Jump to content

Talk:Conor Murphy

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

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality: censorship

[edit]
I edited this article to add Murphy's UK, but now an Irish nationalist editor has censored this, presumably for political/ideological reasons. This is extremely petty. Why the need to censor facts about which editors are uncomfortable. Murphy, born in the UK, is a UK citizen and the article should say so. Mooretwin (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the editor adding content to prove also please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked. BigDuncTalk 09:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, no-one has "proved" that Murphy is Irish, therefore reference to his nationality should be removed altogether. As regards "proof" of his UK citizenship, here you go: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/Britishcitizenship/borninukorqualifyingterritory/ Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been uncivil, so there is no need to threaten me with being reported or blocked. Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Words such as POV censorship and that my edits are presumably for political/ideological reasons are uncivil and don't assume good faith. Also can't find Connor Murphy on that article so the link is useless. He has an Irish passport so is Irish. Prove that he has not renounced his uk citizenship if you want to add it. BigDuncTalk 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how they are uncivil. It genuinely seems to me that the censorship of reference to Murphy's UK citizenship must be motivated by an Irish nationalist POV (i.e. seeking to deny the reality of NI's membership of the UK due to opposition of said status). In deference to your sensitivity, however, I've changed the title of this discussion.Mooretwin (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to find reference to Murphy in the article. Murphy was born in the UK before 1983 and the article says that means he's a UK citizen. It's straightforward to work out therefore that Murphy is a UK citizen. No-one's denying that he is Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it then that he hasn't renounced it. BigDuncTalk 11:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're turning the conventions of logic on their head. You appear to be suggesting that Murphy has renounced his UK citizenship. If you can "prove" it, then I'll happily agree to the reference being dropped from the article. In the meantime, the logical assumption is that he is a UK citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not addiding it you are so again the onus is on the editor adding content to prove it. BigDuncTalk 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did "prove" it. See 11.38 above. Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please tone this discussion down a bit. The section head could be considered inflammatory, likewise some of the opinions expressed. Could editors please direct there comments to the article and the edits and not the editors. --Domer48'fenian' 18:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses

[edit]

I have removed the insinuation that Conor Murphy's expenses are unacceptable. Not only is adding the insinuation to that sentence original research, but his expenses have received a "clean bill of health". O Fenian (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the information about Murphy's expense claims, balanced by the source you have provided stating he was given a clean bill of health. BTW there was no insinuation about the acceptability or otherwise of the expense claim intended, and you should not suggest otherwise, per WP:AGF> Cheers! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it important to note that, like all MPs, he's entitled to expenses and that his expenses are in order?" Will we add that he wears nice suits and turns up to work on time also? Mo ainm~Talk 19:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article notes that he does not take his seat at Westminster. The information that he nevertheless claims expenses to rent a house in London provides a fuller picture of his activities as an MP. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still has an office in Westminster as far as I am aware and also what you are doing is trying to infer something from what he is entitled to do as an MP which is to claim expenses. Mo ainm~Talk 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for him having an office in Westminster? Seems to me that should be in the article too. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source that states he even uses his office? Mabuska (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain if he has but I know they did have them, i'll see if I can find out. Mo ainm~Talk 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary, which has already been provided. The fact that you consider "Murphy's expense claims" to be "balanced by the source you have provided" can only mean one thing. Since the source I provided proves Conor Murphy's expenses claims to be completely clean, that can only possibly balance negative information about his accounts.
Here are details about the London office and his expenses. Is the documenting of Westminster offices and second homes going to be applied to every MP that has them or are you going to continue singling out Irish republicans for special treatment? O Fenian (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article presently notes that Murphy follows Sinn Fein's "abstentionist" policy, although he evidently has an office at Westminster and claims expenses for a London home. Most MPs do not follow an abstentionist policy, so the fact that they have Westminster offices and homes is not notable. To read the article at it presently stands, one might get the impression that Murphy takes nothing to do with Westminster at all, but we seem to have established that is not correct - he maintains a home and office there to aid him in representing his constituents, as his own press relase makes clear. Now, I confess I don't quite follow your explanation of your apparent failure to AGF, as you accused me of insinuating that the claims were unnacceptable before I offered to balance the information with the source you so kindly provided. Even if such an offer is evidence of bad faith (and I really don't see how it is) you weren't in possession of it when you made your accusation. I suggest you demonstrate your good faith now by striking the comment and we can move on. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not demonstrated why this person is being singled out for special treatment. O Fenian (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree unless it is going to be added to every MP that they claim expenses, which they do as a right, then can't see the reasoning for its addition here. Mo ainm~Talk 10:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a case for adding it to all Sinn Fein MPs, as their articles simply state that they follow an abstentionist policy towards Westminster. Yet we have established that they maintain offices there and claim expenses for London homes. Their own press releases make clear that they do so as part of their efforts to represent their constituents. This is surely relevant information about their activities - at present the articles make them seem entirely negligent. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? All MPs have offices at Westminster, and all (with the exception of ones who live in inner London) are entitled to expenses for London residences, so why are Sinn Féin MPs being singled out for this addition? O Fenian (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because only Sinn Fein MPs practice abstentionism. The information that, despite this, they maintain offices at Westminster and homes in London is presently missing from the article - despite being included on the press release from Conor Murphy you provided. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality and conviction

[edit]

Hi Valenciano, why do you describe the categories you restored as "relevant"? They're not even accurate. Murphy's nationality is Irish and he was sentenced for explosives possession and IRA membership. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gob. On the first one, alright, per the discussion of the Sinn Fein category "British politicians" wouldn't be the best there, but Irish politicians convicted of crimes would. The second one, though, seems perfectly valid. The British considered the IRA a terrorist organisation and therefore membership, and possession of explosives, falls under that category. Valenciano (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's too vague, it's POV and it's a word to avoid. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that someone is a terrorist is POV, saying that someone was convicted of terrorist offences is not. The category is fully relevant. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling them 'terrorism charges' is POV. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The legislation which made IRA membership illegal and under which people, including Murphy, were charged is The Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974. The category is fully relevant. Valenciano (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it needs to be renamed. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to add as you launch your next edit war, Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one trying to make a change against consensus not me ----Snowded TALK 15:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's objecting to the removal of the POV category until we have a more accurate one except you. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, I'm not sure you're right about the qualifications for entry to that category; see Talk: Eamon de Valera. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you seek clarification at the category talk page. I might not be correct, but its how I read it. So best to take it the community, not just deal with individual talk pages ----Snowded TALK 00:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you may not. You're pretty generous with suggestions that don't seem to reflect your own approach, though. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conor Murphy. 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) 07:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conor Murphy. 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) 01:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conor_Murphy&oldid=1255552194"