Jump to content

Talk:Gemma O'Doherty/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV

The article is extremely biased in its use of language. I actually agree with O'Doherty 100%, but an encyclopaedia article should not throw around highly subjective emotion-driven words like "blacklisted", "establishment" etc and makes statements without evidence. It makes a series of allegations without proof, claims the so-called "underground media" alerted the UK media to the story, without offering any evidence the latter used the former as a source, other than the author's belief, or personal insights of the author that are unverifiable and so do not belong in encyclopaedias. It reads more as a press release praising O'Doherty than a balanced, neutrally worded verified encyclopaedia article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gemma O'Doherty. 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) 08:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wording of the Lead

I have restored an earlier version of the WP:LEAD which more neutrally lays out the incident which lead to O'Doherty's dismissal. Of particular concern is that O'Doherty confronted Callinan's wife at 2 AM which no source corroborates. There is sourcing that O'Doherty spoke to his wife but I would suggest that best sourcing exists to present the facts that O'Doherty did not violate any convents (sample such sourcing [1]). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying, at least in your second sentence. There is indeed sourcing that O'Doherty confronted Callinan's wife, at night, so that should remain. I'm not finding anything for 2am, so fair enough taking the time out. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bastun: Sorry for not being clear. There is sourcing that suggests The Independent was forced to apologize for suggesting O'Doherty did anything wrong (and pay some level of legal fees). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's referenced and included. I've added a couple more sources for the nighttime doorstepping of Callinan's wife - appears to have been 10pm, per the reports on the Disclosures Tribunal. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added a quote from that Tribunal as well. I think this whole paragraph remains non-neutral and overly detailed for the LEAD. Much of what is currently there really belongs in Career. There is a strong whiff that O'Doherty did something wrong as currently written which was not borne out by the Tribunal, or indeed the Independent itself. I continue to maintain that the previous wording is more in-line with policy (though if you want to change "sacked" to "fired" that's fine by me). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, the Tribunal wouldn't find that, it's not what they were investigating. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have taken a wack at bringing the whole affair into proper perspective, giving a less detailed account both in the LEAD and in the body itself while still covering the main points (she was investigating speedy, went to Callinac's house where she spoke to his wife, was fired, and later the Independent apologized and paid her an unspecified amount). I felt the previous version was both unfair to O'Doherty and also unfair in its defense of O'Doherty. Even absent that affair she'd have been notable for her other reporting, of which more coverage is needed, and so this hopefully stops there from being WP:UNDUE weight attached to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversies section

So, Ms O'Doherty, since November, has become rather more outspoken in her attitudes and opinions. These include support for the anti-vaccination and anti-fluoridation movements, opposition to immigration, and most recentl, comments that have been called racist. The editorrrr has understandably added a controversies section covering these. Yes, the sourcing could be improved (and likely will be), but all are sourced - despite what an anon IP claims. The YouTube source is one literally uploaded by O'Doherty. Anon IP, please feel free to discuss, per WP:BRD, but don't remove sourced content. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The recently inserted controversies section has sourcing issues. Of the three sources one is a self-published youtube video and the other two source do not even state what they are presented as saying. This is quite problematic and libellous. The editors inserting this are liable to be sued as has had with other Wikipedia editors. https://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-lawsuit-yank-barry-10-million/ 213.65.195.254 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes, good point - we should possibly add a section on the threats of libel she's made? WP:NOLEGALTHREATS aside, it's worth noting that yes, one is indeed a self-published youtube video, published by O'Doherty. (Links to YouTube are permitted. Limited use of primary sources are permitted, and certainly are in this context). The other two are newspaper articles by O'Doherty. Additional secondary would of course be better. We can add them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The newspaper articles being used to not show that O'Doherty made those claims. Its simply not in the source given.213.65.195.254 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you for real?
Fluoride: "There's a growing amount of evidence linking fluoride to cancer, osteoporosis and genetic damage. Most governments in Europe have banned it, yet Ireland continues to add tooth-preserving acid to the public water supply. Gemma O'Doherty reports..." and she goes on to state "...dosing drinking water with a toxin whose long-term health effects are still largely unknown..." "Despite all the evidence which now exists about the dangers of fluoride to health...".
Vaccination: "But for a few tragic children, the vaccine is suspected to be the cause of autism, a serious mental disorder." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Even so, there has to be evidence it caused a controversy. You cant just dig up some almost two decade old article and claim it caused controversy without evidence. If there is no evidence provided it caused controversy then it should be removed.213.65.195.254 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with 213.65.195.254 that we can't claim it caused controversy without evidence it caused a controversy. I don't agree that it should just be removed. There is a Journalism section. I am moving her views to that. If somebody comes up with a "O'Doherty Claim Causes Controversy" source, it can be added after the sentence in the Journalism section. "Controversy" sections are sometimes justified, but more usually not. Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Scolaire the issue still remains as to why a one-off article is worthy mentioning.213.65.195.254 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
What's the "one-off" article? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The two Irish independent articles are two almost two decade old articles dug up from the depths of god knows where. These are the only provided instances of O'Doherty airing those views. Why on earth should views expressed in random articles almost two-decades ago be included? I fail to see how this is notable content.213.65.195.254 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You're wrong. Try reading the article and associated sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed part of a line .

The line Read : "O'Doherty has written or spoken about fluoride having links to cancer, osteoporosis and other ailments,[11], despite this being against the views of the majority of the scientific community .

I removed the part highlighted in bold because the source does not say who the "majority of the scientific community" is ? nor does the source dispute any of O'Dohertys views in relation to flouride in our drinking water .

I also removed another part from the same paragraph that said .. O'dohertys views on vaccines had been rebutted by the "wider scientific community" . Again Who is the "wider scientific community" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irelandwatch (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added links to Water fluoridation#Safety and Causes of autism#Vaccines, so that readers can see for themselves what the issues she was writing about are. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The anon IP needs to read both WP:BRD and WP:PRIMARY. WP:YouTube is permitted as a source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree that O'Doherty's YouTube video is a valid source for O'Doherty's views, and can't see any reason why the article can't say she said what she said. Counting The editorrrr, who first added the content, Bastun, and me, there is a clear consensus to include it. The editorrrr's Bold edit was Reverted by the IP, and there has been a Discussion, so BRD is satisfied. Scolaire (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Two things. One, you have failed to explain how an off-hand remark in one single youtube video, not reported on by one single Irish media organisation is notable for inclusion. Two, myself and Irelandwatch oppose its conclusion so how can there justifiably be said to be a consensus?213.65.195.254 (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Logic? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be useful if somebody could say at what time in the video she makes that remark. I have been taking it in good faith that she was accurately quoted, but I would like to hear the context, and there is no way I am going to listen to a one-and-a-half hour video for that. Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Listen from 1:23:00 - actual remark is 1:23:15. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Scolaire, you have not addressed the point of contention. In your view how exactly are these comments notable?213.65.195.254 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds like the guy is talking about globalism/anti-globalism and she suddenly veers off into prettied-up anti-immigration rhetoric, talking about "people who come here". I'm re-formatting the ref to include the time, so readers can go to that point and hear what she said. I'm also leaving the quote parameter in case anybody wants to add a longer quote. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
AN report opened... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC) And IP since blocked. Now there's a shock. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This is probably not a reliable source for the purposes of the article, but it's certainly an answer for anyone claiming that the quote was "an off-hand remark in one single YouTube video". The great thing is that all the replies were supportive of the Malawian woman, and thanked O'Doherty for giving them the good news. Scolaire (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

YouTube part two

As clear from this discussion, there is consensus to include the quote from the YouTube video. An anon IP is talking about slander on my talk page. I'm very unclear about how directly quoting someone is slander, but there you go... Needless to say, they won't be censoring this article as no BLP violation occurred. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:YOUTUBE, YouTube can be used as a source. I am unclear how it can be claimed that a violation of BLP occurs by quoting something someone says on their own YouTube channel. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I failed to check this page upon getting this request earlier today. Airplaneman ✈ 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice bit of caving in there Airplaneman. Note to self: Wikipedia is ok with tiny snippets of out-of-context quotes designed to portray a person in a negative, one-dimensional light. Hitherto, I had thought more of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.254.147 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose using this primary source in the article, there really needs to be a secondary source which can discuss this. WP:PRIMARY; it'd be fine if it was something more objective but this claim needs a secondary source. So using this primary source and engaging in WP:OR is not something I'm in favour of. It should be removed. Keep to proper secondary sources for this article, especially with contentious points such as her supposed beliefs, etc. to avoid negative caricaturing. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Irishpolitical. All the sentence needs a secondary source to remain in the entry. We can even discuss to degrade the notion of "secondary source" to a simple news piece highlighting the snippet (which if remarkable should not be difficult to find in news in the Age of Internet) without any analytical input from the author, but editors pulling snippets from the "primariest of primary sources" is not appropiate.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There is obviously no WP:OR involved in including a direct quote from the source and yes, while secondary sources would be better, WP:PRIMARY and WP:YOUTUBE both cater for the inclusion of a direct quote. You'd be familiar with that already, though, IP, having introduced many WP:PRIMARY sources to your own favourite article, National Party (Ireland, 2016). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with both Irishpolitical and Asqueladd but really that should go without saying. Bastun needs to declare his interest and reasons for instigating the negative rhetoric by first pulling the quote almost from thin air and second by obsessively seeking to retain it; I could point you to umpteen quotes and written articles by Gemma O'Doherty (the subject) that would refute the intended characterisation of her being a racist. The offending, out-of-context, quote should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.153.141 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet you were the one fighting tooth and nail against WP:PRIMARY sources on that particular article, yet the rule seems not to apply when it's a point you're trying to push. I stand by my earlier comment opposing the inclusion of this out-of-context primary source quote inferred by you personally from a youtube video, the inclusion of which is highly charged politically and an attempt to negatively characterise this WP:BLP. Irishpolitical (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yet you were the one fighting tooth and nail to include WP:PRIMARY sources on that article despite it contravening the relevant part of the policy, which you again seem oblivious to: "Policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." As confirmed by consensus with multiple other editors. In this article, no interpretation of primary source material is being carried out. G'OD speaks at length about "Irishness" and the need to "reclaim" it. It's one of her hobby horses. (Oh - there was also time you were trying to include material from a primary source but also wanted to change what was being quoted at the same time... talk about wanting your cake and eating it...) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The crisis of whataboutism continues! The fact is some very good points have been raised here which you have yet to overcome or provide an answer for. You are pedantically picking which rules apply to you, while nitpicking a quote with no context or secondary source which elaborates on it from a YouTube video to try and paint GO'D as a racist and that is your motivation here. Find a proper source to back it up or remove it. Irishpolitical (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary. I am quoting O'Doherty from her own show, where she talks about "reclaiming Irishness", something she often talks about and which therefore should be included. It is O'Doherty herself who says "If that's racist, bring it on!", not me. Nowhere have I claimed that GO'D is a racist, because I'm not interpreting her words, just presenting them. So once again and on yet another article, I've to ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Bastun clearly has, a yet undeclared, interest in characterising Gemma O'Doherty as a "racist". So let us look at the evidence that Bastun is giving for this caricature. By, "reclaiming Irishness", GO'D means returning to the version of Irishness as envisioned by those who took part in the Easter rising and Wolfe Tone, as opposed to the multi-cultural, globalist, US corporate vision of Ireland as pushed currently by the government of Ireland, EU, and US interests, the long-term benefits of which to the Irish population are unproven and perhaps even sinister. Although this seems a reasonable, rational argument for debate, adopting this viewpoint in Ireland today, invariably results in one being labelled a 'racist', hence GO'D's statement, "if that makes me a racist...". In this context, Bastun either does not understand hyperbole or is feigning literalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.153.141 (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you actually listened to the broadcast? At about 1hr 20m in, her guest is indeed talking about globalism and anti-globalism, and she responds by saying how she admires the way the Danes got rid of their Somali immigrants by telling them to go home and build their own country, and that "we" should do the same with the "people who come here". And that's after saying, "we need to reclaim our Irishness...and if that's racist, bring it on! But we are going to make Ireland Irish again". That has nothing whatever to do with Wolfe Tone, the Easter Rising, globalism, big business or anything else. "Reclaim our Irishness", in the context in which she used it, means Ireland for ethnic Irish people, not immigrants. Argue about primary and secondary sources all you like, but don't try to pretend that she meant anything other than what she said. Scolaire (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Scolaire: The Wiki reader is meant to infer all of that from the quote on the page as it stands? Of course not. If Bastun (or you) would flesh-out the quote along the lines of what you have done here then do so (using actual quotes mind, rather than, "she admires the way the Danes GOT RID of their...etc"). I, and others, would have no cause to complain then about the one-dimensional caricature (i.e. don't listen to her, she's a RACIST!!!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.153.141 (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
So you're not denying what she said? You're no longer claiming that she was declaring her belief in the Proclamation of the Republic and her opposition to US corporate policy, and that that resulted in her being called "racist". That's fine. I'll leave you and Bastun to work out the fine details. Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Scolaire: The long and short of it is that the out-of-context quote needs to be either removed or put into context. I do not hold out much hope for the latter if Bastun has anyting to do with it, unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.153.141 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The context is present and perfectly clear. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to remind you both what I said eight weeks ago, that when I re-formatted the citation I left the "quote=" parameter in it, but blank, in case anybody wants to add a longer quote. Scolaire (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone has added another random quote. Is this normal? As far as I am aware, Wiki is not meant to be used as some kind of crime against PC register. Should I be waiting in the wings to grab random quotes portraying the subject in a good light for balance? Wiki is really going downhill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.153.141 (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Claims that the Christchurch mosque shootings were a "false flag operation" were outlandish even for O'Doherty, were covered in the media, and were responsible for venues cancelling her bookings. So no, not quite a random quote... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I have resaon to believe that Bastun may be the same person (or at least closely related to) as editorrr, "both" of whom have been using Wiki as a sort of PC crimes register. Very unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.153.141 (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation page is thataway... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Meeting cancellations

There is no evidence in any of the citations that specify the reasons for the hotel cancellations , it is a false statement to claim that bookings were cancelled because of Ms O'Doherty's views on any issue . If the author wants to include this , they must give citations which specifically state that these were the reasons the Hotels cancelled , otherwise , these speculations must be left out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irelandwatch (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement "Venues in Cork and Sligo cancelled public meetings that had been booked by ACI." is factual, referenced, and contains no allegations or speculation. Any inference you are drawing is your own. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Irelandwatch, please stop edit warring. You opened a section at the BLP Noticeboard (and didn't mention it here) and got agreement to remove a statement that inferred why the Cork meetings were cancelled. That is all. Black Kite and I may disagree on whether the entirely factual and referenced statement "Venues in Cork and Sligo cancelled public meetings that had been booked by ACI" should be included or not, but we'll discuss it without edit-warring. Admins have no special perogative when it comes to content disputes. Meanwhile, your revert (without mentioning it in the edit summary) has re-introduced further inaccuracies, including the incorrect year for an award, removed wikilinks, mixed up references, and merely being nominated for an award. Please self-revert. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Bastun , I am not edit warring , I'm only interested in a factual account , you deliberately added the line about the Hotel cancellations right at the end of a paragraph detailing her views on the mosque shootings which suggests to readers that the Hotels cancelled because of those views . There is NO SOURCE to support that claim , this has been agreed with others and explained to you in no uncertain terms .
If you want to add the line about the hotel cancellations , it must be put in the proper context and not in the position you would like it in that appears to suit your narrative . You can revert yoursef BUT make sure that line is either omitted or put in the proper context or I'll be back .
Best Regards, Irelandwatch (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Handily, I didn't make any such claim, and none appears in what I added. "This has been agreed with others" is untrue, therefore, as it refers to the claim about why the meetings were cancelled. Repeating something multiple times does not make it true. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Once again - there is no "allegation" in the factual statement (whose postion was changed to a new paragraph, while still maintaining chronological order) "n March and April 2019, venues in Cork and Sligo cancelled public meetings that had been booked by ACI." This is referenced to two reliable sources. There is no "agreement" with admins that you can point to. Perhaps Black Kite can clarify. Until then, please stop edit-warring. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Bastun , firstly you have created a paragraph with 1 line which on its own makes no sense , its like me writing .. she wore a different outfit on such and such a day. on its own it makes no sense as to why you would put that in . However , the position of this line suggests to readers that the hotels cancelled because of her views , there is no source to support that claim . regards Irelandwatch (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no claim! So please stop stating that there is. It's a bald, factual statement. Anything you're reading into it is entirely in your head. Anyway - problem about to be solved... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Career

Career: I have edited the introduction to specify her career path in Independent Newspapers and the type of work she did and also to qualify that with Michael Clifford's significant article in The Examiner which I have referenced. However the page was closed for editing (by less experienced editors) before I could place her other freelance and film making work in proper context (although it is referred to in the body of the article). Her intention to contest European elections has surfaced today on Twitter and other media and should be inserted. I have sourced a Twitter comment by her critical of the church for cancelling her Schull meeting. What is is the status of Twitter in Wikipedia reference terms?Lord Inchiquin (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on her declaration of her intention to run for Europe. An article subject's own tweets come under WP:SELFPUB and can be included if the conditions there are met. I've not seen her tweets about the church but if they're extremely critical/conspiracy-based, we might need a secondary source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits 1st May

Hi Winged Blades of Godric,

What is Ireland Employment Appeal Tribunal?

"On 24 September, she received a nomination for president-ship from the Laois County Council" is a) completely ungrammatical, and b) materially incorrect. She received a nomination to stand for election to the office of president.

You have removed "O'Doherty is being sued for defamation by the estate of the late Sean McEniff, after a judge granted the estate leave to continue a case initiated by McEniff prior to his death. The case relates to a documentary, Mary Boyle: The Untold Story, about the disappearance of a child in 1977, produced by O'Doherty and published on YouTube," cited to an Irish reliable source. This is entirely factual, and does not violate BLP. Why?

You have removed much of the contents of the "Opinions" section. Why? No BLP violation occurs. There are quotes included from O'Doherty's own words. WP:SELFPUB is clear that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field." There is consensus (see sections above) for the inclusion of much of this content. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

For information, the Employment Appeals Tribunal is a judicial body in Ireland which, at the time of O'Doherty's dismissal, adjudicated in cases where people alleged their statutory employment rights had been breached. Neiltonks (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, correct. And the previous sentence which dealt with the issue read "In December 2014, the Irish Independent admitted they were wrong to dismiss O'Doherty, issued an apology to her and paid her an undisclosed sum in damages to settle a defamation action in the High Court and a case brought by her to the Employment Appeals Tribunal." Hence my confusion over the changes that introduce a redlink. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What is Ireland Employment Appeal Tribunal?--You need to read the source or do a GSearch; given that I have been here for long enough not pull that out of my magic-hat. In case, you are unaware, red links are used when there is a a prospect of potential article. See WP:REDEYES.
On 24 September, she received a nomination for president-ship from the Laois County Council" -- No; it is not ungrammatical but certainly, can be better-phrased.
You have removed.....This is entirely factual, and does not violate BLP. Why? Community interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME is that it's a strict no-go territory for individuals who are non-public figures and that for public figures, suing, accusation of crimes et al are mentioned iff multiple reliable sources have covered it. Provide two more sources and re-insert, at your pleasure.
You have removed much of the contents of the "Opinions" section. Why?...... As to using selective Youtube bytes and tweets, (which somehow only portray her in a negative light), we don't ever do that for reasons outlined over WP:WEIGHT. If secondary sources have mentioned them and drawn their inferences, we faithfully report that. To give you one example; we don't select some random shitty quote from Trump's account and then mention it over his article and ......
My attention was invoked via an OTRS ticket and as much as she seems to be a character of questionable traits (from the few news-reports about her views, politics and all that, I managed to read across yesterday), we were clearly transgressing into hit-job territory. ∯WBGconverse 12:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
1) I know there is no such thing as Ireland Employment Appeal Tribunal, but that there is an Employment Appeals Tribunal, which was referenced in the sentence you changed. You have changed the sentence from something correct to something incorrect.
2) No, I'm sorry, Laois County Council did not "nominate O'Doherty for the president-ship" (which is ungrammatical). They nominated her to stand as a candidate in the election to the presidency. I am guessing English is not your first language (which is fine), but maybe give me some credit for knowing how Irish politics works?
3) The words in O'Doherty's YouTube videos and tweets are O'Doherty's words - if you think they're shitty, that's on you, not her. There is a consensus for inclusion of several of O'Doherty's more notable opinions.
4) I've not come across OTRS in my years here. It appears to be a way to bypass talk pages and breach WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CANVASthough. Do we get to know who opened a ticket? What they said? Were they an IP, or a single-purpose account? You're aware that such have been trying for some time to whitewash the article? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(1) Appeal/Appeals -- Keep those nit-pickings away; just change obvious typos and all that.
(2) I am unsure as to what's the exact un-grammatical stuff.
This piece states:-Republican party nominates Donald Trump for president. Replace that with $ABC$ nominates $XYZ$ for president.
Obviously, Trump had to fight Hillary (and a lot many) in the elections to be ultimately elected as the president and it indeed means Republican party nominates Donald trump to stand as a candidate in the election to the presidency.....
Alternatively, Film XYZ has been nominated for several Oscars is common headline across all major newspapers, at a certain time. That hardly means that XYZ will get all the Oscars....
OED defines nominate as Propose or formally enter as a candidate for election or for an honour or award.
If you have problems with president-ship, OED defines it as The office of president; presidency. and as an example use:-frontrunners for the presidentship.
(3) Create a thread over BLPN or a RFC. (Or, ask for some third opinion.) I am damn defiant that you cannot source certain piece-meal views of her from random tweets and videos, based on your editorial judgement, as to what deserves inclusion and what not.
(4) OTRS contains privileged data and am not allowed to discuss about it. I certainly do not get any walk-over for having access to it and that's what matters. I raised the issue to make you aware about how I (who have not ever edited any Irish article) landed over here...... ∯WBGconverse 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Dude, seriously - wtf does "In a subsequent appeal over Ireland Employment Appeal Tribunal" even mean?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Likewise: "Similar circumstances prevailed as to her defamation case over the High Court." What?! She sued the High Court? I've no problem in principle with these sentences being adjusted, but a) why? What was there before is fine and doesn't paint the subject in any better or worse light; and b) what was there before was in correct, grammatical English. (And I'm damn defiant about that, lol!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You are shifting goalposts. I see that there is no rebuttal as to how my earlier sentence was ungrammatical. ∯WBGconverse 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It's ungrammatical in the sense that it makes no sense. For reference: One does not take a case over a court. One takes a case (or appeal) over (or due to) a [reason or cause] to a court. Alternatively, a court may hear a case over a dispute. E.g., Bastun took a case to AN/I, over their native English being challenged by a non-native speaker. In Hiberno-English, which this article is written in, one runs for a presidency (as per your own example). Not a president-ship. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You might try searching major newspapers for the string :- appeal(ed) over High Court/ Supreme Court/Court of Arbitration (with the caveat that there exists prominent non-Hiberno English publications, who probably publish grammatically correct stuff.)
I concede that my usage of subsequent appeal was definitely wrong; because it means something entirely else.
Also, accusing someone of being ungrammatical (and continuing it over two rebuts), for merely failing to abide by local dialect, as to a single word, is pretty mind-boggling. MOS dictates that regional articles shall follow local dialect style and I have not an iota of clue about Irish dialect but that does hardly mean being rebutted with accusations of writing ungrammatical stuff w/o any explanation. ∯WBGconverse 17:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Well done. Now you just need to correct the sentence about the Employment Appeals Tribunal (as Neiltonks pointed out, it's also a judicial body, i.e., with the status of a court.) While you're doing that, you might want to change it to its actual name? ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not bothered about the O'Doherty quotes (though some have been covered in RS) but I will point out that the Sean McEniff case, which was removed, has been heavily covered in reliable sources, and not just in Ireland - Sunday Times (UK), Journal, Irish Times, Irish Independent. This isn't a recent thing either - here's the background from the Irish Examiner in 2016. It was/is a big story and probably should be included. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    Obviously, there's no issue if multiple sources have covered it. It ought to go in, in that case and Bastun has already re-incorporated that with more sourcing, which is good enough.
    But, quoting her tweets and subtly portraying her as a racist falls in clearly prohibited territory.
    It might be very true that she is a despicable person but even then, BLP needs to be religiously enforced. In the most cursory of glances, I came across a reliable source that mentioned her anti-abortion and anti-LGBT views and have already incorporated that during my initial edits. ∯WBGconverse 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry to pitch in here. Only ready about her for the first time today and found my way to her WP BLP and made a few small edits for clarity. She clearly is a controversial BLP. Should we try and confine her "controversial views" to the Opinions section (e.g. both political and non-political) instead of spreading them throughout the BLP? They are so widespread that it is easy to get confused about what sections they should fall under? Might help tighten up the BLP, and ensure that issues re proper WP sourcing of these views are kept in one area? Britishfinance (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits - they're good additions. I'm unsure about why we should or could confine her controversial views to one section. Livestreaming and livetweeting them are, pretty much, what she does right now: Christchurch? False flag! Notre Dame? An attack by the state on the church! A shop has kids' tops with rainbows or unicorns on? It's the trans gay agenda! The problem is sometimes this is going to be just livestreamed, other times it'll be something she raises at an ACI public meeting. How does one differentiate? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think by splitting out these views, they avoid the whole BLP looking unbalanced (even though the BLP subject herself might be the source of the imbalance!). It lets us get the encyclopedic fact-base of her BLP down in a less controversial way. She is making so many "strong" statements now across so many platforms that they don't really relate to any real "policy" subjects, other than her own personal views? Good thing is that the quality of RS repeating these views are getting better. If she does formally campaign in the Euro elections, we will get at least one good Irish RS that will do a piece on her which can become the anchor RS for these views in her BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal details

Thanks Damac for the details in the Personal section. Feels like you know the subject? How come Peter’s obituaries hardly make any mention of Gemma? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, silly question, just realising that she probably wrote one of them. Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

hi , I removed this line "O'Doherty has been described in the Irish media as a conspiracy theorist and holds controversial views on a range of subjects"

firstly , no source is given for this . secondly describing ms o'dohertys views as "controversial" is weasel wording , whats controversial to one person may not be controversial to another Irelandwatch (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy views

I have tried to tidy up the structure of this BLP to give her Journalism career a fair view - she clearly is a multiple award-winning investigative Irish journalist, and she is cited in the WP articles of some of her biggest stories. We should make sure that this part of the BLP holds up as I can see various IP/new editors have tried to degrade some of the content around her journalism career to position her as a travel writer who is still getting sued for her youtube videos.

Her "strong" views are obviously problematic and there is plenty of good WP:RS from mainstream Irish media calling her (and them) conspiratorial.

However, I am right in saying that these views aggregate into:
1. Medical views (fluoride and HPV vaccine) - I think she was a medical writer at one stage (she got an award in 2011), and when you read the articles she is more nuanced on the issues.
2. Catholic views - she seems to have the views of a far-right Catholic platform: pro-life (anti-abortion), anti-LGBT, Notre Dame quotes about Free Masons.
3. Nationalism view - she does have plenty more (not yet in this BLP) about controlling immigration in Ireland (similar to UK Brexit Party / UKIP).

Rather than list random views that make her look very unbalanced/extreme, it is worth aggregating these views per above? Am I trying to make sense of nonsense?
Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Her articles are old, at this stage, and she has changed many of her views since 2015. Though she may have written occasional medical articles, I'm not sure that she was a medical writer per se. Her Twitter feed and YouTube channel are not so nuanced - Big Pharma, anti-HPV vaccine, autism linked to vaccines, attacking autism campaigners such as Fiona Pettit-O'Leary, promoting those who recommend... "alternative"... unapproved "treatments"... for autism, including those derived from bleach.
2) Yes, pretty much.
3) Yes, she does.
4) There's also nothing about her other views (some also promoted by ACI), including opposition to 5G because radiation/populace control/genocide, chemtrails, how people who watch certain TV programmes or read certian newspapers are traitors, how kids clothing with rainbows/unicorns are promoting the gay/trans agenda, climate change is a lie and Greta Thunberg‎ is a Nazi shill... I'm genuinely not sure how you'd reference them, because all of this is on her Twitter feed and YouTube channel, in her own words, but the media only rarely reports on it. WP:SELFPUB should be sufficient to use whatever ACI is also promoting, one would imagine, but others apparently disagree. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Wow, thanks for that. Hadn’t seen the 5G stuff (of which there is a lot), and the rest. Her twitter/YouTube material seems impossible to categorize, some very wild material in there that reads like infowars. Britishfinance (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Still chipping away on this BLP. It seems she was always an aggressive journalist in her Irish Independent days but did achieve things. However, when she was fired and won her court case, and her husband got sick and died shortly after, she seemed to really go full throttle. She creates a twitter account in 2014, and it is incredibly conspiratorial. Much more like infowars type stuff than even UKIP. There are whole Reddit posts on her descent into highly conspiratorial views. It is crazy stuff. Britishfinance (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I have split out a twitter sub-section in her Opinions section. Interesting that she does rank well in terms of overall journalists for traffic. However, this subsection might be a useful device to "collate" other controversial tweets as they arise (I have seen this done on other similar BLPs), without affecting the rest of the article? Britishfinance (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I notice that her twitter account has most of her content marked with “The following media includes potentially sensitive content”. Is this notable (e.g should we note in her Twitter section), and is it Twitter or her that is doing it? Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This is an interesting summary of some of her tweets Gemma O’Doherty and Conspiracy Theories, however, I don't think that this ref is acceptable for WP. I have added a few more refs from proper newspapers on her most notable tweets, but it seems they are more extreme than even being reported by secondary WP:RS. Britishfinance (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not acceptable. ∯WBGconverse 13:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Britishfinance, Twitter's algorithm (based on machine learning + user-feedback) executes that, AFAIR. And no, we don't note such stuff. ∯WBGconverse 13:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric. Thanks for that. I think the sourcing is now as good as can be made for what is presented. Clearly, there is a lot more "difficult" material there, but I am sure it will eventually find its way into coverage from full RS (as has happened with other material). This subject was clearly a productive journalist in her earlier days (although perhaps still driven to wilder views), however, since 2014 (her court case, death of her husband, setting up of her twitter ac), she really got into more troubling material. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • Is WP:SELFPUB enough to cover the likes of this - where O'Doherty is essentially saying if she got into power, her party would override employment rights and take on the role of prosecutor, instead of the DPP? Mainstream media seems not to cover most of her self-published material, but this is surely newsworthy? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I notice on the Alex Jones BLP there is the use of his direct tweets E.g. reference [#2] (but in all cases, they use his full tweet). I personally feel however that we should hold back on this and just stick to tweets picked up by WP:RS. Every tweet in this article is from a secondary source with enough notability to have their own WP article (and therefore by definition supports the notability of the tweet vs. us picking tweets out). There is an election going on, and the article captures the issues regarding her controversial side clearly (I think?). Ultimately, now that the Euro election is happening, secondary RS are going to start updating on her notable tweets. I would feel we are better "following" the secondary RS? Britishfinance (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Recent revisions of this article have placed WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on her tweets and other WP:PRIMARY sources. As such, there have been a lot of inferals made by editors (almost all negative) and added to the article without secondary source qualification, an example of this is Britishfinance interpreting her anti-abortion opinions as being indelibly linked to political Catholicism. While that may be so, her stating a pro-life view on twitter does not mean she is an arch-Catholic necessarily and the two are not necessarily linked. This is the trouble with not having a secondary source to provide context to these tweets.
This article is on the whole a mess bordering on a hatchet-job, created using quote mining and flying in the face of WP WP:NPOV standards. There have been references in the media to her controversial assertions, these should be included. But this WP:BLP is running roughshod over WP:NPOV. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are almost no WP:PRIMARY sources left in this article, they are almost all secondary; anything regarding her tweets is also secondary (and we are leaving a lot of very controversial material out by doing this). There are many positive/balanced views quotes about her (e.g. Guardian quote on her being a leading journalist; mention of her award from Mary Boyle, mention of her breaking the McClean case, her views on why she lost the Presidential election; her views on her anti-immigration stance; the popularity of her Twitter account (using hard survey data). Your comment an example of this is Britishfinance interpreting her anti-abortion opinions as being indelibly linked to political Catholicism; all I said was that her anti-abortion and anti-LGBT views (which are supported by independent secondary RS) were religious views (which they generally are), but was happy to have that edited out as I did not want to use WP:PRIMARY from her Twitter account to support it (which it does). This is a controversial BLP and we haven't even got to the WP:SELFPUB material proposed above, which is used in other controversial BLPs like Alex Jones (check out his 2nd ref on his article). I am not suggesting that we use WP:PRIMARY (as I will not above), but to say that this article is a "hatchet-job" is not backed up by the facts. Britishfinance (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Mary Boyle doc

I've removed reference to the awards for the Mary Boyle documentary. Apparently you upload your film to YouTube, pay an "entrance fee" to an online festival (?!), and may be one of over 100 award recipients that month. And if you don't win in November, then they give out similar numbers of awards in February. And in May. And so on... Likewise, removed the viewing numbers for the documentary, as it's meaningless. Several versions of Avenue Q's "Everyone a little bit racist" have over 3 million views, each... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well done on that, I didn't realise so my bad on including these awards as being notable. I think we should capture this as an efn note on the Mary Boyle section (to prevent future editors making the same mistake) and include the Independent reference in the note. I can't get behind the paywall of that article or find a cache of it - could you past the relevant quote(s) from the article here and we can add to the ref? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I found it on a news aggregator site last night before finding the original article. Can't find the same site right now, though. Try here (not the site I found yesterday); I'll try again tonight from home if that doesn't work. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Irelandwatch. Dude. Yes. I have an agenda. It's to help write a neutral encyclopedia. This is the talk page. It's where we discuss stuff for inclusion and removal. Here's the section where there's an explanation for, and consensus to, remove the stuff about the Mary Boyle doc "awards" and number of views.
Similarly, the other bit you're saying is unreferenced? See the section immediately above. A new reference was added, and there's consensus for inclusion. Consider this your 3RR warning. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Additional 3RR edit-warring warning issued to Irelandwatch after this morning's additional revert. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Another revert, with an edit summary of "RV. Please engage on the talk page"... and yet, here you aren't. Please tell us - why do you think paid-for awards and the number of views a YouTube video have had are notable? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
And again. "Talk to me . see talk page" ~ yet you're not talking. This is tendentious editing at this stage... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ref

Supports a controversy around a number of this individuals positions

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-event-is-axed-after-campaigner-complaints-hsc85g9bq

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinions section

source 65 , an irish medical times article is used as a source for following statements

"However she has drawn controversy for promulgating links between fluoridation and cancer,[65]" "She has been criticised by the Irish medical profession for promoting such views.[65]"

The irish medical times article referenced at 65 simply re-states O'Doherty's position on the subject , it does not say her views are controversial nor does it criticise o'doherty for promoting her views , as a result , these lines cannot stand .

source 66 and source 35 are used as a source for the following statement in brackets

"(the HPV vaccine, which she has falsely claimed is untested, in particular)"

There is no evidence presented in source 66 (irish independent article) that supports the assertion that O'Doherty "falsely claimed" the HPV vaccine is untested

source 35 (business post article) is written by journalist Hugh O’Connell of the Sunday Business Post . While I couldn't read its contents because of paywall , Hugh O'Connell is the husband of Fine Gael parliamentary assistant Theresa Newman whos two sisters Mary Newman and Kate O'Connell are also both long term fine gael members . It is not unreasonable to apprehend therefore that an article written by Hugh O'Connell about a competitor to the Fine Gael party may be biased in some way and therfore this source I believe should be left out to maintain complete impartiality on the subject.

Irelandwatch (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This needs to be rewritten properly. There's no doubt that O'Doherty thinks the MMR vaccine causes autism (simply false), that she thinks that flouridation causes cancer (no evidence), and that the HPV vaccine is untested (also false, and dangerous). Her positions are, therefore, obviously controversial. But such a section needs to be sourced properly. I cannot find anything that specifically says that O'Doherty thinks 5G causes cancer, but then there's no evidence to say that it does (or indeed doesn't) anyway, we may as well say that she thinks rabbits cause cancer, so it's a pointless sentence. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Will come back to the above later when I have time as her anti-vaccine views appear a lot in a lot of WP:RS; however, a rewrite might be in order. Separately, I have reverted the deletion in the lede of the media calling her a "conspiracy theorist". We have several major Irish, and UK RS, referring to this directly. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, it is one of the most distinctive elements of this subject and the word/term comes up a lot in RS on her. In addition, having this sentence prevents other editors from listing her most noted conspiracy theories in the lede (as I can see has happened), which makes the BLP less stable. Better we just mention it as a line in lede and then people can read more in the body of the article where it is appropriately referenced. Britishfinance (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Black Kite and Britishfinance. Many of her positions, as outlined in the article, either already have RS supporting their inclusion, or are listed as policy positions on the ACI website (though admittedly the 5G one merely says "No 5G" without saying why). There are plenty of sources stating that she's a conspiracy theorist. The lede is a summary of the article and doesn't necessarily require separate referencing if the summary is expanded later and referenced there.
As to the convoluted family tree of people who've written about O'D, thankfully WP is not censored and the fact that someone's spouse happens to work in the Dáil and who themselves has relatives that are members of a political party does not mean we can't use their articles as reliable sources. We don't research and approve people's family trees before deciding they can be used as sources. O'D herself would obviously oppose such a restriction - after all, one of her platforms is to "Promote free speech and free press" rather than to censor them based on familial memberships. (Although I have to admit that I'm entirely unclear on how a platform of "Promote free speech and free press" can be reconciled with this tweet, where she says that if ACI come into power, her party will fire (how?) the Director General of RTÉ and prosecute her and the Head of News. And they should be "very afraid." Threatening the media like that seems to me to be the opposite of promoting a free speech and free press... I mean, what sort of powers does she think a political party has in ireland? The power to arrest and prosecute is a new one on me. At least in Ireland. But I digress...) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Just noticed the "small adjustment" to the Opinions section. It's not a "small adjustment" - it excises nearly 1k of text. I'm very disinclined to suspend WP:BRD based on that edit summary. You were Bold. You've (now) been Reverted. By all means, Discuss. If something is missing a citation, you can add a 'citation needed' template, and even helpfully let us know in the Talk page. I'll happily find you a reference for the 'untested' HPV vaccine claim in the next while. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The things I do for WP... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is little ambiguity here on the substance of the fact; good link. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bastun , an encyclopedia entry is merely supposed to state the position of the subject , it is NOT the job of an encyclopedia to challenge the subjects views , I have never seen this in any encyclopedia in the world , it is clear that this is YOUR INTENTION , to state o dohertys views and then dismiss them which clearly shows you have an agenda . best regards Irelandwatch (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Irelandwatch, your claim that "an encyclopedia entry is merely supposed to state the position of the subject" is a misunderstanding. How would that apply when the subject is inanimate, or dead? And what would it look like if applied to Donald Trump, or pretty much any politician for that matter. Wikipedia summarises what independent, reliable sources say about subjects - the same as other encyclopedias do. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So despite the above consensus, you just reverted? And re-inserted meaningless data about number of views of a YouTube video, and a meaningless award achieved by paying $60? Stop edit-warring, you'll find yourself blocked. Please actually read WP:BRD. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
No opinion on the YouTube data, but the medical "opinions" and related content as of this revision violate WP:BLP: "She has been criticised by the Irish medical profession for promoting such views.[65][67]" - her own YouTube video is not a reliable source for criticism she may have received, and reference 65 doesn't say anything about criticism by "the profession" or by any representatives of that profession. The same problem holds for the other use of reference 65 in that paragraph. The other remaining source for that paragraph (beyond the reporting prizes she won, which don't belong in an "opinion" section), reference 35, is hidden behind a paywall, but the cited quote clearly does not confirm the specific content that source is cited for: "But questions about her views on vaccines, abortion and transgender children won’t go away." - nothing about HPV, nothing about criticism (no, "qestions" are not the same as criticism). If her views have been criticised, we need a reliable secondary source explicitly saying so. Some hand-waving and misrepresented sources won't do. Huon (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is useful for the HPV claims. It's partly an opinion piece, but it links to the social media reactions to O'Doherty's claims. It's an WP:TWITTER issue whether we can use O'Doherty's own Twitter posts, as they do illustrate very clearly her opinions; a quick look down her tweets shows Islamophobia (lots of it), homophobia, racism, anti-vax, "George Soros is a Nazi collaborator", climate change denial, "Dublin Airport is run by communists", a "5G rollout is required by the New World Order to control citizens via RFID chips" conspiracy (!!!), and that's only going back to the start of the month. How you pick the important stuff out of that is another question... Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Black Kite, that's the issue I raised here. She's running for office, while making outlandish claims that the mainstream media just don't seem to report on - possibly because of the frequency, possibly because of her propensity to litigate, or at least send solicitor's letters... Her Dublin Airport claim has at least been covered by a couple of news sources, so I'll add that shortly, and I'll try to find additional better sources for the HPV claims, too. She has become a target for a well known satire site, too, but I'm not sure that's worthy of inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The News Mavens piece is an opinion piece and should not be used for statements of fact. Social media reactions are of dubious relevance when no reliable sources have noted and reported on them; News Mavens' "guest contributor" doesn't fit that bill. How to pick the important stuff is easy: Find reliable secondary sources, summarize what they consider important. That's WP:NPOV. However abhorrent, outlandish or just plain wrong we might find O'Doherty's claims, it's not for us to decide how much weight should be given them, either individually or collectively. Huon (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When sysops disagree... ;-) The Times link posted two sections below by Doc James is useful, as is the coverage by The Phoenix magazine: 1 (also covering HPV), 2. Less so, O'Doherty's tweets about how plunge-neckline dresses for sale in Penney's are "Muslim chic"... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And today ... a very clear "HPV is dangerous" tweet, but she then goes for the jackpot with Chemtrails!! [2]. I strongly suspect that the mainstream Irish press have stopped actually covering O'Doherty's announcements because she's clearly way off the scale. Meanwhile, Dublin airport response to Islamophobic tweet. Reliable source reporting on O'Doherty's claim that wind turbines are part of a criminal cabal, an article which also mentions O'Doherty's "theories" about the murder of Veronica Guerin. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Huon, I've partially restored that paragraph, with altered wording and references. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Former journalist"

I'm unaware of O'Doherty having had any articles published since the presidential election. The more recent reliable sources describe O'Doherty as a "former journalist. See these examples. So we'll go with what the sources say. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Do we need to hedge this with "described as"? News orgs are using it as a statement of fact (e.g. "well known conspiracy theorist", incidentally also supports ex-journalist per above, and "Gemma O’Doherty, a former Irish Independent journalist turned conspiracy theorist" in the Irish Times, also "former journalist and far-right conspiracy theorist Gemma O'Doherty"). I think I will change this because there's no realistic dispute in the sources. Guy (help!) 10:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have tempered the proposed change. Slightly. When I updated the lead this time last year (to give more balanced weight to more recent coverage in the lead, in a manner which better reflected the weight afforded in the body), I saw some push back on that. From several editors. I subsequently compromised more than once on whether where and how the subject's controversial views should be covered. The consensus broadly being that, while it should absolutely be in the lead, whether it should be the subject's defining descriptor is a matter of contention. "Controversial activist and former journalist" seems to be the most common defining descriptor in the sources. And is perhaps, therefore, the primary descriptor that we should also use. While still referring to other issues in the following sentences of the lead. Guliolopez (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Guliolopez, they are welcome to push back, the horse has bolted by now. RS call her these things as statements of fact, not opinion, and any rational analysis of her own words leads to the same conclusion. Guy (help!) 12:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I don't disagree. With the accuracy of the description. Or that it is broadly accepted as accurate by otherwise reliable sources. I am just querying its placement. And pointing out that some contributors have argued that it shouldn't be the defining descriptor. For example, while it is likely an appropriate defining descriptor for Alex Jones (and is in the first sentence of the relevant article as a result), the likes of Rosie O'Donnell or Roy Moore or Viktor Orbán could probably be (and are) described as conspiracy theorists in the relevant articles. Just not in the first sentence. As it doesn't, perhaps, define them in quite the same way. As they are known for other things too. (I mean, even the article on Lauren Southern doesn't apply the term as a defining descriptor in the first line). Anyway. I am no apologist. Far from it. My main goal here is to reflect what (based on previous engagements with dissenting editors) would appear to be the consensus/compromise. If consensus has or does change, then absolutely, that's what should be reflected.
If the main concern is the use of the term "described as" (rather than placement), then perhaps the best thing to do is change this passage in the lead:
"As a [[conspiracy theorist]], O'Doherty's controversial views on a range of subjects have led to a number of legal actions and calls for changes to hate-crime legislation. She has been repeatedly described in the media as a conspiracy theorist, andShe was banned from YouTube for violations of the site's policies on hate speech in July 2019.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That particular re-wording doesn't really work, though, as none of her legal actions (that I'm aware of) relate to her principally espoused conspiracy theories - 5G, chemtrails. vaccines, etc. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That's fair. You are absolutely correct. The legal questions and social media bans related to other issues (hate speech, harassment, etc). Rather than to conspiracy theories (5G, vaccines, etc). So, yes, the above absolutely would be clumsy to conflate the two. If anyone else wants to propose wording/placement, then that's cool with me. I have no problem with the term "conspiracy theorist" being used in the lead. With reduced qualification if there's consensus for that. I'm just not so sure there's consensus for it to be in the first sentence. Is all. Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Guerin law suit

Why is there no mention in the article that Jimmy Guerin is suing O'Doherty for remarks made on Facebook and Twitter? [3] [4] --2001:BB6:4713:4858:28CD:60E1:BD5C:77F5 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Because you haven't added them yet? Work away, like. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I've added a section on it given the two links the anon editor supplied. Autarch (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Autarch. I was sure that a regular editor would do a better job than me. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:898B:DBF6:4D53:24B4 (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 august 2020

After "In July 2020, O'Doherty's Twitter account was 'permanently suspended after repeated violations of the Twitter rules'", please add, "A week later, Twitter permanently suspended ACI's account for the same reason, saying that the reason was "violations of our spam and platform manipulation policies".[1]

References

  1. ^ "Twitter permanently suspends Anti-Corruption Ireland account for 'violations of our spam and platform manipulation policies'". The Beacon. 12 August 2020. Retrieved 20 August 2020.
 Not done. The Beacon doesn't seem to be a reliable source: no author name, no copyright, etc. There's no way to verify if it's a self-published source or not. Is there another better source that mentions the same info?
Her twitter account suspension is mentioned here though it doesn't mention the ACI account suspension. Autarch (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"... and tightening of hate-crime legislation"

The lead contained "Her controversial views across a range of subjects have led to both a series of legal actions and tightening of hate-crime legislation", apparently for some time. I've removed the latter claim as it's not mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article, and I don't believe anything she's done has been mentioned in relation to updating hate-crime laws. If I'm not mistaken, the announcement of hate speech laws being updated was only in the media in the last week, and none of the coverage I've seen mentions her or ACI in relation to it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I added "calls for changes to hate-crime legislation" back in September 2019. As that is what the body and the references (eg: calling on the government to enforce better hate-crime legislation) did and do support. Someone removed the "calls for" qualifier in the meantime. I have restored it. Guliolopez (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gemma_O%27Doherty/Archive_1&oldid=1102266404"