Jump to content

Talk:Caoimhe Butterly

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

Untitled

[edit]

I read today an article about Caoimhe Butterly and was surprised that so much information are scattered online and no entry for her on wikipedia. I started this article, but do need help to clean up and get the rest of the info into the article. The critics part is next, feel free to help. Abountu 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

[edit]

The entry is a pathetic puff piece, glorifying a sleazy ideologue with no conscience whatsoever.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a lefty glorification poster.

The line "Butterly is a pacifist who is a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), an organisation that seeks non-violent alternatives to armed intifada by mobilising international civil society” comes from artilce "Front line life of an Irish peace crusader" by Michael McCaughan, published in The Observer on Sunday 7 April 2002 and reprinted by the Guardian. It is referenced and all, but it is blatantly false.

ISM is anythng but what is described here. Its support of arch-murderer Arafat destroys all its credibility as a pacifist organization. ISM is led by Palestinian "handlers," or undercover supervisors.

In 2003 press conference its leaders said peace will come when Zionism and Israel are destroyed (by that standard, Hitler was a pacifist.)

ISM tried to hide Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Sukiya, who was arrested in their office in the West Bank in March 2003. An arms cache was also found in an ISM office. Two suicide bombers who bombed Mike’s Place, killing three people, gained entry into Israel under the auspices of the ISM. At the second annual conference in 2005 in Michigan, Sami Al-Arian, was guest of honor, chants included "Itbakh Al-Yahood!" (Kill the Jews!)

What does one do when a properly referenced entry is, together with all the references, blatantly false? 75.82.32.165 (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


thank you so much for making this article on wikipedia. i was also surprised that there was no entry for Caoimhe Butterly on wikipedia. I think shes amazing ..

Ninety-nine percent of this article is propaganda for a bloodthirsty, anti-Semitic terrorist. 70.23.177.216 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 70.23.199.239 you keep trying to put in an opion you have about Caoimhe, that is that she supports some wars. This is not a NPOV and you shouldn't claim it is. If you reckon this is true you need to reference her saying this. Also are you 70.23.177.216? AndrewFleming72 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.23.199.239 since the message above was posted you have reverted the opening section to your POV twice without providing the references requested. I repeat the request that you provide references to support your POV. Having looked at your talk page and the fact you seem seen to engage in ideologically driven revert wars I would suggest in any case that if you want to critiuw Caoimhe you do so in a new Criticisms section as is standard on other pages and that you fully reference these criticisms. AndrewFleming72 10:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to an Ideologically-Driven Revert Warrior

[edit]

Hey, AndrewFleming72, where did you get the idea that I am a dog, who must jump whenever you call? That you vandalize my work and then demand I respond immediately to your complaints entails no obligation on my part to respond to your demands. Talk about a sense of entitlement!

It is not my "opion" that Butterly supports some wars; it is a matter of documented fact. (Or haven't you read up on her? And if not, why do you presume to "edit" her profile?) I have also not inserted my opinion of her. My opinion is that she is a terrorist.

And why do you call her "Caoimhe"? Don't you realize how unprofessional that is? Referring to a public figure by her first name, unless she is known exclusively that way (e.g., "Cher"), reeks of POV, not to mention of the writer being a camp follower. Unless that is, you have a close, personal relationship with her, in which case you would also be disqualified from writing an encyclopedia article about her. I was tempted to change such references, but then I realized that they just underscored the propagandistic character of the passages in which they occur. (If I find that, in the name of professionalism, I ever changed any first-name references to last-name references, I will change them back.)

If you were serious about "NPOV," my edits would be the only ones you wouldn't have messed with.

Now I have inserted supporting links, but I know you will vandalize them, as well. And how do I know that? Because I have become, through hard-won experience, a profiler of the Marxist/wikicensor mind. Marxist wikicensors always condemn and vandalize edits by anyone not displaying a Marxist/wikicensor "POV," and will do anything to force their own POV, which they invariably call "NPOV," on him. Marxist wikicensors always demand (they use the term "request," but if they were really requesting, they wouldn't first vandalize one's work; a request does not involve coercion) that those whom they have censored provide support and arguments for their positions, but no matter how much time and effort a non-wikicensor puts in seeking to appease them, they always respond in the same way as before, by vandalizing his work, which they condemn as "POV," and by telling him that his facts and arguments just aren't good enough. Marxist wikicensors are, however, above justifying their own actions. It is only the non-Marxist who must justify himself. The Marxist wikicensors will also add new charges against the "thought criminal," and seek to have him blocked, while wasting his time.

And so, seeking to justify oneself to a Marxist is an utter waste of time.

I also have knowledge of your personal wikicensor practices. You even vandalized my use of the phrase, "political activist," and put back in "human rights activist." "Human rights activist" is one of the most politically loaded, POV phrases in use today. By contrast, "political activist" is neutral. If you will not so much as tolerate "political activist," you will not tolerate anything that deviates from the party line of deifying Caoimhe Butterly and her manner of supporting terrorism (particularly, the murder of Jewish babies, children, and civilian women and old people). But supporting the slaughter of Jews is NPOV, right? It's only those awful "Zionists," who oppose such slaughter, who are guilty of "POV" in your book, right?

The term "POV" does not begin to do justice to the propagandistic, hagiographic character of this article, save for the corrections I have made. Were you at all interested in neutrality, you would have been cutting out or rewriting most of the article that I had left untouched.

"Having looked at your talk page and the fact you seem seen to engage in ideologically driven revert wars I would suggest in any case that if you want to critiuw [sic] Caoimhe [!] you do so in a new Criticisms section as is standard on other pages and that you fully reference these criticisms."

Wrong. First of all, you are the one engaging in "ideologically driven revert wars." Don't project your vandalism onto me. Second, I realize that you think you are being awfully generous, but you do not get to make 95-99 percent of an article propaganda, and then stick any negatives in a "Criticisms" ghetto. The whole article is supposed to be NPOV, which means language that is as neutral as possible. Admittedly, that is very difficult to do with someone who supports terrorism, while trying to pass herself off as a "pacifist." Hence, I think the best way to go is to counterpose Butterly's fans and critics from start to finish. I am not suggesting that course of action to you, however, because I know that you will find it intolerable.

You claim to have read my talk page, but then ask a question about my identity that no one who had done so would ask. This too is an example of a common form of wikisophistry, which also falls under the rubric of projection. If you read my talk page, you know that I have outed a sockpuppetmaster. But seeing as the sockpuppetmaster is also a Marxist wikicensor, and you wish to smear me in any way possible, you insinuate that I am a sockpuppetmaster, when you know very well that that is not the case.

I can't wait until your next duplicitous flame post. But don't hold your breath waiting for a response. Some of us actually spend time r-e-a-d-i-n-g and r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h-i-n-g, so that we can try and make Wikipedia articles true, rather than trying to bury the truth under layers of ideological talking points, or as we say in English, lies. 70.23.199.239 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd say this rant of your above rather destroys any claim you might have to a neutral POV but lets deal with the issue
The articles you source do not prove you claim that Caoimhe supports non western wars which is the whole point of my objection to your attempt to insert your POV. In fact given that this is obviously a politically charged area of discussion I'm somewhat amazed that you'd attempt to suggest Frontpagemag [1] written by someone who "heads the organizations .. Stop the ISM" or Theconservativevoice.com [2] as neutral sources.
The first article which makes no mention of Caoimhe has the opinion that opposition to the Israeli wall is equivalent to support for terrorism. That is obviously a POV and one that I suspect many would dispute but in any case it makes no mention of Caoimhe so you seem to be trying to pin a POV guilt by association on her.
The second article really should be read by anyone following this discussion - the idea it might represent a NPOV is just bizarre.
Finally Human Rights is a wikipedia category and is the correct way of describing Caoimhe, I linked it to the Human Rights page so that readers could if they wish follow the link and make up their own minds.
Again I would encourage anyone following this to read the two articles citied and decide themselves whether they are NPOV or POV material
Lastly contrary to the assetions above I am neither the original author of this article (a simple check in the history page confirms that) nor am I a marxist

AndrewFleming72 10:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:John Broughton

[edit]

"reverting version with misspelling of the name of the subject of the article, deleted sources, and POV-pushing. Conservativevoice.com publishes EDITORIALS, not neutral articles; that fails WP:RS" User:John Broughton

If you go through the article's history, you will see that, contrary to your claim on my talk page, I did not insert any misspellings. Unbeknownst to me, the misspellings had been in the article since its first version. Rather, I undid Wnjr's c------d, POV version, which brought the misspellings back in (along with my otherwise improved version), whose correction had been the only constructive edits he had made. So much for the insinuation that I had vandalized the article. The claim that I made the article POV is ludicrous. I had inserted a tiny bit of balance into what had been an exercise in pure propaganda; now it is back to pure propaganda. As for The Conservative Voice,[1] it publishes both neutral news articles and commentary.
70.23.199.239 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A source called "The Conservative Voice" is not conservative, but neutral? Forgive me if I don't find that assertion credible! Pustelnik (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [http:theconservativevoice.com]

POV and off-topic

[edit]

It's not that the article has a POV problem (although it has), it's the bulk of its content being a unencyclopedic narrative that is strictly speaking off-topic in a biographical article - while, perhaps, being on-topic in the Battle of Jenin article, for instance (but again not in the narrative form). GregorB 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Caoimhe Butterly. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's an advertisement. 2604:2000:9046:800:7990:524A:3448:3897 (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caoimhe Butterly. 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) 08:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caoimhe_Butterly&oldid=1245878669"