Talk:John McGuirk

Gript 'right-wing'

51.37.228.25, stop removing 'right-wing' from the description of Gript. It is a) sourced; and b) you don't have consensus for removal. You can't remove sourced content just because you don't like it. Edit-warring will get you blocked. I invite you self-revert and discuss here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a slur and inaccurate. Gript Media doesnt aim to be a right wing site. It also is not sourced. There is just an irrelevant citation to the Business Post. Using this terminology is incorrect and against Wiki policy. Aerchasúr (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So, it's not sourced, but also, sourced, and you don't like what it says? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a source to a Sunday Business Post article which doesnt even mention the word right-wing once. The Business Post uses the term conservative. I guess you didnt read the source. Aerchasúr (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess we can add more sources, so. Don't remove right-wing again, without consensus. But Does this individual really merit a wikipedia page? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Then add more sources instead of talking about it. I dont know if he warrants an article. I wouldnt have proposed it. Aerchasúr (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I already did. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The sources given are not sufficient to justify the claim that Gript is far right. The closest we see is 'alt-right.' On this page I only see Bastun supporting the current phrasing and everybody else dissenting. I support the removal of the adjective or perhaps replacing it with 'right-wing.' 134.226.214.244 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I count at least five editors with more than five years of experience each restoring the sourced claim. Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I also didn't see the IrishCentral article before commenting. I will be more careful in future! 134.226.214.244 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It was added recently, perhaps after you commented. So no worries at all. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Views and controversies

This is a rambling chaotic mess of points that violates Views and controversies. It doesn't meet WP:NPOV. This section should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerchasúr (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's four pieces of referenced, relevant content that serve to make the subject borderline notable. Which of them would you like to whitewash? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears to a casual reader a "laundry list" of criticism of the subject of a WP:BLP. Let's edit collaboratively to set the episodes in context rather than focus exclusively on a single piece of negative commentary after the fact. At all times remember this is a BLP. Thanks for your collaboration!Ktlynch (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nonneutral

Totally unacceptable to call Gript far right. Highly contrary to WP:POV. The first citation is anonymous website, the second, a blog doesn't actually describe Gript as far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NakamuraTaki (talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How interesting. Your first edit was to create your user page, telling us (in Japanese) that you're a "girl gamer living in the south"; your very next edit is to the talk page of an article about an Irish far-right activist, using WP terminology. Did someone, perhaps, ask you to post here? Have you edited previously, as an IP? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Far-right classification

I would like to note that the sources used to refer to Gript as "far right" on this article do not actually say that Gript is "far right." I have attempted to rectify this, but the edits have been undone without a reason for reversion given. The only source which comes close to calling Gript far-right is the Beacon, which calls them 'alt right.' However, the Beacon is an largely anonymous blog, with unclear providence and clear political intent, which is not a member of the Irish Press Council nor widely regarded as a reputable news source. Multiple other mainstream news sources, including RTE, the Irish Times, and the Journal.ie, have discussed Gript without classing them as 'far-right.' Perpetualgrasp^{User_talk:Perpetualgrasp} 10:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How about IrishCentral? They were founded by a notable journalist (Niall O'Dowd), have editors and staff with journalism backgrounds, and they're widely cited by reliable media sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not lie. Reasons have indeed been given as to why you were reverted. There are three references that call them far-right. Do not continue to revert to your preferred version - that's not how Wikipedia works, and is edit-warring. Persist, and you will be blocked. Referenced content restored while discussion continues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Reference 1, The Beacon: Uses a subheading of "Far-right leaks?" when discussing Gript.

Reference 2, the Future Media Journal from the DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society, in an article titled "How the far-right incite hatred": In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean.

Those entries were already there when you began edit-warring, I believe? Both are valid sources, until the Reliable Sources Noticeboard decides otherwise. I will now add the Irish Central reference (thanks Woodroar!). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not lie, your initial revert simply made a comment about my account. Your later revert simply said that the material you had linked had called Gript far-right - that was not true. Had you provided a reasonable explanation, rather than a quip and then a assertion you were correct, when you were not, I would not have reverted your material.

On the first reference I would note that the piece does not call Gript far-right directly. Even where we to take this as a direct comment on Gript I would point to the lack of a named author on the piece, as the Beacon is a pseudo-anonymous blog, and thus to WP:RS and its statement that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

On your second reference I would note, from your quote, that the piece does not call Gript far-right but rather says that they are "echoing the far-right message."

Even where we to accept both of those references there have been media mentions of Gript, and John McGuirk, in Irish media over the past number of years, and McGuirk has usually been described as right-wing, pro-life, or conservative. You are giving undue weight to particular views on Gript, from marginal or indirect references, rather than the terminology used in mainstream media reports. I do not believe that this editorial choice reflects a neutral point of view and, as such, I recommend that a tag be added to the page notifying readers of an NPOV dispute and that there is not a consensus on the factual accuracy or neutrality of the content of this article.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As an additional note it appears that the Beacon is self-published material, and that there are no authors other than the owner(s), and, as such, I would point to WP:RS/SPS, particularly "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people" to argue that the reference is not reliable.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot to unpack here. You're correct that we shouldn't state opinions as facts, but we also don't water down factual reporting as opinion. I see nothing in these sources to indicate that they are opinion pieces, or that they were published outside the typical editorial process of each publication. Some of the sources are biased, yes, but biased sources can still be reliable. We consider the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center to be generally reliable sources, for example, and they're absolutely biased advocacy organizations. The sources used here don't appear to be self-published, at least according to our guidelines. On Wikipedia, that means someone's personal website, self-published book, social media accounts, and so on. A source with an editorial process is almost never considered self-published. The Beacon, for example, has editors and follows the National Union of Journalists’ Code of Conduct. Lastly, we can and do use synonyms to describe subjects because we're here to summarize what reliable sources say. If sources describe Gript in a variety of ways, we can make the editorial decision to find a word that covers them all. I agree that we shouldn't say "far-right" if all of the sources say "conservative", but it appears that plenty of reliable sources do, in fact, use "far-right" or related terms like "alt-right". Woodroar (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That implies a consensus that Gript is a far-right outlet. That consensus does not exist, if anything it would seem to be that Gript is not a far-right outlet. As I said, Gript and John McGuirk have been discussed in mainstream media for years without being called far-right. Below are just some of the top results from a Google search for Gript:

https://www.thejournal.ie/eamon-ryan-false-article-gript-5430856-May2021/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-pays-out-20000-over-pundit-john-mcguirks-mistakenlink-between-republican-group-eirigi-and-lyra-mckee-murder-40213765.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/lyra-mckees-partner-slams-conservative-political-commentator-40156001.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-40080368.html

https://www.businesspost.ie/analysis-opinion/pro-life-groups-fund-new-website-in-response-to-liberal-bias-in-mainstream-media-8227342c

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justine-mccarthy-grafton-street-demo-shows-theres-no-unity-left-only-echo-chambers-s9j3khz05

Many of those articles are not supportive of Gript, but none calls them far-right. That is the mainstream view of this matter - that Gript is not a far-right news site.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Finding articles that don't call them far-right doesn't somehow undo the citations that do. As for the issue of consensus: it appears that in this thread there's a consensus for retaining the far-right label. — Czello 16:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It demonstrates that reporting of Gript does not, in general, class them as far-right. Multiple media sources have written about Gript, sometimes negatively, and have not classed them as far-right. Against that we have the Beacon, a publication which is pseudo anonymous, is not widely known, is openly political, and which does not directly call Gript far-right in its piece. Similarly, the DCU reference does not call Gript far-right. I am not familiar with Irish Central, other than that it is an American publication, so I can't comment there.

On consensus within this thread I do not agree with the retention of the label, nor, it appears, do others on this talk page.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph calls them "right-wing". The Examiner quotes a Department of Health complaint calling the site "right-wing", but that's not a description in the Examiner's voice. The Business Post and Times are behind paywalls. The others don't describe Gript's political leanings at all. So as far as I can tell, we've got one source saying "right-wing" and at least three that don't. There are dozens of sources that don't say that Gript covers tasty baked goods, so perhaps we could call them anti-cake? Of course not, because that's using sources to support a claim that the sources don't actually make. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We have multiple mainstream, respectable media sources that have discussed Gript at length. They have either simply referred to it as a news site or right-wing/conservative. You are willing to ignore all of those in order to attach a label to the entity which is not reflective of the mainstream understanding of Gript's political position. Your comparison does not hold up, as if Gript was far-right that would be reflected in its coverage in the mainstream media - that is not the case. And, as you point out regarding the Examiner, the Department of Health, which is clearly reputable, classifies Gript as "right-wing" and not far-right. Below are some of the ways Gript has been described in the articles I linked:

The Times - conservative news website

Journal - news website

Irish Independent - news website

Belfast conservative - conservative political commentator John McGuirk, right-wing news and opinion website

Irish Examiner reports the Department of Health - right-wing opinion/news

The Journal.ie has previously called John McGuirk a "right-wing commentator"

It seems to me that editors supporting the retention of the "far-right" label, are selectively privileging sources which are not of the required reliability or clarity over mainstream descriptions and reporting on Gript. I would again say that I believe the label should be removed, or a tag added to note that there is a dispute regarding NPOV on this article.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the DCU reference isn't sufficient; it says that Gript is "echoing the far-right message", but not explicitly calling it far-right itself. I don't agree with your views on the Beacon: we have plenty of lesser-known and political sources. You can raise this at WP:RSN if you feel it's not reliable, however. On the issue of consensus: from what I can see, myself, Woodroar, and Bastun all appear to be in favour of the far-right label -- have I missed other users who are against it? — Czello 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

On the Beacon it's not just that it is a lesser-known source. It's not widely known outside activist circles, even in Ireland, it's pseudoanonymous, openly political; none of the authors of the articles are noted, and whilst it says that it holds itself to certain codes of practice it is not a member of any organization which could ensure they actually hold to those standards. For all we know it's 2 lads in an attic somewhere producing what is basically personal web page, and the article seems to be saying that because they said something every other major media organization in Ireland, which has written about Gript, including our paper of record, has effectively misled people by either falsely saying they were right-wing or consevervative instead of far-right, or by failing to notify people that this was some kind of extremist publication.

And again, this is a biography of a living person making, what I would say are fairly clearly, defamatory remarks about a living person. That represents both a legal risk and an ethical one in that it appears editors are willing to ignore sources which classify Gript as anything other than far-right. That, to me, seems simply beneath the standards which we should hold ourselves to.

On the matter of concensus there are multiple notes on the Talk page from those who think it is not correct and the article does not hold to a neutral point of view. Aerchasúr; NakamuraTaki; and the history of the page shows multiple attempts to amend the information from unique IP addresses.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

On "consensus within this thread", Perpetualgrasp - who, exactly, is agreeing with you. Be specific. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple notes on the Talk page from those who think it is not correct and the article does not hold to a neutral point of view. Aerchasúr; NakamuraTaki; and the history of the page shows multiple attempts to amend the information from unique IP addresses.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So - two single-purpose accounts who have never edited any other article. And one other account. And some IPs. 'K. And above, you're saying sources that don't say anything ~about Gript - good, bad, or indifferent - are somehow a source that Gript isn't what other sources say it is. That's tortuous, but completely illogical. Anyway - I'll open up an SPI later this evening to see how many editors we're dealing with here... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources above all discuss Gript. Some describe it simply as a news site, some as a right-wing site, some conservative. And all of those are from sources of considerably more reliability than those which call Gript far-right. You seem to want a news article that says "Gript is not far-right" when it doesn't make sense for such an article to exist - why would a reputable media organization come out and say that Gript was not something which no reputable Irish media has said they are. They have discussed Gript at length, none have called it far-right, that is the consensus amongst mainstream Irish media. Prime Time had McGuirk on recently, are you really suggesting they would bring on someone who was far right? It really does feel that you are simply refusing to listen to the reason being given for why the references you provided are not enough to legitimately class Gript as far-right. This seems to be a clear failure to hold to a NPOV on your part. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how many more times I need to type this. We have reliable sources describing Gript as far-right. I don't care if you don't accept those sources - Wikipedia does. If other sources describe Gript as "right-wing" or "alt-right", we can include those too, but we are not removing far-right because one two SPA's and some anon IPs don't like it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bastun neither the Beacon nor the DCU reference actually directly say Gript is far-right. The Beacon says 'alt-right', DCU simply says it echos similar points. They do not say what you have said they say, that is the issue. Having said that, on your point regarding Gript being alternatively called 'right wing' or 'conservative', how would you prefer to implement a solution which points those designations out? I don't think 'far-right' should be used in the article, but including the alternative, better sourced, designations would at least be an improvement over the current state of the article.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah. They actually do. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question as to acceptable wording of other descriptions of Gript from more reliable sources. I would appreciate one.

Actually I see that you've discussed Gript before, arguing that it is not a reliable source. Interestingly many of the reasons you gave for why Gript should not be considered a reliable source also relate to the Beacon - those being: It presents a particular world-view; It is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland (which includes web-only publications); It does not list an office, and address; it has an 'About' page, which pretty much states it will not be neutral. Why is it that Gript is therefore not a reliable source but the Beacon is? I assume good faith but that would appear to be a clearly biased presentation, where one group doing it negates their reliability and another group, with a different political slant, is perfectly fine. I also note that in that discussion you say that some have called Gript "rightist" rather than apply any other designation. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more my opinion shifts. As I said above, DCU doesn't call the Grift far-right -- and I can't see where the Beacon explicitly does, either (though the alt-right label remains, and Wikipedia does label the alt-right as being far-right). — Czello 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The DCU article is about the far-right in Ireland. It's clear that they include Gript as part of the far-right, even if they don't specifically say the words "Gript is a far-right website". The section where Gript is mentioned is about "Manipulation tactics" of the far-right: In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like...Gript and then Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. The Beacon's subheading is "reporting on the far right" and, like you mentioned, they do call Gript "alt-right". I would recommend removing the Irish Times, however. It connects Gript with "anti-abortion campaigners" and McGuirk with the Libertas Institute, but the article isn't otherwise about far-right people or websites. Woodroar (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between saying that an entity has a particular political viewpoint, and saying that an entity sometimes echoes the arguments made by people of a particular political viewpoint, in milder terms, and that this may lead to the popularization of those arguments. On the Beacon I would reiterate the point I made above that it is a fringe source with a stated political view and refers to Gript in terms that mainstream publications, including the Irish paper of record, do not use. Additionally, as I mentioned above and is of relevance as it was Bastun who added that reference in - Baston has previously argued Gript should be classed as an unreliable source for a number of reasons - the majority of which also seem to apply to the Beacon. Therefore his usage of the Beacon here, and defense of it as a source, seems to display a double standard and strengthen my concerns regarding a lack of NPOV on this article. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Look, I don't think your points have any merit. Consensus on Wikipedia is based on our policies and guidelines, not vote stacking from SPAs. Feel free to bring the page to another noticeboard but I don't think you're going to get much traction. Woodroar (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly I absolutely reject the accusation of vote stacking, and I would also argue that your insinuation, and Bastun's continuous insinuations regarding improper conduct are clearly not in line with WP:AGF. On consensus I would point out that there are 4 editors here, including myself, and that it now appears 2 of them, myself and Czello, agree that the references do not support the usage of the term 'far-right.' I am going to add a tag to the page indicating there is now an NPOV dispute on that basis. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see what the SPI finds, then. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We will. And then we can discuss how best to reach consensus here and how best to amend the article to allow for the definitions of Gript offered by sources which are reliable and reputable by the metrics you have outlined.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying that the "far-right" label is unwarranted, I just think the citations aren't as clear as some believe, and are subject to debate. That said, I think Woodroar does make some good points about inclusion of the far right label (I don't think anyone has disputed the term "alt-right" either, which is a part of the far-right). — Czello 11:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I take your point of clarification there. On the alt-right label from the Beacon I maintain my argument that a single designation, from a source which is highly partisan and has the issues I have detailed on this page, which Bastun considers to undermine a source's reliability based on his assessment of Gript, should be considered enough, in of itself, to designate a living person or entity with quite a damaging label when more mainstream sources have discussed that living person or entity either without that designation or with other designations. The weight of sources appears very much against it, and privileging one source over others like this would seem to set a dangerous precedent for other articles. If a single partisan source, of questionability reliability, says X about a living person, are we to now consider that to be the case, even if no other source has ever said X about that person, even when discussing pertinent matters? That is my concern here. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We're describing Gript as "far-right", not McGuirk, so BLP really isn't a factor here. I mean, it would be a factor if sources about McGuirk never mentioned or described Gript, but that's not the case. I would understand your point—and I'd agree, actually—if we were using The Beacon by itself to label McGuirk with any controversial term. I may agree if that were sourced to IrishCentral, only because it's a better quality source yet still a single source. But we're using three sources, IrishCentral and the DCU Institute and The Beacon, to describe a website. Woodroar (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair point regrading the McGuirk/Gript split, the implication of saying someone edits a far-right entity is that they themselves are far-right. On your point regarding sourcing, I would reiterate my note that neither DCU nor the Beacon actually call Gript far-right. IrishCentral does, and we may consider that to be enough, but I'm not familiar with the publication and so can't comment.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep mentioning me, Perpetualgrasp, in relation to The Beacon. Personally, I am well aware that The Beacon is partisan, but that does not prevent it from being a reliable source. In fact, on this topic, it's probably more reliable than some more mainstream sources. Again, in relation to some of your comments above, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: just because a MSM media source, in one article you've linked, does not call "X" a "Y", does not mean that X is not a Y, it just means that that article does not claim X is a Y. The Indo, in the article you linked above does not call Gript an invisible pink unicorn, far-right, or a little teapot floating in space. So we don't report what it hasn't said. We do report on what other outlets have said. Lastly - I don't just keep on saying "But this source isn't reliable!" - when I've had doubts, or wanted clarification on a source, I've opened a topic at the relevant noticeboard, which I see you've found. So do that, rather than saying thing over and over here and elsewhere. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I kept mentioning you in relation the Beacon because I thought you were the person who added the reference, if that's not the case I apologise. On your point that the Beacon is "probably more reliable than some mainstream sources" I'm curious what you mean by that and what makes them more reliable on this issue?

Your point on unicorns is not relevent. My argument is that if Gript was a far-right entity it would have been mentioned. Some of those sources, of which you are aware there are not one but multiple, call them right-wing or conservative, categories which I would argue are mutually exclusive with far-right. You seem to be arguing that mainstream Irish media, including our paper of record and Prime Time, our national current affairs programme, have been incorrectly assessing Gript when discussing them - that does not seem likely.

I will consider your point on taking the Beacon to the relevant noticeboard.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers are generally written by generalists for a general audience. They often leave stuff out. See, for example, the coverage of "specialist" or technical topics. Whereas specialist publications are clearly more accurate in their specialist fields. First I've heard of Gript being covered by Prime Time. Got a link? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we to assume that you class the Beacon as a specialist publication in this area? John McGuirk was invited on to discuss the protests, he was introduced as the editor of Gript.ie, Gript was not flagged as an extremist entity, or far-right, or anything by Prime Time. Given the standards of responsible journalism held by Prime Time, it should be clear that it would have been flagged if correct. https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time-web/2021/0302/#page=5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That's the appearance referenced in the IrishCentral source, btw. Woodroar (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It'd be nice if, in addition to the WP:SPAs Perpetualgrasp and NakamuraTaki, the person operating the anon IP address, 134.226.214.244, from Trinity College, could join the discussion rather than edit-warring... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't edit Wikipedia very often. I just glanced at the references available on the page at the time and couldn't see the label "far-right" mentioned anywhere. Having been made aware of the IrishCentral article, I now think that the label should probably be retained. 134.226.214.244 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• So, it seems it's just the WP:SPA accounts now that dispute the inclusion of "far-right"? Something that's referenced? Is there any reason to maintain the NPOV tag, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The policies need to be interpreted in light of the WP:RS and WP:BLP policies. This is a BLP, not an article on Gript itself. Any content should be viewed the the prism of the BLP policy and avoid putting contentious material about a living person in the public domain. The term "far-right" is highly politically charged and with negative contotations. It should therefore require a high standard to be used on a BLP page. The weight of mainstream soucrces used a more gneral term such as "conservative" or "right wing". The Beacon and Irish Central don't really seem to stack up against mainstream Irish media publications in terms of thier adherence to respected media standards. The Beacon in particular is a partisan organisation, a mere claim on its website to adhere to a code of conduct does not mean its claims enter wikipedia as fact. Irish central is part of a content group in the USA. its own article does not explain its use of the term and flips between "far right" and "right wing". I don't support the use of the term "far right" on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.76.163 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, here and at several noticeboards (including BLPN) and experienced editors have not found these claims to be violations of our BLP policies. I would agree if the sources only discussed Gript, but they clearly tie McGuirk + Gript + one or more political descriptors. Woodroar (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Restarting the discussion after several days.

Here are the available reliable sources and how they describe Gript:

• IrishCentral, which was founded by journalist Niall O'Dowd and is part of the Irish Voice/Irish America media network. IrishCentral calls Gript a far-right publication.
• The Beacon, an advocacy news outlet focusing on the far right, especially in Ireland. The Beacon calls Gript an alt-right website. The alt-right is part of the far-right, and The Beacon's own subheading is reporting on the far right.
• DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy, and Society (FuJo), a media research center with an impressive list of members and an equally impressive advisory board. In the section on "Manipulation tactics", the DCU writes In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. It also includes a screenshot of McGuirk tweeting a Gript article using the manipulation tactics that it just discussed. The article itself is titled "How the far-right incite hatred".
• Belfast Telegraph is a daily newspaper owned by Independent News & Media, which is itself owned by Mediahuis. The Telegraph calls Gript right-wing.

Are we missing any reliable sources that actually describe Gript? Because as it stands, we have 3 sources using "far-right" and 1 source using "right-wing", which suggests that our current description of "far-right" is the most neutral summary of reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The NPOV tag is disingenuous at best, with even one of the IPs that had been removing the term now rolling back from that position. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree with the removal of the NPOV tag, nor do I think it is disingenuous to maintain it. If anything is disingeuous I would say it is classing Gript as far-right based on what has so far been supplied. The vast, vast majority of mentions of Gript in Irish media refer to them either as conservative, right-wing, or simply a news site. Moving that they be classed as far-right, simply because a fringe, puesdo-anonymous publication called them alt-right, and ignoring that that is not a definition applied to them by reputable mainstream publications in Ireland is to privilege a particular point of view and not in line with NPOV. The DCU piece does not say they are right-wing, it says they sometimes echo the arguments used by the right-wing, that is a substantial difference. The Irish Central piece I can't comment on as they're not an Irish publication and I'm not aware of them.

That leaves us with 1 piece that calls them far-right, but is not an Irish publication. 1 that says they are alt-right, but is clearly not a reputable source, and 1 that says they echo the arguments of the far-right, but does not call them far right. Against that we have the general tone of coverage of Gript by the MSM in Ireland, which does not class Gript as far-right. As I have noted above the editor of Gript was invited on to Ireland's state broadcaster's most prestigious current affairs show for a debate, and at no point was the site called far-right, alt-right, or anything of the sort.

Below are links which discuss Gript as examples.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-pays-out-20000-over-pundit-john-mcguirks-mistakenlink-between-republican-group-eirigi-and-lyra-mckee-murder-40213765.html - describes Gript simply as a "newssite."

https://www.thejournal.ie/eamon-ryan-false-article-gript-5430856-May2021/ - describes Gript simply as a "newssite."

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/lyra-mckees-partner-slams-conservative-political-commentator-40156001.html - describes Gript as "conservative."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-40080368.html - quotes the Department of Health as describing Gript as "right-wing opinion/news."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justine-mccarthy-grafton-street-demo-shows-theres-no-unity-left-only-echo-chambers-s9j3khz05 - describes Gript as a "conservative news website."

https://www.thejournal.ie/eamon-ryan-false-article-gript-5430856-May2021/ - describes Gript as a "news website."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-quinn-zero-covid-strategy-means-our-isolation-will-never-end-hdvf9tlh5 - describes Gript as an "online magazine."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/new-sinn-f%C3%A9in-td-apologises-for-glib-off-the-cuff-tweets-1.4177915 - describes Gript as a "comment and news website."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-irish-think-tank-aimed-at-catching-wave-of-outrage-over-health-spending-fss7xdx65 - classes Gript as a "news site."

https://www.thejournal.ie/pro-life-campaign-2019-4705381-Jul2019/ - describes Gript as having a "typically right-wing and conservative approach to news and debate."

Perpetualgrasp (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And Bastun, as a general comment, I could do without you saying I have lied, saying my edit was disingenuous, and in general biting at me. It's not necessary and it runs contrary to the assumption of good faith. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Belfast Telegraph calls McGuirk conservative but Gript right-wing, as mentioned above. That's an important distinction that we have to make.

The Irish Examiner is quoting an anonymous complaint to the Department of Health. We can't attribute that claim to The Irish Examiner, nor to the Department of Health. As we know nothing about the complainant, we can't consider them an expert or give their claim any weight.

The Times article by Justine McCarthy does say conservative, thank you!

The Journal article by Dominic McGrath isn't the best because he doesn't really assert a strong claim. It's not a "right-wing and conservative site", but one with a "right-wing and conservative approach". And even that is watered down by "typically". But it's something, I suppose.

The Independent, The Journal article by Órla Ryan, The Times article by David Quinn, The Times article by Stephen O’Brien, and The Irish Times article by Sean McCárthaigh don't make any claims about Gript's political stance, so they're irrelevant. It would violate WP:V to cite them for claims they do not make and it would violate WP:NPOV to balance an article around their non-existent viewpoints.

That gives us 3 sources that say far-right (including 1 that also says alt-right), 1 source that says right-wing, 1 source that says conservative, and 1 source that weakly says right-wing and conservative. So far-right is definitely the prevailing description. Perhaps we could say something like He is the editor of Gript, a website that has been described as far-right, conservative, and right-wing? That's not ideal because it puts the three labels on the same level but I'm not sure if there's a better way to phrase it. Woodroar (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have 3 sources that say far-right, we have 1 that says far right. 1 that says they sometimes echo the talking points of the far-right, and 1, which again comes from a source who does not appear to be reputable, that says they are alt-right. The Examiner is not quoting an anonymous complaint to the Department, they're quoting from the Department's internal social media monitoring notes. I don't agree that the sources that do not give Gript an explicate political categorisation are irrelevant, I think they establish a general baseline of how the site is discussed in reputable media and that, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, is important to take into account. If the Beacon and Irish Central were the only times Gript had been talked about well then perhaps we could argue that the sources used represented a media consensus, but that isn't the case.

On the alternative description I think that might be an option to get around this impass. What would we think of removing the far-right designation from the top line and adding in a "Political Poisition of Gript" section, or a section on Gript which we could include such information on? It appears to be McGuirk's primary purpose at the minute, and the site doesn't have its own page so it might be a good fit. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Or we could just go with what a majority of the relevant sources say, and leave it at "far-right"? Perpetualgrasp, I will refer to your remarks as disingenuous when that's what they are. You've already been told that it is not in order to assume that the absence of a classification in a particular source is grounds for deeming the classification to be incorrect, or that another should apply instead - you just refuse to accept it! And here you are again, in true WP:IDONTHEARTHAT fashion, repeating the same sources and argument as in the section directly above. Look - here's an Irish Independent article that mentions the Ku Klux Klan but doesn't call them white supremacists, terrorists, or a hate group! Can we use that as evidence to remove such assertions in the KKK article? NO, of course not! Exactly the same applies here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun it's not that I don't hear what you're saying, it's that I disagree with those arguments. It's not disingenuous, or a refusal to listen to your point, it's a difference of opinion on an issue. I don't think your arguments hold up, and endlessly repeating them is not making them stronger.

On the KKK I would actually say that supports my point - there is a general consensus on what the KKK are, represented in their general presentation in media. That is not the case here, at least not in so far as it supports your position. I believe you have a personal position on this issue that you are seeking to enshrine, in a pretty clear violation of NPOV. I would also again point out that you have previously argued against the reliability of a source on grounds that could, with ease, be applied to a source you are now trying to use to enshrine the designation of Gript as 'far right.' Whilst I, of course, assume your good faith here that does seem to be somewhat disingenuous of you.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And - yet again - if you think a source isn't reliable, do something about it other than just asserting that ad infinitum. It's not like you don't know your way around WP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I had intended to do so after the investigation you started into sockpuppets ended, but I take your point that the source should be formally considered elsewhere.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You "disagree" with the premise that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?! Well - that's lovely, I guess? But arguments from ignorance are, thankfully, not how WP works. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nor Bastun should it work on the basis that if a blog, even one of questionable reliability and of an openly partisan nature, has ever made an outlandish claim about a person that claim should be treated as true because no one reputable had ever before bothered to specifically deny that that particular outlandish claim was incorrect. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

But nobody is making outlandish claims, so... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To attempt to move this in a constructive direction, as this is not, what do you think of the suggestion above regarding pulling Gript's political leanings out and including it in an expanded section on the site, and McGuirk's editorship of it, further into the article? Or do you have any other suggestions for how we can get consensus on this and move forward?Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any merit in whitewashing the lead to suit a single-purpose account. Discounting the editor whose only edits were to create her user page and comment here, once, there is a consensus of four to one to maintain "far-right" - Woodroar, Czello, me and the 134.Trinity IP, versus you. You have not convinced or persuaded anyone. This has gone on long enough. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not white-washing, it's reestablishing NPOV, ensuring news sources are treated with due, rather than undue weight, and trying to make what Wikipedia more accurate. As a side note perhaps you would seek to close the investigation into the Trinity IP being a sockpuppet of mine given that you are now happy to have it on side. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have undo Bastun's removal of the NPOV conflict tag as consensus has not been achieve. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly not going to be a consensus for this change though, and it seems like we're going round in circles. I think it's time we draw this conversation to a conclusion as I think we're beginning to enter WP:BLUDGEON territory. — Czello 21:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That does appear to be the case. However I think there is a significant issue with the article as is. Happy to hear any advice on the appropriate venue to take this to? Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Conservapedia? You don't have consensus for change; please don't start edit-warring to force your change through. It won't work. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun you removed sourced material, from reputable sources, which described Gript as right-wing, conservative, and, in a nod to your view, alt-right. It was a clear expansion on the material you had put in and I cannot see how the removal of the material improves the article. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you really want to continue to pursue this and get opinions from more editors, it seems that the only option would be an WP:RFC. However, I'd advise against this as, firstly, I don't think it'd reach a different conclusion to the one we already have here, and secondly I think it's probably best to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Contrary to this edit summary, I think we do have a consensus. — Czello 21:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Czello do you see any value in the changes I made, in which noted that Gript was refered to alternatively as right-wing, conservative, and alt-right depending on the source? It seemed like a very fair middle ground. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(after ec) Ok, I know McGuirk has issues with counting (or at least keeping his promises), after the Dublin Central result; but it appears so do you. WP:NPOV calls for consensus - not unanimity! Yes, you object. We get that. It is still an 80% to 20% majority, and certainly represents a consensus. I'm removing the NPOV tag again. As the only NPOV issue you have raised here is the "far-right" description, and consensus is that it's justified, if you restore it again, it'll be a clear case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:BLUDGEON, and edit-warring. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun your behaviour towards me is not warranted and it is not appreciated. You have been unrelentingly unpleasant and mocking since I first registered to try and fix what I thought was a clear error on this page. You seem to be taking my attempts to reduce the flaws that you have introduced personally rather than with any assumption of good faith. What is your issue? Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So - you noticed one description of a website on one BLP, and that prompted you to create an account? That seems to be what also prompted NakamuraTaki, too. It seems only reasonable to ask, then, do you have a conflict of interest that you haven't declared? If your perception of me is that I have been "unrelentingly unpleasant and mocking", well, there's nothing I can do about that. My responses might just be prompted by lengths you've gone to, to force your preferred version through. Creating an account just for this (as anon IPs can no longer directly edit), edit warring, the same arguments repeated multiple times, and lengthy contributions resulting in advice to "read WP:1AM and WP:FIXBIAS. WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:STICK" being issued by other users. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"If your perception of me is that I have been "unrelentingly unpleasant and mocking", well, there's nothing I can do about that" - that's not true, you could start acting in a civil fashion. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just a note to say I've opened a discussion on this on the NPOV Dispute Noticeboard. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That NPOV Noticeboard discussion is here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• A Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion was also opened; that discussion is here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of DCU Source

A blog from DCU was used to reference Gript being far-right. That source has been updated to state that it does not classify Gript as being far-right. As such the source has been removed. The update states "On 15 June 2021, a new subheading, “wider narratives and alternative media”, was added to this post to clarify that the alternative media outlet Gript is not being classified as a far-right actor."

The source never explicitly called Gript far-right, or anything close to it, but editors felt justified in making an assumption as to the intent of the authors.

It is worth pointing out here that this might be a good point for some editors to consider if they have allowed their personal biases to influence their views on this matter and that claims that this article does not adhere to a NPOV might have validity.

You can read the full thing below: https://fujomedia.eu/far-right-disinformation-tactics-in-ireland/ Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

With that source being updated, it's probably appropriate to change the statement to something like He is the editor of Gript, a website that has been described as far-right, conservative, and right-wing. Or we can order them by number of sources, or just alphabetical (conservative, far-right, and right-wing). Thoughts? (From everyone, that is, not only Perpetualgrasp.) Woodroar (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned that as an option myself, somewhere way up there in the chat, and would be happy to go with it until the situation has more clarity. I would order them by political extreme, so right-wing, conservative, and far-right, but that's just a mild preference. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dude, seriously? The FuJo article stated - and still states - In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. so editors were and are absolutely justified in using that here as a source. Amazing that you spotted the clarification on the very day it was posted, though. I wonder, did the Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society receive any correspondence on this issue; or did they just spontaneously publish the clarification and you coincidentally spotted it the same day? This, though, takes the biscuit: this might be a good point for some editors to consider if they have allowed their personal biases to influence their views on this matter. You're the one who created a WP:SPA account with the specific purpose of removing 'far-right' from the description, and have made literally dozens of posts devoted to this one issue - in no less than three different fora, just today. You might want to step back from the dead horse, there. Or at least declare any conflict of interest. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun, you were wrong, that's the long and the short of it, and you were told that you were wrong at the time and refused to believe it. Your statement that editors are justified as using it as a source, assuming you mean as a source saying Gript is far-right, is simply and demonstrably false, and the source itself says so.

Now we've got a constructive suggestion from WoodWard above, what is your view on it or do you just want to complain and insinuate? Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Again: In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean... was and is in the source; the source has now added On 15 June 2021, a new subheading, “wider narratives and alternative media”, was added to this post to clarify that the alternative media outlet Gript is not being classified as a far-right actor. I notice you didn't answer the question. So, for the sake of clarity: do you need to declare a conflict of interest? Did you request the institute to clarify or amend the article or a heading? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, re the forumshopping - let's confine the discussion to one venue rather than three. This one is fine, unless you have specific reason to use the NPOV or RSN noticeboards, but continuing this over three different pages is a waste of everyone's time and energy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't answer the question Bastun, because since I've registered on Wikipedia you've continuously been making negative insinuations about me and my conduct, and you've never seemed to care what my answer to those insinuations is. If I deny it, you won't believe me, so why would I waste my time dignifying you?

I will continue to contribute to any conversations I deem to be worthwhile as and where they occur Bastun. The other pages deal with similiar, but separate issues, and have different audiences, and so I reject your repeated accusation that it constitutes forum shopping.

Now do you have any view on what Woodroar put forward as a solution? Because if not you're just derailing the conversation. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'm not - WP:FORUMSHOP is part of a Wikipedia policy - one that you're not following. There is no active NPOV dispute, yet you're at the NPOV noticeboard. You're talking about the Future Media Institute now on the RS Noticeboard, rather than The Beacon. So yes - forumshopping. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes Bastun, you are. You have become disruptive and you are actively now avoiding engaging with the discussion other editors are attempting to have, and frankly I think your continuing refusal to engage with the actual question put forward by Woodroar is verging close to WP:CIR. I made a note here to explain to people why I had removed the source, and to give them the full link to it, because I thought it was the polite thing to do.

The NPOV dispute started when there was an active NPOV dispute, it has continued and so I have continued being involved with it. On the Beacon the DCU source had also come up, and so I mentioned it. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"Verging on CIR"? Seriously?! See WP:NPA. I have restored the reference. The article states: In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean. It can therefore, absolutely, be used to support the sentence. Yesterday, the Future Media Institute introduced a new heading, immediately above the paragraph dealing with Gript, where none had previously existed. The new headline states Wider narratives and alternative media. That in no way invalidates the use of the reference. Also on 15 June, a note was added to the bottom of the article: On 15 June 2021, a new subheading, “wider narratives and alternative media”, was added to this post to clarify that the alternative media outlet Gript is not being classified as a far-right actor. That's somewhat more nuanced than the bare it does not classify Gript as being far-right, as you disingenuously state above. They are still standing over the assertion in the body of the text. The reference can absolutely stand. Do you need to declare a conflict of interest? Did you request the institute to clarify or amend the article or a heading? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am going to revert your last change shortly. You are being disruptive, and you are now actively ignoring material that is explicitly written in a source you are using - it says the source does not classify Gript as being a far-right entity, you are using it as a source to say they are. If you continue to behave like this I will have no option but to lodge a complaint against your conduct and your increasingly disruptive editing. It's time to step away from the horse Bastun. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And no Bastun, not that I think you'll believe me, I didn't request that the institute change anything or engage with them in any way. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The process we use is WP:BRD - you were bold; you got reverted; now we discuss. We already know the sole purpose of your account is to remove the term far-right from the article. However, you not have consensus for that change, nor to remove the reference, which still states In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean. Thank you for supplying the clarification. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun the source says, and I quote, "Gript is not being classified as a far-right actor". You are using it as a source to say that Gript are far-right. You are simply wrong, and it's not reasonable for you to continue to use the quote in the way you have. I have reverted your changes and, if you continue to edit the piece in such a fashion, make a complaint regarding your edit-warring and refusal to recognise what your source actually says. I haven't removed the term far-right from the article, I've removed a source which you are using incorrectly. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And on consensus Bastun there are 3 editors in this conversation, only 1 of whom, you, has stated any problem with the change. As you told me - consensus does not mean unanimous support. Given the source directly contradicts the claim you are trying to use it for I think we have acheived a reasonable consensus that it should not be used in such a way. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar, do you have a problem with the Future Media Insitute reference remaining in place? The article states In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean. - so regardless of how we ultimately describe Gript in this article, I really don't see any grounds for exclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You legitimately don't see any reason why a source which says "Gript is not being classified as a far-right actor" shouldn't be used, as you have, as a source to say that Gript is far-right? Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning the process, PG. You've made your position clear. Mine is crystal clear - a source such as the Institute for Future Media and Journalism can absolutely be used as a source on an Irish media outlet. And what they say is also crystal clear In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean. Now let's hear from others. You're still in breach of BRD, btw. Restore the reference while discussion continues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It can absolutely be used as a source, the concern here is that you are arguing that a source that explicitely says "we are not saying X" should be used as a source for X. You know well that I'm not saying FuJo is not reliable, I'm saying that you are clearly pushing a position here that is at variance with the source you're using. And no, I don't think I am in breech of it, given that there is no ambiguity as to what the source is saying and you are clearly aiming to disrupt any potentially productive discussion. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Again: stop bludgeoning the process. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that the context as originally written clearly indicated that the DCU considered Gript a far-right outlet. I also believe that the current statement "not being classified as a far-right actor" comes across as some kind of a legally-required "this is the minimal amount we have to backtrack" protection statement. It doesn't entirely negate their previous "far-right" findings, but we now have to resolve conflicting statements by reading too much into the source. So I'd suggest leaving it out, personally, but I'd like to hear from other editors as well. If that means leaving this discussion open for a few days or weeks, so be it. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I've restored it pro tem, per the WP:BRD process, while discussion is ongoing. I concur with your interpretation of the events here. We still have the article body text saying it "echoes the far-right message", so I don't really get the point of adding the additional heading or the clarification at the end, but it is what it is. And for WP, given that body text, I think it absolutely can still be used to cite Gript as 'far-right'. What would you think of a construction such as "He is the editor of the alternative media website, Gript, which has been described as alt-right and far-right", with the three references. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's best if we leave the DCU source out. I'll explain why by analogy, both for you and Perpetualgrasp:

I mostly edit articles about video games on Wikipedia. Video game sources basically never say "such-and-such is a video game" because that's obvious. It's a source that covers video games; they're covering this thing; therefore, it's a video game. But if a video game source ever said "we don't consider such-and-such a video game"—even in an article filled with descriptions of how video game-y it is—I wouldn't use it in an article. Because now there's an inherent contradiction, leaving us to figure out what the author/publisher "actually" means—which runs counter to WP:V and WP:NPOV.

I'm still leaning towards He is the editor of Gript, a website that has been described as conservative, far-right, and right-wing, citing "conservative" to The Times (Justine McCarthy) and The Journal (Dominic McGrath), "far-right" to Irish Central and The Beacon, and "right-wing" cited to Belfast Telegraph and The Journal (Dominic McGrath).

Perpetualgrasp, I saw your preference for ordering them by "political extreme", but that's also straying into POV territory. The sources are basically equal as far as weight is concerned. We can't even discern a clear shifting stance based on publishing date. That leaves us to pick an arbitrary and neutral way to list them, and alphabetical is the most natural. If you can think of a better option, I'm open to ideas.

And even if the three of us find some kind of solution, I'm still interested in what other editors think and I'd prefer if we keep this open for a while. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I take your point re sorting by political position and potential POV issues, happy to go with alphabetical. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Jumping in at the top level but here it goes: the correction/update notice, which notes that the header was changed because the alternative media outlet Gript is not being classified as a far-right actor, seems to be pretty clear that Gript is not being classified as far-right by the source. We can try to make our own analysis as to why the source might have placed those words at the bottom, but it would be improper to try to use the source to support the classification of the media outlet as far-right when the source itself states in plain English that the source does not classify the website as far-right. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know what it was that prompted me to check Mikehawk10'a talk page, but sure enough, the instinct was correct. Perpetualgrasp is not just WP:FORUMSHOPPING, but also WP:CANVASSING. So we have a WP:SPA absolutely dedicated to a cause, making personal attacks, engaging in disruptive behaviour to force their change through, and using (currently) three different venues to do so. I think next stop will be AN/I. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't made any personal attacks Bastun, other than responding to the attacks you have made against me, nor have I deliberately engaged in disruptive behaviour. You yourself told me to bring this issue to another venue, and now you're complaining that this was done. The core of this is that we have a source that you want to use as a reference to support a claim the source itself explicitly says it is not making. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You have - implying that an editor of 16 years standing is incompetent, as you did with your repeated WP:CIR links, is a personal attack. I did not tell you to bring this to another venue, I told you what I had done when I had doubts about the reliability of another source. You brought the issue to WP:RS/N and to WP:NPOV (without flagging either here, as is expected), and you've been WP:CANVASing, which isn't permitted. You were caught doing so - don't try to wriggle out of it! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I made a comment on your willingness to use a source for something that the source itself explicitly said it was not saying, and I stand by it. Anyone can go up and see some of the things you've said about me, and those were actual personal attacks, as they can see me noting I had gone to the WP:NPOV and you saying I should bring my concerns about the Beacon there. I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything, I'm trying to give the conversation time to come to a consensus, and engaging with you has not generally moved the conversation in that area due to your propensity for making personal attacks I have, rather foolishly, responded to. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Notification of this discussion added to the relevant sections of WP:RS/N and WP:NPOV/N. Czello, you may also be interested in this discussion. (I think I've notified all participants in the three locations this is being prosecuted who weren't already active in this section - if I've missed anyone, apologies). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Unlike biology, there is no agreed taxonomy for political groups, particularly those on the right. As a result, we always have to look at the context in which a description is used. If a writer says, "Nazis, Klansmen and other right-wingers," they are referring to the far right. If they say, "U.S. Republicans, British Tories and other right-wing parties," they are referring to the center right. Gript is referred to as "right-leaning" in "Layers of Lies: A First Look at Irish Far-Right Activity on Telegram.", Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), p.17. In this case, Gript was promoting a false, racist story that "African gangs" had started a fire in Dublin, when in fact it had been started by an electrical fault. TFD (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to second TFD's statement. Context is always very important. It's very important to pay attention to context, and the example he provides shows why. "right-leaning" sounds distinct from "far-right" until you look at the story they were pushing and the definition provided in the report of "far-right". The definition they provide is that a group/person is considered "far-right" if they ...support or endorse political or social belief systems that feature at least three of the following five features: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy and strong state advocacy.

So in this instance, the story contains racism and xenophobia just on face value. When one examines the story as it appears on Gript, one also finds a conspiracy theory (stock allegations of silence from the mainstream, a de rigueur claim for far-right media, though not in the list) and criticism of the government as weak and ineffective, which is equivalent to advocacy for a strong state. So by their definition, Gript meets the criteria of being far-right, at least with respect to this story.

I strongly suspect that one would be able to find multiple instances of each and every item on the list, given the headlines I've browsed through while examining Gript myself.

I'd also echo Woodroar's point that the text at the bottom of this source seems like a legal disclaimer.

I can't make any sense of the update to this source other than a legal disclaimer, and I'd note that no convincing explanation other than that has been put forth. I don't quite know what to make of the fact that they changed the section header, but not the text that directly contains the allegation that Gript "echoes far-right messages".

So wrt this source, I would advise replacing it with the source TFD provided. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The source used by TFD doesn't call Gript far-right though. It mentions a single story they ran, and that is the only mention of Gript in a rather length piece of research into the far-right in Ireland. We are again engaging in a search for hidden meaning in a text rather than going by what it explicitly says, or does not say, and that is exactly how we ended up using the DCU source for a point they themselves have now said they did not make. That synthesis, and using a single story to classify a site, even ignoring that they appear to have published hundreds of articles, would appear to both clearly fall under WP:OR. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

But you also take issue with what a text explicitly says, pointing instead to a disclaimer that's added months later and contradicts the article's actual text, so... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't actually. The original text used to justify referencing Gript as far-right does not explicitly call Gript far-right. Other editors, including yourself, argued that the phrasing used could be taken to imply the source considered Gript far-right. I pointed out that was a particular reading of the text, and one I did not think was accurate. Had I been more familiar with Wikipedia at that point I would have argued that it constituted original research. The addition clarifies that the text was not intended to be read in the way certain editors did. There's no contradiction because the text never meant what you argued it did. I remain now, as I was then, against the usage of WP:OR, in this or any other source. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, it's done. I hope. If there are any issues at all, let's continue the discussion. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issues

This is the section to discuss recent edits over 24/25 November. Get consensus for proposed changes, per WP:BRD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I was considering reverting as well. Ktlynch, you mentioned that the previous version was like a "laundry list" of criticism of the subject. Looking at that version, I agree that there's room for improvement, like incorporating "controversies" into the rest of the article. But I think your version goes too far in the other direction, giving undue prominence to McGuirk's statements over analysis/findings from sources. (On the other hand, I do think it may be appropriate to include a DUE right of reply through quotations. We just need to find that balance.) I think we should also trim excessive usage of The Phoenix and non-third-party mentions in the Appearances section, which have been there for quite some time. Anyways, that's my two cents—and I apologize, I'm not sure what the exchange rate for that would be. Woodroar (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is partly finding reliable sources. Gript itself isn't one. One of the additions - "When I said on RTÉ’s Prime Time programme on March 2^nd that “Éirígí” were “the people who murdered a journalist”, that was 100% wrong and incorrect." - was referenced to "Citation|title=Collie, Ruth, (died 5 March 1936), journalist|date=2007-12-01|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u207739%7Cwork=Who Was Who|publisher=Oxford University Press|access-date=2021-11-25" so I've no idea what was going on there. A sentence was changed with a summary of "revised adverb per source" when the original was correct. I agree the coverage of the Éirigí libel needed expansion and it now includes his apology and McKee's partner's reaction, which I think is balanced.

There are WP:UNDUE issues, also. Appearing as a speaker at a summer school (that doesn't have it's own article) or writing one article for a minor magazine aren't notable, in my opinion. No other Kennedy Summer School speakers have their appearance listed in their articles, for instance. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)