Talk:Iris Robinson scandal

Name and notability

The name Irisgate stems from a headline from The Herald, a Scottish newspaper. It hasn't been used otherwise in the press (the supposed use in USA Today is a mirror of that story). So this name is not the best.

As for notability, I think we need to wait a month or so to see how this pans out. Might fail WP:EVENT, might not. Fences&Windows 02:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Second the call for a name change. The "gate" suffix is a lame journalistic cliche that was used in one foreign newspaper. It should be changed asap before it generates a feedback loop. Ktlynch (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Herald is not a "foreign" newspaper, and it is not the only newspaper to use it. The Times do also, as do some others. O Fenian (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree to name change any ideas on a new name. BigDunc 13:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, maybe something like "Iris Robinson's affair". As neutral and non-sensationalist as possible.Ktlynch (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Affair has a double connotation in this case though. BigDunc 13:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and moved the page from the tabloid title it had. BigDunc 14:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it not be moved to a more specific title? The homophobic comments were quite controversial, surely a title specific to the controversy in question is needed? O Fenian (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am open to any suggestions I was bold to avoid a feedback loop. BigDunc 18:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a seperate article here? This should be redirected to Iris Robinson. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to support a merge. By the way O Fenian, this is related to her adultery, not remarks about homosexuality.Ktlynch (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So what? This is not the first Iris Robinson controversy, like I said.. O Fenian (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the sex comments! Secondly, can you provide some another citation for Irisgate? I just searched it on google and recieved the Herald (a scottish newspaper), wikipedia (no 3), and some mirror sites. That does not mean it is called "irisgate". There may be no agreed de facto name, so Iris Robinson scandal/controversy is most approiate. Ktlynch (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Times usage was far down an article, and ironically, and as a synomn in quotation marks. It actually suggests that it is a ridiclous, not real appelation.Ktlynch (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, so what? What does that have to do with what I said in the first place? When someone is known for being controversial, simply because this is the first article that is forked does not mean it should have the generic title "Iris Robinson controversy" because it is a generic non-specific title. I do not see how you draw that conclusion, since The Times do it with similar events. O Fenian (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading this morning's reports about power sharing being under threat, the article should remain. For a while at least. If we find in a month's time that it was a storm in a teacup, then it can be merged. Agree with O Fenian, the current title is too vague. Iris Robinson financial controversy or something similar? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That would work, since the controversy is about the alleged financial wrongdoings rather than the peripheral affair and alleged suicide attempt. Frankfurter Rundschau ([1] and La Voz de Galicia ([2]) are both using Irisgate, there may be more except it's nigh on impossible to search the 2000+ related articles for a specific term on Google News. O Fenian (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not 100% - the title doesn't reflect Peter Robinson's involvement. His involvement may be secondary, but it has the potential for the more serious consequences. We'll see if anyone comes up with anything more fitting. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That much is true. Had the story been limited to just Iris's affair(s) and subsequent alleged suicide attempt I do not believe this article should exist. But the allegations of financial wrongdoing, Iris's resignation/sacking by DUP and Peter temporarily standing down as First Minister mean it is quite possible a separate article could be a good idea. On the flipside, I do believe due to the amount of coverage on the internet available about any news story means that recent events about people are covered in too much detail, when a few sentences summarising the events in their respective articles would be sufficient. O Fenian (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion of ex-lover

Catholic? Are you certain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.0.195 (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think his religious background should be of concern here. The chief issue surrounding this story is the fiscal goings on of the Robinsons. Dudeglove (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph says he is RC; I think it is relevant considering antipathy between many Protestants and Catholics in NI. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs some research as his father is also being said to be an Orange Order member and having a RC son would mean automatic expulsion. I would guess that the paper is mistaken. 86.43.110.186 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"-gate" category

I see this has been removed from this article and added to the Irisgate redirect. From a purist perspective only keeping the actual "-gate" articles or redirects in the category may be correct, I do not feel this is actually helpful as it does not allow the reader to navigate to the category (and thus other "-gate" related articles) from this article. Unless anyone has any concrete objections, I plan to add it back to this article and remove it from Irisgate? O Fenian (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundant due to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11#Category:-gate. O Fenian (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sex Scandal

This scandal is about both Iris' financial impropriety and her affair. It is not, directly, about her bigotry. But I do think it deserves a mention. This Conservative Christian who claimed that it was the role of the government to enforce God's law has been shown to be hypocritical. She was actually in the middle of the affair as she made some of her vilest remarks about gay people. I think that's relevant. It certainly goes a long way to explain the srachenfreude. TRiG (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources have made the link, and I think that's what matters to protect us against original research. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See also

What is the connection with the Adams family child abuse controversy ? I notice Iris Robinson is not mentioned in this article and the other way around is not mentioned there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

They are both notable scandals affecting Northern Irish politics in the same period. Reliable sources have talked about them together {e.g. The Independent, The Guardian, The Irish Independent, The Spectator), so it seems to me that that should be our guide. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they are scandals if you want to call them that is not a see also connection, they are both mentioned in Irish articles is also not a connection, they are both about ireland is the only connection and that would make the see also section very big indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That they are both about Ireland is not the only connection. Let us look at what else there is on Wikipedia to advise us here. Both articles are categorised as "Political scandals in Northern Ireland" (and I note you haven't disputed that category label). So, we have two articles that share the same categorisation, occurring around the same time, and reliable sources have made the connection. That, it seems to me, easily fits the description at WP:ALSO. For example, WP:ALSO states: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." WP:ALSO further explains how the point of a See Also section is not to repeat links from the article body text, so there would be no point in such a see-also is the Adams family scandal was explicitly mentioned in the article here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See also is for related issues, something that may help you to understand this issue more, these two articles are unconnected in almost every way, one is a political scandal and the other is a family issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do not appear to have addressed the points I made. Both articles are categorised as "Political scandals in Northern Ireland" and have been from very soon after their creation. That is clearly a consensus view: that similarity is established and I feel you should acknowledge it. You haven't addressed the WP:ALSO style guideline: you haven't presented guidelines or policies to support your interpretation. You haven't addressed the reliable sources making the connection. To understand the context of these two political scandals, it is helpful to know about both and this seems to me what See Also was created for. I'll hold off on reverting the removal while the discussion continues, but I would appreciate some further explanation of your stance here. (BTW, it would be helpful if you indented your answers an additional indentation compared to mine -- makes it easier to follow the discussion. Thanks.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already a link to the Adams family scandal at the bottom of the page via the categories. I feel that if I was a reader with no prior knowledge of the subject (which is the way an article should be written) that I would be confused with a See Also link to a article that had no DIRECT links to the subject. the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense is the way the guideline puts it and this makes common sense to me. Bjmullan (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Organised crime?

Why was she interviewed by the organised crime squad? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)