Talk:Rónán Mullen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeRónán Mullen was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 20, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Large article[edit]

This is very large article for someone who who is not very notable - I would question whether it should be an article even. I'm Irish an I have not heard of this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.162.106 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

!!! Copied from Ronan mullen !!! T0ky0 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this page as candidate for speedy deletion, when the page was of one line only. I don't know if this person is notable in Ireland, I'm not Irish...

Nevertheless, this article lack of sources and hasn't, in my personal view (and I consider myself an inclusionist), still proved the notability of this person.

Also, I have to say that it isn't fair to remove the template of the candidate to speedy deletion, as clearly written in that template "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add:".

So I have to add again the CSD notice, as in my opinion the article still don't prove the notability of the person.

I'll also add the hangon template, as you should have done before.

by Snowolf (talk) on 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Fair enough. I didn't read the notice and should have gone that way. Sorry about that. Suffice it to say that this guy is known reasonably-well as an Irish journalist with a weekly column in a national newspaper. He is also on the national radio station and other radio stations reasonbably frequently as well. I will get more info. together and add it, along with links as soon as I get the time. I see a need for a list of Irish Journalists, for example.

I see where you're coming from, with a one-line entry - fair enough for you trying to keep wikipedia clean. My wikipedia style, however, has often been to add a tiny article only to begin with and then flesh it out later (or allow others to do so). So maybe I need to change my style!

Thanks and 'gomenesai' T0ky0 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is he a member of Opus Dei or isn't he? Jaimehy (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.113.173 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A self-promotional article? A line I recently added "He is closely associated with Opus Dei" was removed without any explanation. Senator Mullen has mentioned his close association with Opus Dei on several occasions in his published articles in the Irish Press, while denying membership of the group.

I will reinstate the reference (slightly modified), as I believe it to be relevant, given Senator Mullen's well-known conservative views on matters traditionally of importance to the Roman Catholic Church. I will add a reference to Mullen's own writing in the public domain, to illustrate the point.

I would request that the reference not be deleted without discussing the reasons for the deletion.

My own view is that this article was originally created simply as a source of publicity for the electoral ambitions of the person being described in it, rather than as a neutral source of information on a figure that could hardly be more controversial in an Irish political context. If it were to become a habit to delete unwelcome references from the article, such actions would seem to support the view that the article is simply a piece of self-promotion, and should accordingly be deleted.Jaimehy (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated (once more) the reference to Mullen's close association with Opus Dei. I'd appreciate it if it could remain there unless a reason can be given for removing it. This is not an advertisement for Mr. Mullen. Jaimehy (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have undone the deletion of the reference to Rónán Mullen's close association with Opus Dei again.

The reference is fully documented (by an article written by Mr. Mullen himself).

Of course, as this reference is the only one that doesn't look like the contents of a CV, perhaps a better solution would be to recommend the article for speedy deletion. In my opinion, the repeated mystery disappearance of an obviously unwelcome (but accurate and well-documented) reference is evidence that the article is simply to further the subject's political career. Jaimehy (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a close association with Opus Dei has not been established, and that there is no reason to include it in the article until independent sources verify it. I've read the article at the Irish Examiner, but the author doesn't seem to say that he is closely associated with Opus Dei- simply that he knows people who are members of the group. That is hardly encyclopedic; are we summarizing the contents of all of his individual newspaper columns? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Just look at Ruth Kelly's page where her affiliation to Opus Dei is mentioned. If Mullen's affiliation to Opus Dei is as established as people claim it is then it should be included. Also the link to the article you're referring to appears to be broken. O lockers (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rónán Mullen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: fourfound and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead does not fully summarise the article, please see WP:LEAD Not done
    Stray sentences need to be consolidated into paragraphs, see WP:Manual of Style (layout)#Paragraphs  Done
    Prose otherwise is reasonably well written.
    Could you expand on this? Thanks--Patchthesock123 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    Certainly, the lead does not fully summarise his parliamentary career. the sentence "Mullen is a frequent media commentator on social and political topics and is well known for his work on right-to-life issues, human trafficking and immigration, hospice care and religious freedom." is hardly adequate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    It appears that User:Snappy is reverting your edits to the lead. I have asked them to comment here. This pattern of editing is destabilising the article and I cannot pass it if this is going on. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The three dead links from the site {http://www.oireachtas.ie/} (ref #1, #10, #13) may just be down due to maintenance, please check in a day or so. The parliament site is OK now, I have replaced the other dead link.
    Other references check out, citation neede tags need to addressed, also the clarification and who? tags
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}y} b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Tagged, licensed and captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    The lead and the stray sentences need addressing still. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    OK, there is a content dispute between Snappy and the nominator. That needs resolution rather than edit warring. I am not listing at this time as the article does not meet WP:GACR criterion #5. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GAR Comment: Hi, In general I agree with Jezhotwells, though I've added a couple of tags to the article text: it would be better if those who accused the subject of obstructing the bill were named. 2)The phrase "constitutional filter" is never explained. I am not entirely ignorant of politics but couldn't understand it. 3) The list of Mullen advocacy in the first paragraph of the Seanad section needs a reference.

The dead links worked for me, I presuming that it was a temporary website problem and which has now been resolved.

I've gone ahead and expanded the lead, further suggestions are welcome. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi Jezhotwells, I think all the above are all fixed up. --Patchthesock123 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed that pov rubbish which is a direct copy from the subjects website and is unreferenced by other sources. Snappy (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Lead[edit]

I was simply trying to get the lead up to GA criteria. I believe References 10 to 21 deal with this part of the lead "and his parliamentary career to date has focused on issues such as bioethics and the right-to-life, human trafficking and immigration, hospice care, freedom of conscience, political reform, welfare support for vulnerable citizens and Overseas Development Aid." Also I don't see any sentence like this on the subject’s website!

As for the role he played in Lisbon, it was significant as subject served on the Oireachtas committee for Lisbon II that was too look at "Ireland’s future in the European Union" and was the only Independent politician to do so. --Patchthesock123 (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm here because you requested a Third Opinion, but there doesn't appear to be any active dispute between you and another editor on this topic. If you're concerned with the recent GA failure due to the assertion that the lead didn't meet WP:LEAD, you might want to seek direct input from the GA reviewer, or seek peer review to help with content improvement that doesn't center around a dispute with another editor. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a source as to the "international attention" he received in defeating the McCafferty report? The main sources I could find were from pro-life websites. If that is the case then it definitely should be removed.O lockers (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook comments[edit]

I think it is fair to describe this as controversy, as it did lead to a few articles discussing it in newspapers and a flurry on Twitter. The Herald even described the discussion about the comments as "outrage."O lockers (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi O lockers, and thanks for your recent good work on this article. At the time I removed the label "controversy" the citation did not support it. There may be more of a basis now, but the word "outrage" seems to have lost all strength especially in publications such as the Evening Herald. Secondly, the MOS guides us away from such interpretation: readers are well placed to discern the level of disagreement for themselves. Do you know of any further sources? I did a quick search and didn't get much—though it's always nice to follow through with these affairs. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rónán Mullen. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rónán Mullen. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 22:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-abortion category[edit]

The Category:Irish anti-abortion activists is "for activists who are primarily notable due to their pro-life activism. This category is not a list of anyone who is pro-life (such as actors, musicians, or politicians)." While I agree the category shouldn't apply to every politician who happens to be anti-abortion (e.g., Lucinda Creighton), I believe it is very appropriate in the case of Mullen. There are only 23 paragraphs in the article and the word abortion occurs 13 times. Anti-abortion lobbying is what he's primarily known for. Even in the context of a debate on Sandy Hook, he managed to squeeze in references to abortion! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)