Talk:Shell to Sea

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

Bias[edit]

This entire article is nothing more than S2S propaganda. Anything citing 'Indymedia' should be taken with a large pinch of salt anyway but there is absolutely no balance here. What about protestors smearing themselves with ketchup, illegal occupation of land etc. I might also note the not so subtle use of Michael McDowell as a hate figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaraghM (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section current events in this article is taking a political viewpoint. An article here should not take a viewpoint and should only be descriptive. The gardai do not take sides if so evidence and citation should be provided.

Fixed.

Citation needed on the Carrowmore Lake claims.

Checking it out now, will add it as soon as I have it.
  • I've removed the POV tag, as the concerns expressed here seem to have been addressed. Lurker oi! 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a sentence in this article which doesn't make sense. It says that the proof that Sinn Fein are not involved in this issue is that members of Sinn Fein ARE involved. I'm not sure what the real situation is, so I cannot edit this part of the article. maybe someone else would like to? 89.100.247.241 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One of the Rossport Five is a Sinn Féin member, although I don't think he's very active. Sinn Féin's general election candidate for Mayo, Gerry Murray, has spoken at the protests, and Sinn Féin members are active in the Shell to Sea branches in the cities. They are involved informally, just like members of Labour, the Green Party, the Socialist Party etc.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

340 Bar pipeline[edit]

It says in the article that the gas will be at 340 bar . This is un ture the operational pressure will be 160 bar.


Where is your figure from?

Lapsed Pacifist 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indymedia - SF/IRA[edit]

I've removed the citation for Indymedia. See: WP:SPS. I've also done a little tidying up in the SF/IRA accusation section. The edit to remove bias went just as far in the other direction. --sony-youthpléigh 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've just learned Sinn Féin are more involved in this controversy than I thought. Sinn Féin member Paddy Ruddy, who lives a couple of miles from the refinery site, works for Shell.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Tony O'Reilly! --sony-youthpléigh 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I shudder to think of what the Independent would make of it.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This page laready has a tag re lacking sources, and people are still adding unsourced stuff [1].

This [2] actually has a source, which allows one to note that some important text but a significant 40 per cent said they had no opinion on the issue or were not really interested. The findings suggest that on the ground in Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims was deemed to unimportant to report. The concluding line of the edit, This is similar to national trends., doesn't appear to be supported (or meaningful; "trends" means time-varying) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few cn tags. Unless someone starts reffing this stuff properly, or explaining here why it should stay despite any sources, its going William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrib gas project has a least two national poll links. When I reach a computer that can copy and paste, I'll give you citations that can easily be found if you bothered to do even cursory research. Strong feeling on the project is not distributed evenly throughout Mayo; people in Belmullet tend to have stronger opinions than those in Ballyhaunis. Can you guess why?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jolly good. When you find the refs, do please re-insert the material together with the refs. Until then, please leave it alone. As to guessing... no, I'd rather not. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be built on guesswork William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing[edit]

There is no way that this [3] can be acceptable. The totally unsourced statement that "this is broadly similar to national trends" is re-introduced; the unwelcome news that "the findings suggest that on the ground in most of Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims" becomes only one newspapers opinion.

If you have some spare energy to work on this article, please use it to dig up refs for the all too many unrefd statements William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently [4], one should look at Corrib gas project for some evidence. I'm puzzled as to how the casual reader of the intro to this article can be expected to guess that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 / 8[edit]

Having asked repeatedly for citations for this stuff, and received none, I've finally removed the uncited material. Please don't restore it unless you can find reliable citations, or can present here some reason why it should be allowed to violate the std rules William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly similar to[edit]

LP said that the Mayo poll produced results "broadly similar to national trends", and produced [5] in support. I read that to say Fifty-five per cent wanted the gas to be processed offshore with a lowpressure pipeline connected to the gas terminal at Bellanaboy. One-third of those surveyed wanted the project to continue in its current format and 55%:33% is not broadly similar to 3:1, its notably less. This does rather demonstrate the virtue of sourcing statements William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [6] is nonsense. If you want to repeat it, please address the problem I've raised just above William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priestly fun[edit]

Incidentally, this [7] is fun. It was cited elsewhere, but oddly enough the line "we believe most people are not opposed to the gas coming ashore" wasn't quoted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Practically no-one in the area is opposed to the gas coming ashore. They just want it done safely, like it is in Cork. What's odd about that? Do you often have fun with priests, William?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 2 Pictures and Blog[edit]

I am puzzled by the removal of 2 pictures showing various protests taking place .Is this supposed to indicate those protests didn't take place because nobody has a citation from a newspaper etc that says they did.

Also the removal of a ciation from journalist Colm Rapple blog .Apart from being a fairly well respected journalist his blog contents appear to be a reprint of his newspaper columns in one handy location .Garda40 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have got carried away, sorry. To me the blog just looked like a blog, and blogs aren't usually WP:RS though there are exceptions. This might be one. But it would be better to link to the original article. The pics: got hacked when I cut a lot of unsourced stuff from 2007 I think. They could go back if you like (but perhaps not so big?) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a quick search on the newspaper site Daily Mail there doesn't seem to be an Irish section or links to the articles themselves which may be the reason he has a blog .Garda40 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The only way I can find of referencing Rapple's articles is through the blog.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "disagree" seems to be a bit of an understatement for the first picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.176.1 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

One editor says there are not enough citations in this article. Now another says there are too many external links. I think both of you need to talk to each other.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not contradictory. Text within the article needs more sourcing. There may be too many links bunged in under ext lins, I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It would be more accurate to say that the two are not necessarily contradictory, but please don't rule out the possibility. Don't let me stop you doing any sourcing you care to do.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing speculation (no matter how convenient for some)[edit]

LP reverted [8] with the comment Removing speculation (no matter how convenient for some). But... its a direct quote from the newspaper cited. So... I'm having a hard time understanding how that revert is justified, other than don't-like-wot-it-sez. Do please explain William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's helpful in any contentious article to use words like nonsense in the edit summary even if the claim is justified .Garda40 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which it isn't. What national media have claimed the issue is divisive throughout the whole of Mayo, William? Like I told you before, the issue is not the hot potato in Ballyhaunis that it is in Belmullet, for reasons of simple geography. The article isn't linked because of its intrinsic worth, it's because it contains details of a relevant poll. One might as well try to say that Kosovan independence is a divisive issue in Europe. It isn't really (I don't know anyone who's fallen out over it in my corner of Europe, for example), apart from one particular corner of Europe, where it is extremely divisive. The language of this journalist you like quoting so much is careless. I could easily quote from other linked articles to give a completely different (and more accurate) viewpoint. I haven't, because the introduction to the article is not the place for journalistic speculation. Especially of the quality you favour.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a direct quote from the paper: Just 15 per cent of those surveyed supported Shell, but a significant 40 per cent said they had no opinion on the issue or were not really interested. The findings suggest that on the ground in Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims. They also show that some of the political parties could be out-of-tune with the views of their supporters on the Corrib Gas row. I'm presuming that you consider that to be a reliable source, since it was you that added it [9]. Or does it become unreliable when it says things you don't like? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read and address what I wrote above.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly enough, you don't get to give me orders. Unless you've recently joined the board of csr, that is. What can I say that I haven't already? The journalist I'm quoting was introduced by *you* not me. You liked he article well enough when you thought it said what you wanted it to. Sadly, it doesn't, but you don't then get to dismiss it. You don't seem to understand wp's policy. We report what sources say. That you personally happen to know that the journalist is wrong is of no interest whatsoever William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again William, I'm going to refer you to my first paragraph in this section. Take your time.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to answer my points becomes rather obvious. The paper is an RS, but you're removing the bits that disagree with your POV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Another complete inversion of the truth. You're outdoing yourself, William. Not alone have you not answered the questions I asked you above, but when I ask you to you tell me "you don't get to give me orders. " I don't know what an RS is, but you're unusually insistent that incredibly sloppy journalism be quoted when the article that contains it is already linked to. Linked to only because it contains details of a poll. A poll link you requested. My POV doesn't even come into it. Once again, what (as your favoured journalist seems to think) national media claim that the issue is divisve throughout Mayo? If you can't find any, why do you insist on adding the claim to the article?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I fear you *don't* know what a WP:RS is. I'm not required to trawl through the national media to find a sense of their collective opnion, nor indeed would it be at all approriate to do so - that would be WP:OR. What Wiki wants are RS's for the information. You seem to be asserting that the paper is an RS for some bits of info you like - the poll - but not for other things. Thats hard to sustain. The only evidence you have in favour of this idea is your own personal knowledge that the paper is "wrong". That, of course, is irrelevant for wiki, though you're free to write it into your own blog William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have reached the simply-reverting-not-talking stage. So I've listed this at Wikipedia:Third opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"I'm not required to trawl through the national media to find a sense of their collective opnion"

I reckon you are if you want to use a quote that specifies that opinion. You asked for a poll link, I gave you one. "The only evidence..." I reckon I need is the knowledge (and I'm a keen student of the subject) that media in Ireland don't generally claim that the Corrib gas issue is divisive throughout the whole of Mayo. You're keen to promote the opposite view, William, yet reluctant to back it up in any way.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have fundamentally misunderstood wiki's standards of evidence. Trawling through the media and synthesising the result is *wrong* (WP:SYN). Finding a quote from a paper that says it is *correct*. Your own personal knowledge isn't a permissible source William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding the suggested entry into the article, and as far as I'm concerned, the reference given is considered a reliable source under WP:RS#News organizations. I would recommend to the both of you to quit your edit warring and work out a compromise before editing that section of the article again. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, jolly good. Could you suggest a compromise between including it and not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see any reason why the material should not be added. I would, however, suggest providing the date of the publication with the in-text attribution. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about simply reporting the results of the poll (X for, Y against, Z don't care) and omit the journalist's personal opinion as to its significance. We should leave it to the readers to decide on its significance. --Red King (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's a viable compromise. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, I've tried it. I've also removed "(this is close to national trends [10] [11])." which is also part of the dispute; the reasonning is outlined above: 45:15 is not close to 55:33. Oh, and the second link obviously isn't any good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question[edit]

Is there any basis in fact for the claim "thereby making it safer to transport" in the first para? I am aware that taking smaller fractions out of "live" crude makes it safer but when I was a safety engineer I never saw any risk differential between raw and processed natural gas (except when it has a toxic impurity in it)? Perhaps this new science is since I stopped admittedly a while back ; there is a lot more pipeline to base it on. However you might think the higher fractions would reduce the line pressure a little and if anything help? Also what is the pressure of this "high pressure" pipeline? Is there any pipe line of this size and lower pressure or is it just emotive wording from local press we have picked up without thought? --BozMo talk 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


See here.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so this is a partisan submission by people protesting against the development which asserts that there is a higher corrosion risk from wet gas. But I cannot see any overall risk assessment even in this supporting "thereby making it safer to transport" --BozMo talk 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong, it's an independent report. Refined gas is safer because, like you wrote above, the impurities are removed.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/dates?[edit]

Could we have some kind of source, or at least dates, for:

Local landowners in Rossport were told that the raw gas pipeline would be coming through their lands, and if they didn't agree a settlement with Shell, it would be forced upon them by the use of Compulsory Acqusition Orders (made possible by government legislation not long before). Some agreed to allow Shell on their lands. Others refused, and Frank Fahey, then Minister for the Marine & Natural Resources signed thirty-four separate Compulsory Acquisition Orders for Shell. Still some people refused to back down and were threatened with legal action. Out of scores of people who had blocked Shell workers from going on people's property, five men were singled out and brought to court. After refusing to promise to allow Shell put the pipeline through their lands, the men were sentenced to jail indefinitely. They became known as the Rossport Five.

and

Local and national reaction was immediate. 24-hour pickets on the Shell sites at Rossport, Bellanaboy and Glengad began. Rallies in support of the men's stance were held in major towns and cities, and Shell and Statoil filling stations were frequently picketed.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Fiosru_2_HI_RES_Final.pdf

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huge cleanup[edit]

Just finished a fairly massive cleanup. Changes include:

  • Removal of all POV
  • Removal of all weasel words
  • Changing a lot of content so it doesn't read like an advert for the campaign (including removal of nn quote)
  • Removal of all indymedia references (not a reliable or verifiable source)
  • Removal of uncited content, or content that the attached source did not back up
  • Addition of a load of citation needed tags
  • Addition of a load of who tags
  • Changing a lot of ext links to proper refs
If anyone wants to contest my edits, I suggest you read the following articles before doing so: WP:POV, WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:COI. The last one is important. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored some of the material on the basis of my edit summaries. As for WP:CON you should remember that yourself .
Finally I can't actually believe that you said that the quotation of the campaign's aims and beliefs is non notable . Garda40 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no way affiliated with the campaign, the Gardai, Shell, or the government. I have no conflict of interest. I know Lapsed Pacifist definitely does. As for your edits - the paragraph is restating information already noted in other parts of the article (the source is used again in the subsequent paragraph); I trimmed the bit about the taxi protest for brevity, the sentence was a bit long; nobody knows what the protesters said to the crew of the boat. By including the long, direct quote from the campaign the article is essentially promoting the campaign itself, a violation of WP:NPOV (and WP:SOAPBOX). It's non-notable as the preceding sentence aptly describes what the campaign is about. The intro paragraph saying "...refined at sea (hence the name), thereby making it safer to transport, before it is brought ashore and past people's houses" is an example of weasel words - it's phrased in such a way to implicitly communicate that people will be directly in danger if the gas is brought inland. "miles from the coastline" also implies that the distance is significant, and therefore a risk. As for the caption - are the scuffles not over ownership of a road? I don't see why any more context is needed.
For the reasons just stated, I'm going to revert the edits (with the exception of the update on the ship's location) Thanks! Fin©™ 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert since I would be breaking 3RR .And sorry direct quotation can never be non notable even if mentioned in surrounding paragraphs . As for your NPOV arguement you are saying we can only quote someone if they talk in a manner that is NPOV .Well sorry to tell you people don't talk in that way .Doesn't mean they are right in what they are saying but it is their POV . WP:SOAPBOX That might have some weight if the whole article was in their own words .
I am in no way affiliated with the campaign, the Gardai, Shell, or the government.
Strange comment since I never said you were and I can truly say I didn't think you were when I made those edits .So why bring that up ? Garda40 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is notable then, but it is definitely WP:SOAPBOX - the whole article doesn't have to be in their words for that to apply. And I wasn't saying the quote was POV, I was saying adding the quote was - it's only presenting half of the story. I stated that I am no affiliated to anyone, that's quite a huge mistake on my part - I originally meant to link to WP:COI (which I've now fixed), so when you said to remember WP:CON, I thought you meant you thought I had a conflict of interest, so I felt I had to defend myself. Sorry for the mixup =$ Fin©™ 11:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this back to what seems to be a more neutral version of this page. Perhaps LapsedPacifist could hold off on any edits pending the COI issues have been resolved? Thanks Greenlightgo (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral it certainly is not. Try again.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Reliable Refs[edit]

I have restored a version of the article which had refs to many reliable sources which I listed in my edit summary .If anyone believes the language of the article is not neutral please rewrite it but I can't see how deleting refs to reliable sources and putting citation tags back in their place is improving the article Garda40 (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RTE.ie ref was a duplicate; no Irish Times ref was removed (a corribsos ref referring to the Irish Times was, I don't think it can be considered a verifiable source); the Washington Post article was removed as the entire paragraph was filled with weasel words - "many" "injustice" "health and safety fears" "many" "amazingly generous"; the Channel 4 ref was not removed. If you wish to restore the references, please do it manually, instead of simply reverting all the changes. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response The RTE.ie ref was a duplicate; Never had of that being a problem and indeed in numerous articles I have seen the same ref referred to many times .the Washington Post article was removed as the entire paragraph was filled with weasel words which was why I said rewrite if needs be (you've done it before) and that anyway is a pretty flimsy excuse to remove a link to a major international newspaper . the Channel 4 ref was not removed. Again same point as to RTE ref plus the fact that the request for refs which was asked for in a number of paragraphs and the supplied ref was channel 4 .The wording was changed from "many" to "some" with the supplied CH4 ref as that is all the CH4 supports and now we are back to a call for refs with harsher and definitely unsupported wording . no Irish Times ref was removed (a corribsos ref referring to the Irish Times was, I don't think it can be considered a verifiable source) However it was a direct quote of the Irish Times which can be verified against the Irish Times itself .
If you wish to restore the references, please do it manually, instead of simply reverting all the changes
I see that as a pointless exercise when refs are being deleted on grounds of being a duplicate and supported softer language with a ref for those paragraphs is replaced with unsupported harsher language and a call for refs in those paragraphs .Garda40 (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Sorry, I meant to say the paragraph that contained the RTE.ie ref was a duplicate. (see below)
2) Rewrite the paragraph so! I removed it as it was filled with weasel words and I didn't think it contributed to the article. Just because a section has a source doesn't mean it should be included.
3) I changed the wording, but left the ref. If you want to change wording, please do so without reverting the entire article. Also, I see no explicit C4 ref (apart from "A Channel Four documentary") - no name or broadcast date.
4) Then link to the direct article from the Irish Times.
Just because there are mistakes in the article does not mean it is appropriate to revert all changes back to a previous version. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I removed the first RTE.ie section as it was total WP:POV, unsupported by the source. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it contributed to the article. Just because a section has a source doesn't mean it should be included.
Wow ,The Washington Post takes an interest in events happening in little old Ireland and it doesn't contribute to the article . I can't believe you actually said that . Garda40 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree wholeheartedly, Garda. 9x5, don't you know what "refute" means?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refute: "To deny the truth or correctness of (something)", exactly what Shell is doing. Indeed, reject is a synonym of refute. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


From http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=refute:

(overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof) "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments"

(prove to be false or incorrect)

Reject is not a synonym for refute, despite the best efforts of Irish politicians.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outsiders pov[edit]

As a person who knew nothing about the situation before reading the article I must point out this seems incredibly biased. By reading the talk page I can see there has been some edit waring but the only solution I can see is a total rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.222.4 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should've seen what it looked like a while ago! Please point out any individual biased bits you can spot, a full rewrite seems a bit drastic. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a person who knew nothing about the situation before reading the article I must point out this seems incredibly biased.'
That sentence makes no sense for obvious reasons .Garda40 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I only just thought of that now - if you don't know anything about a topic, how can you see bias? Fin©™ 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange how Statoil is not condemned for what part they might have in this gas pipeline. Are we really that invinsible? BTW the correct name for this organisation is "Shell to hell". Atleast so it is on youtube.(83.108.30.208 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

My problems with certain edits[edit]

I've already gone over a lot of this above, but here goes again:

  • "Refute" (the last word of the introductory paragraph) can be taken to mean (as I have always taken it to mean) "prove wrong". While many people may use it to mean "reject", its ambiguity makes it an unsuitable verb in the context in which it is currently used
  • Twice, a citation to Our Story: The Rossport Five was removed, and a citation request put in its place. I'm pretty sure that's not the order these things are supposed to happen
  • The following information, referenced in at least one of the above sources, was also removed:
  • "Legal action was eventually brought against four landowning farmers and their former teacher who had joined them in blocking Shell workers coming on their lands, and (who - LP) lived in nearby Ceathrú Thaidhg. Bríd McGarry, who had also blocked Shell workers from her lands, was not brought to court. Mary Corduff is quoted in Our Story:The Rossport Five as having seen an internal Shell memo to the effect that McGarry was not to be brought to court because of her gender."
  • The duration of the pickets on Shell works ("and remained for fifteen months") was also removed. This information is readily available on the link provided above
  • A link to an aricle in An Phoblacht was also removed. While I can understand that some people may take what this newspaper says with a pinch of salt (a healthy course of action with any newspaper), they don't tend to make up stories about pickets on filling stations that never really happened. References to AP articles have also been removed on other articles. We really need to thrash out to what extent references to a newspaper that is listed on Google News can be blanked in this way, if at all
  • The following paragraph was totally blanked:
  • "The suspicions of many that Shell were bribing influential Erris people for support were strengthened when former Irish Air Corps pilot and owner of an adventure centre in Elly Bay on the Mullet peninsula, Ciarán Ó Murchú told a rally at Bellanaboy in October 2006 that Shell E&P Ireland tried to "buy his support" with an offer of €15,000 for a climbing wall in 2005. He said that company officials promised him that no one would know that the money came from Shell if he accepted it. He rejected the offer, which he said was very tempting, but believes that other businesses have experienced similar approaches."
  • The following paragraphs were also deleted, along with links to articles in the Irish Times and Irish Independent that they contained:
  • "It has often been claimed that the IRA or Sinn Féin have an element of control over the Shell to Sea campaign. This story has been encouraged by the former Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, various national newspapers and local businessmen[citation needed]. Members of many different political groups are involved in the campaign, and prominent local Sinn Féin member Paddy Ruddy works for Shell. Most local campaigners are former Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael supporters, and Philip McGrath, one of the Rossport Five, used to be an election agent for Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny."
  • On two occasions, the context surrounding excerpts from the Garda Review interview with Superintendent Joseph Gannon was removed; the current minimal excerpts are rendered almost meaningless
  • Separately, there seems to be an attempt to play down and muddy the waters of the violence that has been visited upon the people of Kilcommon, the most despicable examples of which have seen two elderly men crippled. There is ample video evidence of the extent of this violence, and it is has been well documented by human rights groups and clergy. All of these changes have been made since I last edited this article; here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shell_to_Sea&diff=258248233&oldid=244788107

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:
  1. I've no real trouble with refute changing to reject.
  2. That it's in the Rossport Five book is too inaccurate to be used as a source (I think), if you can supply a direct quotation from the book, that's fine.
  3. I've explained elsewhere why I don't consider the report to be a WP:V source (only released three reports, two were related to this subject, all reports were from 2005).
  4. The section about the bringing to court was tidied to remove unnecessary details - who was brought to court, why the woman wasn't, etc.
  5. The duration wasn't mentioned in the public inquiry link (that I could find).
  6. An Phoblacht is not a reliable source in this matter, as it is a Sinn Fein newspaper reporting on an matter than Sinn Fein have an interest in. The Irish Times, the Independent, the Examiner are all fine though.
  7. I'm not inclined to trust what someone says about Shell in front a rally of people who hate Shell. CorribSOS isn't a reliable source, link to the original Irish Times article
  8. The whole section about Sinn Fein and intimidation was full of POV and unsourced claims. Also, it's not the wiki's job to defend Shell To Sea against such claims.
  9. The one bit I saw where the Garda Review section was edited was because the original was incredibly POV/soapboxing.
  10. If there's ample evidence then source it. Saying there is doesn't help.
Thanks for engaging rather than reverting! =) Fin©™ 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section about the bringing to court was tidied to remove unnecessary details - who was brought to court, why the woman wasn't, etc.
Strange how 4 lines here is unnecessary detail and in other places isn't .
An Phoblacht is not a reliable source in this matter, as it is a Sinn Fein newspaper reporting on an matter than Sinn Fein have an interest in. The Irish Times, the Independent, the Examiner are all fine though
And if you believe that any of those newspapers don't have an interest though it may be smaller and more difficult to discern then I have a car ,one little old lady owner , to sell to you .
I've explained elsewhere why I don't consider the report to be a WP:V source (only released three reports, two were related to this subject, all reports were from 2005)..
What the age of the reports or the quantity released whether on this subject or overall have to do with anything I fail to see.The fact that the organisation was undermined by attacking one of it's personnel and not it's reports speaks volumes .
Never got a reply I notice on this section from 7th of October
'' I didn't think it contributed to the article. Just because a section has a source doesn't mean it should be included.
Wow ,The Washington Post takes an interest in events happening in little old Ireland and it doesn't contribute to the article . I can't believe you actually said that .
Garda40 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yep, I felt it that section the four lines were unnecessary detail, discussing who went to court or why doesn't impact on the article as a whole - five people did, they became the Rossport Five.
  2. They probably do have an interest, but are not directly affiliated to any parties in the dispute, unlike An Phoblacht.
  3. If an independent board or company produces a series of reports each year, it speaks well for their WP:V. That the source quoted in the article has only three published reports, two of which were related to Shell To Sea and all of which were produced in 2005 doesn't bode well for their WP:V.
  4. Correct, I didn't think the section that contained the Washington Post piece as a source contributed to the article, so I removed it. You've misinterpreted it to mean that I don't think what the Washington Post says has any weight. It does, the section didn't contribute to the article.
Please read WP:NPA, you're bordering on it with your comments. Much thanks! Fin©™ 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yep, I felt it that section the four lines were unnecessary detail, discussing who went to court or why doesn't impact on the article as a whole - five people did, they became the Rossport Five.
When the whole article is about a protest campaign , how the authorities or in this particular case Shell dealt with certain people is hardly an unnecessary detail ,it might be veering into if it was 200 lines but 4 lines No .
If an independent board or company produces a series of reports each year, it speaks well for their WP:V. That the source quoted in the article has only three published reports, two of which were related to Shell To Sea and all of which were produced in 2005 doesn't bode well for their WP:V
So a Minister nobbles one of their staff to get it shut down and it's funding cut off .
Where have I heard that before .I know .It's been demonstrated many times in US politics (and in other places ) when you can't disparage a report the next step is to go after the people involved in it's writing .
Please read WP:NPA, you're bordering on it with your comments '
Comments ? .Only one comment possibly could be seen to be even bordering that namely the car comment ,If WP:NPA is going to be invoked for anything else I reject that .Garda40 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Legal action was eventually brought against four landowning farmers and their former teacher who had joined them in blocking Shell workers coming on their lands, and lived in nearby Ceathrú Thaidhg. Bríd McGarry, who had also blocked Shell workers from her lands, was not brought to court. Mary Corduff is quoted in Our Story:The Rossport Five as having seen an internal Shell memo to the effect that McGarry was not to be brought to court because of her gender." - it's unnecessary to describe their professions, there's no benefit there; one person was not brought to court and therefore that's not relevant to the article, regardless of the reasons.
  2. I decided to have a read into the Centre for Public Inquiry. Turns out its director (Frank Connolly) is the brother of one of the "Columbia Three" (Niall Connolly), who was Sinn Féin's repersentative in Cuba. Given Sinn Féin's involvement with the Shell to Sea campaign, I think that's enough of a reason to treat the report with suspicion, and for it to be questionable as a WP:V source.
  3. WP:NPA was directed at your car comment, but your comments have been aggressive overall.
Thanks! Fin©™ 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with everything you've written, Garda. But you, 9x5, many of your replies are confusing. You seem unsure about how quotations from the R5 book should be used, if at all. I've explained elsewhere how the Corrib report was one of three (the other two were on separate topics) from the CPI. Any time you excuse blanking of both content and links with talk of "tidying", I feel like Goering hearing the word "culture". You might believe that An Phoblacht has more of an interest in the Corrib gas debacle than, for example, the Irish Independent, owned by a man with extensive oil and gas concessions off the southwest coast. Not everyone will agree with you. What is AP's major interest? That the most prominent local Sinn Féin member continue helping to build a refinery at Bellanaboy? No-one's asking you to believe that Ó'Murchú was offered that bribe by Shell, that's immaterial; what's important is that you acknowledge that he said this happened and that if you want to blank it from the article, you will have to make a case for that deletion. Whether you believe him or not is wholly up to you. No-one said it's Wikipedia's job to defend Shell to Sea. A section on the Garda Review interview is essential for understanding why there is so much police violence in this corner of Mayo. I don't see why it's so offensive to mention people's professions. I disagree that the PR-motivated decision not to seek to have McGarry jailed is irrelevant. Your new reasons for not liking what the CPI report says are beyond a joke and not worthy of comment. I don't believe Garda40's comments come even within a mile of NPA. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Direct quotations are fine (line and page if possible), general source of "Our Story" is not.
  2. Em, did you just liken me to a Nazi?
  3. Independent News and Media are always going to have less bias than the newspaper of a political party, regardless of what media.
  4. That the most prominent Sinn Fein member is working for Shell (or whatever) does not mean that is the party's line.
  5. If you want to add back the bit about bribery, then something like "Allegations of bribery have been made against Shell", nothing more.
  6. An entire section was called "Attempted Smears", which I took to mean the section was defending against those smears.
  7. The Garda Review sections were full of POV, speculation etc., I chopped them down to what was directly attributable to the source.
  8. There's nothing offensive about mentioning people's professions if appropriate, I didn't think it improved the article in this case.
  9. How do you know it was PR-motivated? You don't.
Thanks! Fin©™ 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA was directed at your car comment, but your comments have been aggressive overall
To Whom .If you are saying the WP:NPA was directed at the car comment then who who I was aggressive with any other comment . If questioning replies is considered WP:NPA then we are in a sorry state .
I decided to have a read into the Centre for Public Inquiry. Turns out its director (Frank Connolly) is the brother of one of the "Columbia Three" (Niall Connolly), who was Sinn Féin's repersentative in Cuba. Given Sinn Féin's involvement with the Shell to Sea campaign, I think that's enough of a reason to treat the report with suspicion, and for it to be questionable as a WP:V source.
So the other people involved in it are questionable and would apparently go along with a SF bias .I think they would be very surprised to hear that .
Taken from their website
The Board of the Centre for Public Inquiry is chaired by Mr Justice Feargus Flood the former chairman of the Planning and Payments Tribunal. The board also includes Enda McDonagh the chairman of the board of University College Cork and former Professor of Theology at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth; Damien Kiberd broadcaster and writer; Greg O’Neill.
We had the classic action with the CPI ,if you can't smear the report smear the writer .Garda40 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to stop arguing per my comments at Talk:An_Bord_Pleanála. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that to mean you aren't going to edit this article anymore as how you propose to edit this contentious article without input on the talk page is beyond me . Garda40 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I'll certainly continue to edit, and it doesn't mean I won't discuss in the future, I just don't see the point of going round in circles with yourself and LP at the moment. Ye both want to add stuff, I say it's against some policy or I don't agree or something, ye say it's not or something, repeat to fade. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


9x5, your views are very much in the minority in this discussion. If you're not prepared to defend your edits here on the talk page (and you're not doing much of a job at the moment) you can hardly expect myself and Garda40 to respect them. You don't own the article.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

I was contacted by User:Falcon9x5 to help de-escalate the situation related to Shell to Sea articles, and reach consensus. I suggest a case be opened in WP:MEDCAB, if everyone involved (User:Falcon9x5, User:Garda40, User:Lapsed Pacifist, are there others?) would be willing to participate. I'm willing to help, but would also welcome other uninvolved editors to assist, seeing that this dispute seems to span several articles, and there seem to be quite a few issues being disputed. I would also like to point out that I'm just another regular editor, and MEDCAB dispute resolution is completely unofficial and informal. There will be no sanctions or judgement, and this is completely voluntary. I feel going through the issues with an uninvolved, neutral editor might help however. If you'd be willing to participate, please state so here. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Also please state if my proposal is not acceptable, and we'll think of some other method for resolving the dispute. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for mediation, obviously. There aren't any other editors involved (to the best of my knowledge). Thanks! Fin©™ 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely willing to participate, this is a welcome development. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll set up the medcab case. User:Garda40 hasn't replied so far, but he is welcome to jump in at any point. I will post a link to the case once I've got it up. Since the issues concern several articles, we should keep the discussion on the medcab page to keep it from fragmenting over several talk pages. — Twinzor Say hi! 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case is set up here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Shell_to_Sea. See you there! — Twinzor Say hi! 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requests[edit]

It's not always clear exactly what part of a sentence some of the citation requests are for; could those who put them up outline here exactly what they believe needs citing? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the citation requests, they all seem appropriate. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were inappropriate (although now you mention it...), I said they were unclear. A request at the end of a long sentence could pertain to any part of that sentence; if any part of that sentence is then cited, I'm going to take it that there won't be a problem with the removal of the request. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Em, no, I meant they were in appropriate places. It's not ok to cite one part of a sentence, then remove the tag, if that part had nothing to do with the tag. Please stop assuming your course of action is correct. Here's a list of the stuff that needs citing. Unless otherwise stated (with emphasis), everything needs a source.
The campaign has a diverse support base, including people from many different political backgrounds and those with no strong politics at all
Before this, members of the campaign were caricatured as tree-hugging hippies and "sub-intellectual" peasants
many have visited the area to show support
The workers turned back after discussions with Gardaí
"The Garda baton charges that occurred on Friday morning in Bellanaboy were not the product of Sinn Féin or Provisional IRA machinations; they were the product of abject Government incompetence." - needs explicit source.
five protestors chained themselves together outside the Bord na Móna facility
The proposal was rejected by both Shell and the government
Thanks! Fin©™ 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9x5, you write: "It's not ok to cite one part of a sentence, then remove the tag, if that part had nothing to do with the tag." This is why I've asked you to be more exact; how are others supposed to know exactly which part of the sentence has "nothing to do with the tag" and which doesn't? To take just your first example, the sentence can be divided into three parts. Which part do you believe requires a reference? If more than one, why only one request? Why do you plead with me to stop assuming my course of action is correct? You haven't given me any good reason to assume otherwise, on the contrary. By now, I believe you're becoming a little more familiar with the history of the Shell to Sea campaign. It comes across as downright laziness that you make no effort to find references yourself. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You assume your course of action is correct before properly discussing it. I'll fix the citations to be explicit. I have more important thing to do than find references. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude to discussion is clearly displayed in a section above, where you state openly that you will ignore consensus if you don't agree with it. If you're not prepared to find references, you ought to be more thoughtful about how many you ask for. I also have more important things to do than reference every single one of the scores of citation requests you so liberally spray these articles with. Stop asking others to do that which you refuse to do yourself. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sighs* Consensus to disregard policy is not a consensus (I also think a consensus of two in a discussion of three is not a consensus). I actually stopped discussion because you're incredibly hard to deal with - you completely ignore WP:SOAPBOX, WP:N/WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. You basically disagree with everything I say, and every edit I make on this article (and others). Just because I'm not prepared to go find evidence doesn't mean I can't ask for it. If nobody's prepared to go find references, then the sections should be removed. The burden of evidence is on the adder of information. Unsourced information can be removed if not cited. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus to disregard your unique interpretations of policy is definitely a consensus; you've been pulled up by two other editors for the nature of these interpretations. I don't ignore any policies, but if you decide on a certain interpretation and then refuse to defend it, you have only yourself to blame. I certainly disagree with a lot of what you say, but I have absolutely no problem with the majority of your edits. I'm not saying you're not entitled to look for references, but if you refuse to make even a token effort to find even one after demanding scores of them, it doesn't say a lot for your willingness to help improve Wikipedia. You're essentially asking others to do research you couldn't be bothered with. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I promised myself not to respond to this, but if you think you don't ignore any policies, please read: WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COI and WP:UNDUE, though WEASEL and COI are guidelines, not policy. I would consider the last edit to the page to be in violation of at least WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEASEL (and of course, WP:COI). You'll no doubt dispute this, and so I won't reply to this again, because, as always, we're getting nowhere (though if you don't dispute it, I will of course reply!). Thanks! Fin©™ 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save your keyboard. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Device outside Shell HQ[edit]

The device is described differentlyto the description in the newspaper article that it is referenced to. Its description needs to be changed to something just like device or the source where its described needs to be addedGainLine ♠ 14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to edit any more (any disputed articles) until mediation is completed - all my edits just get reverted anyway! Thanks! Fin©™ 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to change this because of reasons mentioned before but if no one else is willing to, I'll do it. I'm not trying to be contentious but it says in the article that it was only paint, petrol, batteries etc. but is unreferenced. The Times article says it was a viable device. I think I'm correct in saying that the weight of evidence is on who ever introduced it to the article? Perhaps if a proper reference is found it can stay in its current format otherwise as a compromise I would suggest a something like a suspect package or similar.GainLine ♠ 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)


Well the Times article says bomb, so use that or IED or prefix it with "homemade" or something, rather than suspect package, if you're going to change it. Yep, burden's on the adder of information. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait to try and get a small bit of feedback here on talk page in an effort to avoid the revert war merry go round. I'm suggesting IED, I think thats fair enough, it doesn't suggest that its something like a nail bomb but shows that its more than a bag of shopping from the local DIY store.GainLine ♠ 11:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See [12] and [13]. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fleshed that out now on the basis of those 2 links. I think thats a fair reflection. I'd ask that if anyone has any problems with it to maybe work it out here on talk page before starting into a revert war. Thanks GainLine ♠ 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

I've reverted that last edit. I worked very carefully not to offend anyone on fleshing out that bit and stayed as close to the articles originally referenced. I was very specific to try and avoid an edit war and now you blindly revert after 10 days and making quite a few edits in between. This has all the signs of the type of whitewashing you accused 9x5 of in the past. Please make your case on the talk page before reverting blindly. It falls under the description of an IED albeit not a very good one as was noted in the article. GainLine ♠ 18:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I resent your edit summary, it is not "my" device, Why do you insist on being deliberately confrontational? Iraq has nothing to do with this so I suggest you stop blowing things out of proportion. Anyway I'm not here for a row. On reflection, this bomb/device/l has nothing to do with shell to sea and possibly should be merged into some other article such as Corrib Gas Controversy. I am not trying to kick off anything so lets both behave like adults here GainLine ♠ 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it belongs on the Controversy article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've deleted that from this article, so I moved it to the controversy article. If you're not happy with the wording of then please work it out on the talk pages rather than just a revert. I believe IED is correct. Its certainly not a bomb as the headlines in the news articles would lead you to believe and its probably fair to say that its a bit more than a bag of DIY supplies. GainLine ♠ 10:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

2009[edit]

I believe the section on the april 2009 attacks on should be moved to the Corrib Gas Controversy article. This article is on the protest group Shell To Sea and there's nothing to suggest that its members were responsible as there are several protest groups active in the area. GainLine ♠ 11:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text was cut and paste from the Irish Independent article. Ironically, the reasons for removing the accusations of S2S of this are the same as those that are there for removing allegations of IRMS assaulting Willie Corduff GainLine ♠ 19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My revert[edit]

I reverted the bold content deletion by Bigdaddy1981 per bold, revert, discuss. BigDunc 11:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Article as it stands is a mess with many problems. Bigdaddies edit may have been a step or two too far. The article needs a rework/rewrite. GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may well have cut too much material but was greatly concerned re the weight of frankly pretty minor day-to-day events and also a fairly heavy POV. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in saying these things are a problem, the article has heavy POV and is being used to soapbox. It is however a notable campaign. It needs a major rework though this has been difficult to achieve in the past due to edit warring. A med cab mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-06/Corrib Gas (section) was set up but has petered out. Unfortunately there are quite a few articles connected to this dispute, some in a small way some much more so:-

GainLine ♠ ♥ 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean; I was surprised that its crept even into the main article on the Garda and on County Mayo. I think more balance is needed as more thought as to what is important and what is not within the articles; perhaps some form of consensus might be reached here at least for this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try do a clean up starting on some of the articles only really loosely related, if you have a look at talk pages on these articles you will see I've been trying to do this in the past but meeting a lot of resistance. Any input is welcome GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jailings[edit]

O'Donnell is two weeks into the longest sentence ever handed out to an S2S campaigner, and there's still no mention of it in the article? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indymedia[edit]

The website www.indymedia.ie is the main media outlet used by the activists. There is not one mention of it in the article. Mrchris (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try www.shelltosea.com - a website less controversial than Indymedia which copies sensible articles to its pages and keeps people local and distant up to date with the latest developments. Comhar (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Just in case anyone misses all the pictures - they were uploaded by the now blocked sockpuppet User:Lapsed Pacifist, as they were taken from various pages of http://www.indymedia.ie. The license on the web pages quotes "Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial Reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and Elsewhere" - the non-commercial usage prevents its use on Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:8806 greens2s 21nov06web.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:8806 greens2s 21nov06web.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Motion[edit]

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to remove sanctions related to this topic area which appear to be no longer required. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shell to Sea. 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: 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) 22:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shell to Sea. 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: 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) 07:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shell_to_Sea&oldid=1204332907"