybe in a space saving effort) deletes articles regularly. Should we start using google cached copies of the articles? e.g. The article "Thousands rally over abortion law in Dublin, RTÉ News, 7 July 2012" 404s and maybe should be replaced with http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9r5azPn4kBIJ:www.rte.ie/news/2013/0706/460921-dublin-rally-life/&client=opera&hl=en&gl=ie&strip=1 Avitus27 (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bit late to reply, but you should considering linking to the Internet Archive instead of Google Cache, since they (IA) will keep it around longer. See here: Help:Using_the_Wayback_Machine ____Ebelular (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-nazi links" section

The section which Ebeluler has added "neo-nazi links" reads like political propaganda against this group and cherry picked to smear the group in a guilt by association. You could easily pick a broad range of say, Catholic religious or general conservative figures this group has spoken to. But, Ebeluler has chose these European groups, for what reason? Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you deleted the section in toto 7 minutes after adding the NPOV header, and 2 minutes after putting this message on the talk page. Let's have a conversation, before deleting things.
Yes, I have written most of that section, but I have also added many other sections on this article (e.g. picketing). Many publications have written about YD's far right links, this is not an instance of WP:SYNTH.
All is properly sourced from primary or reputable sources, some page 1 of a newspaper of record. Writing about the groups leaders are doing, what events they are "guests of honour" to, what events they speak at, is hardly an attempt at "guilt by association" of "groups they talked to". I've included quotes from other pro-life org condeming their activities, in an attempt to stay neutral in the abortion topic. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of your sources refer to Justin Barrett specifically, rather than this group as an organisation. Also the presentation of the cherrypicked information is highly problematic as it is pieced together (see Wikipedia:SYNTH) from random sources in a deliberately hostile manner. Perhaps a much smaller paragraph, using only mainstream media sources, could be in the article, but it would have to be neutral and certainly not under a "Neo-nazi links" heading.
Reeling off completely irrelevant information from hostile sources, about the supposed beliefs different groups of people that a person who was once connected to this group talked to one time, is obviously bias. It would be like creating a section called "British links" on the Abortion Rights Campaign page and then listing every British media organisation that goes out of it's way to support that organisation and then adding in information about which of those British media organisations supported the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, etc. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"cherrypicked information" Nope. I have included nearly every source to do with YD's neo-nazi links. If you have more sources to add to that topic, then please, by all means, add them. I suspect you do not.
"refer to Justin Barrett specifically, rather than this group as an organisation." (i) Not true, some has to do with other YD people (ii) Some referes to YD as an organisation. (iii) What the leaders of an organisation do is actually quite relevant to what the organisation does/is.
"using only mainstream media sources" Not true. Of the 25 sources for that section, 17 are for reputable mainstream, national level newspapers (ie reliable sources) and 4 are primary sources for what the organisations themselves talk about. Care to point out which sources you object to?
It is false to dismiss this as merely "supposed beliefs different groups of people that a person who was once connected to this group talked to one time". As you can see from the sources, this is not "one person" (it was many people) who was "once connected to" (they were founders, or leaders for many years), "one time" (it was many years), "talked to" (they presented at their events, they were guests of honour), "supposed beliefs" (I think it's quite clear that Candour, Forza Nuova and the NPD are neo-nazi).
If you can find sources that show that the long term leaders, and founders of, Abortion Rights Campaign spoke at a pro-Iraq war demonstrations, and have done for years, then by all means add that to that article.
____Ebelular (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of cherrypicking and hyperbolic bias are this "in which anti-semitic speeches, peppered with quotes from Adolf Hitler were given" and "at a rally of flag-waving Italian fascists." These sensationalist sentences are clearly intended to create a bias depiction of the subject at hand, through guilt by association and the sheer dragging out of this to the point that it takes up the vast majority of the article is bias. As is trying to sneak in mention of "Adolf Hitler" in an article about a 1990s/2000s Irish Catholic anti-abortion organisation. The primary notable facts of this organisation are it's pro-life activism in Ireland, rather than a couple of obscure meetings Barrett attended in Europe.
None of these sources claim that Barrett himself or anyone associated with Youth Defence made anti-semitic speeches, quoted Hitler, etc. All it mentions is that Barrett attended an NDP event in the capacity of making a pro-life speech. In depth discussions on what the NDP do or do not believe belongs on their own articles. Also the context of the media "revelations" of these meetings are not presented in the section. As your own source which you have added to the article states, it began as a campaign in the British-based tabloid press "The Sunday Mirror" from "left-wing and anti-fascist sources" and it was then picked up by The Irish Times when Barrett was campaigning against the Treaty of Nice (unrelated to Youth Defence). Thus the context of this controversy is largely associated with Barrett, rather than Youth Defence. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is numerous evidence that Justin Barrett has neo-nazi, and anti-immigrant, politics and views. In 1998, he wrote a book (The National Way Forward!) calling immigration "genocidal". In 2004, he ran for the European Parliament on a platform of "no immigration", and in 2016 he's launching a political party that wants to deport all immigrants from Ireland. I'm sorry, when he does all that, you can't just describe him being a guest of honour at a neo-nazi event, as there "in the capacity of making a pro-life speech". This is exactly what Justin Barrett himself claimed at the time, in an attempt to dismiss and diminish the claims. And exactly what the NPD explicitly disagreed with.
For the third time, there is evidence that other YD people have done similar things. (See the other sources, all verified and reliable). And again, what the leaders and founders of an organisation do, is important and relevant for an organisation.
You seem consistently bring up the "British" nature of the Sunday Mirror (or the BBC) both on this talk page, on edits to the Justin Barrett article, on edits to Abortion Rights Campaign (being concerned with American based there), on edits to their spokesperson Janet O'Sullivan. There is a long history, in Ireland, of disregarding "foreign" news, bodies or organisations, which is something you appear to be doing, especially by calling it a "campaign in the British-backed tabloid press". In fact Irish newspapers (The Irish Times), and Irish political parties (Fianna Fáil) were able to find it out themselves (cf. the references in the article). Or would you ignore The Irish Times because of it's protestant origins? Just because a media source isn't from Ireland, and isn't from a Gaelic, Catholic newspaper, doesn't mean it isn't reliable.
"Thus the context of this controversy is largely associated with Barrett, rather than Youth Defence." You are downplaying these policies on the Justin Barrett article as well! Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, we should not remove things merely because they are embarassing to the group or person.
____Ebelular (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus the context of this controversy is largely associated with Barrett, rather than Youth Defence." Another reason this is false: Youth Defence themselves didn't agree with it! When the story broke, Youth Defence themselves denied charges! You can see it on their website from the day after The Irish Times published it's front page story \'Neo-Nazis' affirm links with Youth Defence. This is a primary source as source about itself, and hence is reliable. If these neo-nazi connections are to do with JB and not YD, then why didn't YD say that? ("YD outraged at media smear campaign". Youth Defence. 13 October 2002. Archived from the original on 3 November 2002.) ____Ebelular (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ebelular's contributions on this topic are verified to reliable sources. The activities and associations of the organisation and its leadership are central to the topic and should be included. Material on Catholic religious or general conservative figures this group has spoken to can certainly be included, if that can also meet WP:V and WP:RS policies. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: and other have objected to changing it to "Far right links". I claim that not all of the links are Nazi parties. Here is an example Forza Nuova. It is fascist but denies Nazism. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ping the others too, Apollo The Logician Apollo The Logician? I believe Alison also reverted you. Forza Nuova might well "deny Nazism" but plenty of reliable sources describe them as neo-Nazi. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't remember the others, that is why. If so fair enough.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this day and age, doesn't "fascist" basically mean "neo-nazi"? What's the difference? Just because they claim they aren't nazi doesn't mean that they are? Won't nearly every fascist party/group claim to deny nazi-ism? Do the NPD claim to be (neo-)Nazis?____Ebelular (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you had to ask that really makes me question your competence when it comes to far right related articles.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a rhetorical question. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, ATL? WP:NPA. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo, it certainly looks like 1) you're arguing against consensus here and 2) there are plenty of reliable sources pointing to specifically Neo-Nazi links here. One group that self-identifies as "fascists" does not invalidate the others - Alison ❤ 20:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, I'm not averse to what you did here - Alison ❤ 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation

There are at least two citations for the founding date of 1986. It may well be the case that the organisation went on hiatus between '86 and '92, but there's nothing to indicate that there were/are two separate organisations called Youth Defence. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is absolutely atrocious. It's going to need to complete revamp. Regarding the organisations founding, it was registered in 1992, 3 sources agree on a 1992 foundation. What we appear to have is a member carrying a name of one movement over to another. This has happened plenty of times in different organisations. Unless there is a source that explicitly states that the organisation whose foundation was created by signing a document in 1992 claims descendancy from this earlier group, then it is 2 separate groups. Two different purposes, etc. Berrocca Addict (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the two together. There are numerous sources with a '86 and '92 foundation date. I'm not sure what you mean by "signing documents"? What do you mean there? Groups can have many official dates, the Sinn Féin article lists 1905 and 1970 as the foundation dates. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV Rewrite

The article doesn't detail much about what the organisation actually does, who its current and founding members actually were. It's just a series of attacks. I'm not a fan of theirs but this article is particularly bad. It needs a full revision so that the sources actually match the content they refer to, the article explains who YD are, and what they do, and accurately reflects their position, as well as those of its' critics Berrocca Addict (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to add more recent details for what YD do. Please add some more stuff. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Youth Defence. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

If you have improvements you want to make to the article, SailOg, 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Oh, you know SailOg, do you? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gaelach2019, you may also want to have a read of WP:COI. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Youth_Defence&oldid=938453822"