This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Edits by Pasquale_Paoli seem to be a case of WP:BLPEDIT, i.e. the subject of the article editing the article about himself. I wouldn't object if he was trying to improve the article but he only removes all but the flattering material about himself, even where the deleted bits are well sourced, which contradicts WP:NPOV. Note that his contributions ([1]) are limited to the articles about himself and his wife Celia de Fréine. Jack Harte is and has always been a controversial figure on the Irish literary scene, and I don't see why it shouldn't be reflected in Wikipedia. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming here because Viticulturist99 objected to my reversion of his addition to the article. The negative material Viti wanted to add was sourced to a blog ([2]), which is not permissible generally but particularly not for a BLP. See WP:BLPSPS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Begging your pardon, Independent Media Center (indymedia) is NOT a blog but a local news site (an edited site), and should be regarded as such. So your attempt to dismiss the source doesn't seem to be legitimate. The removed paragraph started with "accordiing to Indymedia", as we usually write before quoting this kind of source. I still think the material must be restored but maybe you can help find a better (milder) wording for it? Your co-operation will be greatly appreciated. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From our own article:
"Indymedia uses an open publishing and democratic media process that allows anybody to contribute."
"According to its homepage, 'Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.'"
"MC collectives distribute print, audio, photo, and video media, but are most well known for their open publishing newswires, sites where anyone with internet access can publish news from their own perspective. The content of an IMC is determined by its participants, both the users who post content, and members of the local Indymedia collective who administer the site. While Indymedias worldwide are run autonomously and differ according to the concerns of their users, they share a commitment to provide copyleft content."
This is clearly a political blog and cannot be used for negative contentions about a BLP. Attribution to the source doesn't make it acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. You can call 'The Times' or 'The Guardian' website 'a political blog', for exactly the same reason. Wikipedia has plenty of references to Indymedia, if you examine it carefully; so I don't see why it can't be quoted here. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 keeps removing important material stated on the Jack Harte's publisher's website. If he isn't an Irish editor why bother editing articles where he doesn't know first things about the subject? If he is an Irish editor, I can clearly see his agenda, i.e. whitewashing Jack Harte. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know and as I've stated in my last edit summary, there is a discussion of your edits at WP:BLPN. Please contribute there rather than insisting on the insertion of poorly sourced material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edits by Viticulturist99 relating to Harte's Chairmanship of the Irish Writers Centre are part of a long-running campaign by him. Though he references his false claim that Harte was Chairman of the Centre when it lost government funding to an Irish Times article, the content of this referenced article does not substantiate this claim. The true picture, that Harte returned as Chairman after funding was withdrawn in order to help save the centre is borne out by the articles I have referenced. --Pasquale_Paoli—Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hello Jack Harte (Irish writer) aka Pasquale_Paoli, how are tricks? I was just wondering how does it feel editing an article about yourself? I bet you can tell us something exciting about your oh so important person and your big achievements as a writer, can't ya? A campaign against you, you're saying? Do I need to? You are the best campaigner against yourself!--Viticulturist99 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded your addition to remove the puffery, although I have kept in all the sources. Frankly, I'm not sure it's all supported (one ref is not online), but because it is positive information, I see no reason to remove it. I may try to verify it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
