Talk:Martina Anderson

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish Republicanism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Mid‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom: Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This page is under the stewardship of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Brighton bombing

I've removed the claim that Anderson was convicted in relation to this, because she wasn't. It's confusing because although all five people arrested in Glasgow were tried at the same time, only Magee was charged over the Brighton bombing but he was also charged in the conspiracy case involving the other four as well. See this Guardian article for more information. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Office

Is it an apprpriate use of the template to list her office as "Director of Unionist Engagement"? This is her job in Sinn Fein, not an official (ie government) post. beano 13:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

A revert has been made without any new edit summary. What has been added is a extended quote that repeats much of the background earlier in the para. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEditors cannot ignore discussion. The article is currently a soapbox for Anderson. It repeats the same piece of information twice in the same para.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TU you added "Employment monitoring by the Equality Commission records solely religion, and not political affiliation." I have attempted to now put it into context, though as a footnote it would work equally as well. --Domer48 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article still reads like a propaganda sheet. The extensive quote is unnecessary.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who first introduced this section intended it to be negative propaganda, with the addition of text not contained in the sources. I simply placed the context of the remarks in their true light and based on the sources provided. It was not me for example who titled this tread "Racism," which was also the context that was implyed on the article itself. --Domer48 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What that user intended is irrelevent. She said it, and it was reported. What Wikipedia should not be doing, is reproducing extended quotes. What you should not be doing is turning on POV into another.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What that user intended is not irrelevent. I put what she said (qouted) in context, with no POV at all. --Domer48 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you did, was add an extended quote, which largly remains. That is not encylopedic.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your an editor, change it. Just make sure the substance and context remains, and not this racism spin. --Domer48 (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you know very well that discussion is how concensus is arrived at. Yet you seem reluctant to engage.....Traditional unionist (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with concensus, I have suggested you change the text. In place of a quote, insert text which reflects what she said, and avoide the rasism spin which was placed on it. Simple! --Domer48 (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thats not my spin. It was brought up at what is in effect a journal of note on NI politics.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-insted the encyclopedic content of the original edit, and have provided a reference to justify the "controvercy" word, it is a published piece by an elected representitive, this is a primary example of a controvercy prompted by Ms Anderson's words. My edit is free from any agenda, and conforms to all wikipedia policy and has good encyclopedic value, extended quotes, which can themselves be found in the references DO NOT. Case closed.Ulster_Vanguard (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

At the most, the letter-to-the-editor only proves that a Unionist politician wrote a letter complaining about Anderson's comments. That hardly indicates a larger controversy. All-in-all, Mr. Vanguard, you have failed utterly to prove your point or back up your POV. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr Jacobite, or may I call you Republican, I have now supplied a full article and reworded my edit to read "attracted criticism" rather than "caused controvercy". In the words of Margaret Richie; "no surrender"....Ulster_Vanguard (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone some recent edits, the revision to my edit were not encyclopedic - if you want to includes all that then write a new page about it. Also, describing them as "migrant workers" is not correct, as they are perminantly resident in the UK and have no intention whatever of returning to their country of origin, if in fact they are not already "second generation" as it wereUlster_Vanguard (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well get your references? --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try the latest edit for sizeUlster_Vanguard (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

letters to an editor from an opponent are hardly relaible. BigDunc (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this unreferenced information per WP:BLP. --Domer48 (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

This article has recently come under POV attack with WP:BLP violations being repeatedly added.

First attempt - Claims of controversy and racism were sourced by a blog, which is a BLP violation. Not only were they sourced by a blog, they were not even sourced by the original blogger, but random people commenting on it. This is totally unacceptable per BLP. Also nowhere in either the original blog or the BBC article was the term "Eastern European" ever used.

Second attempt - as above.

Third attempt - claims her remarks caused controversy and solely sourced by the BBC article which says no such thing, and again makes the unsourced Eastern European claim. This despite a BLP warning on the editor's talk page.

Fourth attempt - claims her remarks caused controversy because some Loyalist councillor had written to complain to a newspaper. Sorry, but the best that sources is something along the lines of "Her remarks caused a Loyalist councillor to write to a newspaper". Agains makes claims about Eastern Europeans not supported by the source, and similarly with just the PSNI. Second BLP warning ignored.

Fifth attempt - claims she attracted criticism. The source says nothing like that. The exact phrases used by the source are "DUP MP Gregory Campbell said Sinn Fein was trying to obscure the true picture" and "He said Sinn Fein had a problem with what the figures were showing" - nowhere is Anderson criticised. And yet again, unsourced claims about Eastern Europeans and just the PSNI.

Sixth attempt - yet again unsourced claims about Eastern Europeans.

Seventh attempt - and again!

In addition there has been constant removal of what Anderson actually said, claiming it is not a soapbox for her. Well neither is it a soapbox for Loyalist councillors to criticise her without giving her the right of reply and being quoted properly as the secondary sources do. NPOV demands both or neither are included. BigDunc (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Ross Hussey a loyalist could be deemed defamatory, and is highly pejorativeTraditional unionist (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TU is that really the best you can do?--Domer48 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is calling someone a loyalist going to harm the reputation of an individual, which is what is needed for Defamation. Are they not loyal to the crown. Or is loyalist a dirty word not to be uttered? BigDunc (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalist has come to be a term for paramilitaries. Ross Hussey has 30 years service in the RUC reserve. If I were him, I'd consider myself defamed.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it please

Please can all participants in this dispute calm down and if necessary take a break from the subject.

I have protected the page to bring an end to the edit war, because the discussion on this talk page seems unlikely to lead to any agreement soon unless there is a marked change of tone, with an assumption of good faith on all sides. (And yes, I probably have protected The Wrong Version).

So far, I see multiple accusations that people have been libelled, and too many editors who seem to be excessively quick to take offence as provocative political labels are exchanged.

This does not appear to be a particularly complex issue: a politician made some remarks and got criticised. Both sides perspectives should be reported fairly, using reliable sources, and with care taken about how much prominence is due to the different perspectives.

I want to remind all the editors working on this page that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors can be applied to this article and to the editors involved in this dispute. Please take care to assume good faith and to ensure that any comments made on this talk page are designed in tone and in substance to help to reach a consensus, not to score points off opponents.

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried discussion and was criticised for not edit warring!Traditional unionist (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the mentality of division still exists in that region of the world and it is very difficult for people there to post without POVing. As soon as I started reading the actual article I guessed there would be a heated discussion in the talk page. Sure enough I found this mess and was less than surprised and definitely left unimpressed by the squabbling on this page.

Bottom line, don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to the poltics of division, especially in Northern Ireland related issues. There are too many people who have ulterior motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsiem (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

No clear consensus.

In the early discussion Valenciano and NinjaRobotPirate presented a strong case for a subcategory to both a UK and Ireland. In the late discussion Gob Lofa and Quis separabit? made a strong case for consistent category inclusion criteria, which appears to exclude a Martina_Anderson listing. Those participants all failed to comment on the other alternative, and AusLondonder failed to comment on either one. Closing policy allows greater weight to later comments, as they they had the opportunity to see and consider the earlier ones. However this RFC cannot mandate new criteria at another page, especially not based on two comments. As such, I advise a discussion or a simple bold edit to clarify the category inclusion criteria. If that fails then a subcategory of UK and Ireland should be the obvious solution. Alsee (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Martina Anderson is a Member of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom. The European Parliament lists her as representing the United Kingdom. Anderson has previously been convicted of a number of criminal offences. She was sentenced to life imprisonment. She had been placed in the category Category:British politicians convicted of crimes some months ago, which serves as a navigational tool of politicians from the UK convicted of crimes. However, another editor has removed her from the category and placed her in the Category:Irish politicians convicted of crimes. Which category should she be placed in? AusLondonder (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that it is very misleading to place her in the Irish category, as she is not an MEP for Ireland. Those seeking to use the categories to, for example find or compare politicians from the UK convicted of crimes will be unable to find her. Also, in the Category:Politicians convicted of crimes by nationality the number of entries for Ireland will unfairly be increased. AusLondonder (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You write "she is not an MEP for Ireland". That's simply not true. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dispute the European Parliament source? AusLondonder (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute any source that says Northern Ireland is not in Ireland. Does the Parliament say this? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am afraid you are wrong as the Constitution of Ireland implicitly recognises as does the European Union (see the map here). Disputing facts is unhelpful, POINTY and disruptive. AusLondonder (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure in cases like this in the past was to place people in Northern Ireland categories, which were subcategories of both a UK category and an Ireland category, reflecting not only the disputed status of NI, but the fact that Northern Ireland is, y'know, in Ireland. In this case Category:Politicians from Northern Ireland convicted of crimes would be the solution.Valenciano (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ugh. This sounds like nationalist bickering to me. Isn't Ireland/The Troubles under discretionary sanctions? It looks like she was moved to "Northern Irish politicians convicted of a crime", which looks like a perfectly valid compromise. If this is resolved, then the rfc can be closed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QS, Snappy makes a good point at Talk: Eamon de Valera that politicians included in similar categories by nationality have to be politicians when they commit their crimes. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It is noteworthy if/when a politician, officeholder or other public servant has a criminal record, whether or not the crime was committed during his or her tenure. And yes, that goes for loyalists as well as politicians/officeholders/public servants from any other country/nation. Perhaps Category:Northern Ireland politicians convicted of criminal activity/Category:Northern Ireland officeholders convicted of criminal activity or Category:Politicians from Northern Ireland convicted of criminal activity/Category:Officeholders from Northern Ireland convicted of criminal activity or Category:Northern Ireland politicians with criminal convictions/Category:Northern Ireland officeholders with criminal convictions or Category:Politicians from Northern Ireland with criminal convictions/Category:Officeholders from Northern Ireland with criminal convictions or Category:Politicians convicted of terrorism-related offenses. Quis separabit? 23:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas? Quis separabit? 14:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes only includes politicians whose crimes were committed while in office; why have a different standard for Irish politicians? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't know. It's a list I did not create or ever contribute to. Maybe because of the volume, i.e. the sheer number of names. Also, these things are more interrelated in NI. But I agree with keeping things consistent -- fits in well with my OCD, also. Quis separabit? 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to add, QS? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs)? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Anderson is not an MEP for Ireland because she represents a Northern Ireland constituency, as far as I know. As far as politicians who are criminals or terrorists (Category:Politicians convicted of terrorism-related offenses??) I stand by what I posted before: "It is noteworthy if/when a politician, officeholder or other public servant has a criminal record, whether or not the crime was committed during his or her tenure. And yes, that goes for loyalists as well as politicians/officeholders/public servants from any other country/nation." Quis separabit? 17:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, @Gob Lofa -- I see no emerging consensus on this issue based on the posts of this talk page. Quis separabit? 17:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality question has already been addressed. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not politicians ought to have been politicans at the time of their crime in order to be included in this category, but I strongly oppose having a double standard on the issue. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Politicians_convicted_of_crimes Gob Lofa (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martina Anderson. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]