Jump to content

Talk:Alan Shatter

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

Religion in Info Box

[edit]

One User insists on listing Alan Shatter's religion in the Info. Box. This is not done for other TDs and so is inconsistent. In my view it is also somehow offensive to single out one TD and add his religion to an info. box. His religion and background can be dealt with (and is) adequately in the article. Its as simple as that. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One user does not know how infoboxes work. What a bizarre statement, information which can be added to the article should be left out of the infobox! Yes, it is done for certain TDs. As Ireland is a predominantly Catholic country (> 90%), the same percent of TDs are Catholic and so it is not mentioned in their articles and so not in the infobox and it is not notable. Currently, Trevor Sargent (C of I), David Norris (Anglican) and Mary Hanafin (RC) have the religion mentioned in their infoboxes. Not sure why Mary Hanafin has it but maybe to do with her pro-life views. Seymour Crawford is a Presbyterian but its not mentioned in his infobox. An infobox is there to give a reader, the main biographical information of the subject at a glance; name, dob, place of birth, occupation, alma mater and religion if relevant. If the religion is mentioned in the article then it should also be mentioned in the infobox, its that simple, otherwise its inconsistent. There are many articles that have the religion of the subject in the infobox, like Tony Blair, Benjamin Disraeli and Shimon Peres. For members of the Oireachtas, this is done for members of minority religions like Church of Ireland or Judaism. In Alan Shatter's case, as there as < 1500 Jews in Ireland (out of 4 million pop.) then its noteworhty to mention that he is Irelands only Jewish TD, and it is mentioned in the article, and therefore in the infobox as well.
Info boxes are not the place to describe politicians' religions. Singling out particular persons because they are from a different religions seems disturbing to me. I would welcome other Editors' views. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you make good points. We ought always to assume good faith, and here I think it's safe to say that the religion is being added for information rather than an ulterior purpose. If it is a rule for one politician, then it should be a rule for all. The infoboxes of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Golda Meir, etc., etc., include their respective religions. I think it would be appropriate to include it in Shatter's infobox, with the expectation that all politicians would have their religion (if documented) listed. GeneralBelly (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It's simply a matter of information, there is no singly out or ulterior motive. If a subjects religion is relevant enough to be mentioned in the main article then as pertinent biographical data this should also be reflected in the infobox. Snappy (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Religion, by and large, is an instrument of peace, not of war. Of love, not a discord. A larger number of people in this world choose a religion, a larger number of those commit to a state of peace and love. Community and marriage is the forte of almost all religion. All major religions of the day adapt to the most peaceful and loving ideals and wishes of their followers. Major religions are based on books with guidelines on living life (thou shalt not etc.) People like to know. I assure you, if you read a book about each major religion you would see "Judaism" and you would say, "I know a little bit more about what way that guy was taught." In Germany a school is called a Gymnasium. Attending the Gymnasium every day surely gels some of the Deutsche to identify with places called Gymnasium. In Russia and various Soviet areas, conscription has been national law, perhaps for war, but for national protection and character. If you knew that all Roman structures outside Rome were built by your average roman soldiers, pillars, statues and all, you might think you have gleaned something knowing a man was a soldier of strong training. Seeing that this man, Shatter, is Irish, I get a feel instantly, Ireland, I know something of that place. See then that he is Jewish, I get another little feel, Jewish, I have read that book. If it said he was atheist I could say, ah, sentient life with no belief in mysteries beyond comprehension. A child that has grown to man yet does not wish to grow again. Arguabley, the most contented childhood yet. I would suggest to any atheist to read psychology, and something on all major religion that they might learn without need to identify, to understand. (not psychotherapy) ~ R.T.G 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I am out-voted (although I don't know what the immediate above was about). Going on the logic here, I suppose it would be ok to include "Colour: Black" or "Colour: White" in the info. box too. I disagree ofcourse but give up. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too, don't know what RTG is on about but your logic is flawed. If religion is notable enough to be mentioned in the text then it is relevant for the infobox. See the article of any major British / US politician. This is done all over wikipedia, if you don't like it then you should start an RfC. Snappy (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obama is the first Black US president but I don't think that is listed in the Info. box. I am sure it is mentioned in the article. Whats appropriate in the info. box is not the same as what is appropriate in the article. But as I said above, I am out-voted and give up. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison of race and religion is flawed, race is determined by your parents and you can't change it; religion is your own to chose (although parents do determine that to a large degree). Anyway Obama is actually mixed race. But you still haven't put forward any logical argument who some major biographical data should be omitted from an info box, i.e. a box whose sole purpose is to provide information, information which is already in the subjects article. As I said before this is how its done for all major politicians, so you'll just have to accept it. Snappy (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said, religion is as notable as education and nationality. Persons who claim religion but it is not true are lying and in that case should not be noted as untrue unless proven so, yes? Who is going to say that noting Obama as the first black man president of USA is not notable? Oh durn it someone did. Well, fret not Obama. It is signifigant to me, honest. Religion and all. ~ R.T.G 20:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "you still haven't put forward any logical argument who some major biographical data should be omitted from an info box" - but we appear to agree that Obama's race should not be included in the info-box. His race is surely a major piece of "biographical data" - why do you appear to think that should be omitted but its fine to include religion. You seem to be contradicting yourself. I am consistent - neither should be included. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this has moved off topic a bit, it started as a discussion as to whether religion should be included in an infobox, and you still haven't put forward any coherent argument as to why this piece of major biographical data should be excluded from the infobox if it is notable enugh to be mentioned in the main text. Also, I repeat once again, this is not something I came up with, its pretty standard across all major politicians articles.
On the question of race or more correctly ethicity, which you have moved the discussion on to, I would argue that ethnicity could be included in an infobox because from a purely logical, pedantic popint of view, it can be relevant biographical data but I would never adovate adding it because classifying people by race/ethnicity would be a horrible can of worms and lead to endless edit ears. That said, in Barack Obama's article, his ethicity is mentioned in the main intro text and have you looked at the categories that he is in, e.g. African American academics, African American lawyers, African American history, African American memoirists, African American United States presidential candidate, African American United States Senators and People of mixed Black African-European ethnicity. So it would appear that wikipedia does classify people by race / ethnicity after all, well dunno about you, but makes me think....! Snappy (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong, Redking7! ALL relevant info should be included. don't fall to some nonsense. If you are racist the cops will be looking for you but don't doubt it, they will say "We are looking for the black/green/yellow/purple guy in the jewish cap/hare krisna gear/morris dancing outfit/goth hairdo/samauri suit!" (delete where not relevant) ~ R.T.G 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Orthodox Judaism from the sidebar and replaced it with "Judaism." Unless somebody has a source for the contrary, I think it is fine the way it is. Furthermore, the same is done in entries on Jewish MPs over in the UK and I think we should follow the same here. Olockers (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Alan Shatter has been described by some commentators as the Barbara Lerner Spectre of Ireland, one could argue that the religion/race reference to Judaism should be removed. Otherwise, people may get the impression that Alan Shatter has ulterior motives for advocating mass immigration from Africa, and that those motives are derived from Jewish Talmudic teachings. It's really not polite to point out patterns. 192.40.24.4 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Shandafirde[reply]

Shatter as Israel Firster and Zionist

[edit]

shatter clearly is pro israel and generally supportive of the idea of a Jewish State, including their ongoing colonization and appropriation of Palestinian land. He clearly believes in a state to which only Jews may immigrate, where they have a special status, and has apparently not been troubled by Israel's behaviour.

However, for Ireland he increased immigration and spoke of a 'transnational Ireland' notwithstanding Ireland's long struggle for independence.

Wikipedia is well patrolled by pro Israel editors, who cry 'antisemite' quite easily, and some entries (jewish bolshevism) are absolute fictions.

But Shatter, like Barbara Specter, at a minimum has one standard for Israel and another for Ireland and Europe. He is likely primarily loyal to Israel and his fellow Jew. He has acted against the interests of the ethnic Irish and I have not found any evidence that he criticized the wealthy Jews of Britain for not helping the Irish people during the famine.

The fact of the matter is his dual loyalty and devotion to a Jewish ethnic state versus his view of the right of the Irish TO THEIR OWN HOMELAND is intimately related to his Jewish identity whether or not it has to do with Talmudic eschatology.

It deserves an entry and those editors who perpetually censor anything that might make Israel or 'transnational Jewry' look like other than purely positive should have to explain why Shatters Jewishness was not relevant to his open borders approach to Eire (but never Israel).

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=66782

http://en.meta -- pedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter

http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Ireland.php


There are Barbara Lerner Specters in Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Norway - basically everywhere, and the notion that their liberal immigration approach to everywhere but Israel is not connected to Jewish identity, indeed perhaps Supremacism, is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CathGael (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alan Shatter. 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) 20:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs substantial review

[edit]

This page has had substantial contributions from a user, @Floridapear69, which from their contributions seem to be a single-purpose account. While a lot of these are useful contributions that add to the project as a whole, some of the style does not fit Wikipedia's policies, particularly in terms of impartiality and referencing. While accepting the good faith of the editor, I will leave a notice on the page while it in the process of being checked and appropriately edited. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Shatter&oldid=1257036297"