Talk:Richard Boyd Barrett/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Boyd Barrett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Removing material from this page

Hi there Users: ChloeSands and SorchaNi have been removing the same blocks of text from this page. Would either of you like to discuss these edits? Articles on Wikipedia are meant to be neutral collections of referenced facts about the subject matter without bias. If you feel that there is unverified information on this page or if the article is written in a biased way then please point it out. The page could do with improvement - it's just a big lump of text and needs formatting etc but we cannot remove information from the page just because it is negative. MoyrossLADY (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. These editors ChloeSands, SorchaNi and Pbpa2011 are new have only edited this and/or the PBPA article. They are probably members of that organisation. If these keeps up, page protection may need to be requested. Snappy (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article section entitled 'Views on Israel and Jihad' is misleading and defamatory.

The section is structured in a way to induce guilt by association, with repeated hints that Mr Boyd Barrett has strong connections with Jihadists.

Shared attendance at conferences, and support for an individual's right to free speech and freedom of travel prove no such connection.

Also refusal to condemn can in no way be construed as support.

Richard Boyd Barrett has made no public statements at any time related to or mentioning Jihad. Therefore a section heading including the word Jihadists is deliberately and provocatively misleading.

The section is structured very similarly to a recent blogs and press releases by a Councillor Richard Humphreys, of the Irish labour Party, a political rival to Mr Boyd Barrett.

Therefore I contend that this article is a politicized intervention by members or supporters of a rival political party ie a ' a dirty trick' intended to defame Mr Boyd Barrett during the course of a general election campaign.

I am asking you to remove this section.

Thanks you very much.

The new 'Views on the middle east' is some improvement. Thank you. Howver Mr Boyd Barrett has many more views on the middler east that this small article covers. He also has views on many other things. Can I be allowed to expand the article. Dave Lordan

Please sign your posts on talk pages and noticeboards by typing four tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~
Please give links to reliable independent sources that discuss what other views Mr Barrett has on the Middle East. (Good examples would be newspaper reports.) Posting them here is fine, then we can discuss putting them in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge

Here are two links with quotes re Iraq war 2003

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0206/wardemo.html with quote

The Chairperson of the Anti-War Movement in Ireland, Richard Boyd Barrett, has said it is almost certain that between 50,000 and 100,000 people will lose their lives in the event of a war. He expects that 20,000 will take part in the march in Dublin.

and from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2918733.stm

with the quote

Spokesman Richard Boyd Barrett said: "How can Bush come to Ireland talking about peace while his army is subjecting the people of Baghdad to a medieval siege with 21st century weaponry?"

are these suitable?

Dave Lordan (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The page has once again been altered to include politically biased content. I can't figure out how this can be done to a semi-protected page unless by a 'trusted administrator'. If that is the case I would like to make a complaint about this trusted administrator an ask that they not be allowed access to the page. Hoe do I find out what user is adding the politically biased content?

I would also like to add further material about the biography of Mr Boyd Barrett and his political career. Can someone let me know how to proceed. Thank you. Dave Lordan (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

it now seems to have been changed back again to more neutral. can someone explain to me what is a happening here. I would really appreciate it, thanks.

Dave Lordan (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the page in question (that is, Richard Boyd Barrett), and click "View history" at the top, it should help to show what is happening. That provides a list of who made changes to the article, and when, and what reasons (if any) they gave for each change. It also lets you compare one version with the next, so you can see what they changed with each version. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dave Lordan seems to be no one else but... Dave Lordan, a fellow member of the Richard Boyd Barrett's Socialist Workers Party who helps him campaigning in the forthcoming Irish election. His suggestion about removing all the material on Boys Bartrett that he sees as negative shows that he wants to whitewash Richard Boyd Barrett, erasing all the well-documented information about Boyd Barrett's extreme views on Israel and the war on terror. We already had sockputtery in relation to this article, which included the repeated ungrounded removal of well-sourced material. I would welcome any user adding well-documented material to this article, no matter if positive or negative, but vandalism and ungrounded removal of well-sourced material must stop at this point. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the Wikipedia username and the poet and political fellow's name should happen not to be a coincidence, then how prescient of me to have already suggested that he might benefit from reading our conflict of interest guidelines; and how nice that User:Dave Lordan hasn't ever edited the article Richard Boyd Barrett. So everything is in order there. But I don't think everything is quite in order as regards the article, just yet. For example, it having a balanced and neutral point of view - at present, it doesn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We can't be sure if Dave Lordan edited the article or not, as we are not administrators and so can't check the IP addresses for those sockpuppets who used to vandalise it. I hope it wasn't him, though. I see the present version of the article as well balanced and expressing a neutral point of view. We can't avoid mentioning the object's views on Israel and the war on terror (I mended the title for this section), however the article shows the object's positive side, as well. We'll see if any other editor can come up with more sourced and documented material, as the article is still a stub and needs to be expanded. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, taking one thing at a time, we can't see if you or me or anyone specific edited the article as an IP or not. The one thing we do know is that the account User:Dave Lordan did not edit the article, which is what I said. We don't make assumptions or guesses or raise possibilities in the absence of evidence, because we assume good faith. Something you should be especially careful of when you also say things that tie an account to an identifiable living person.

There's a lot more to be said about the current content of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

Just for anyone not aware and who may be interested, the neutrality issues with this article are currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Although here is a good place too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article, and I haven't denied my identity. Who, on the other hand, is viticulturist? Obviously someone with a close knowledge of Irish politics, indeed Dun Laoghoire politics, if they know so much about me. The fact remains that the article is being deliberately rewritten over and over by someone who wishes to defame mr boyd barrett by associating him with the term Jihad and by misrepresenting him as closely connected with organisations such as Hezbollah. This is defamatory. Please advise me how to proceed with complaints and I am also requesting that the article be restored to its clean and neutral version and that, in the interests of fairness, Viticulturist be prevented from editing it. dave lordan

For the very last item of that, please see my most recent comment back at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

Regarding complaints, the page I linked you to already states clearly: "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en‐at‐wikimedia.org ". I assume the same goes for if you think someone else is the subject of a libelous statement.

However, I would also recommend considering whether the issue can be resolved by discussing it here with other editors, thus avoiding having to mess around with emails back and forth. I hope you'll agree that the article is currently a lot more neutral than it was twelve hours ago, and I would expect it to improve further. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Cairo conference and its attendees

Right, first item on the agenda.

The article currently states: "In March 2005 he attended the Conference of the International Campaign Against American and Zionist Occupation in Cairo, addressed by Mohammed Nasal of Hamas and Sheikh Hassan of Muqtada Al-Sadr's brigades."

For this statement, the sole reference it gives is a link to this: http://irishantiwar.org/archives/news/101307.html This isn't much of a reliable source for anything other than what statements the Irish Anti-War Group chooses to make on their website. However, it's the only source we have right now for this statement.

The name of the conference is exactly as listed on the webpage, so that's fine.

However, regarding attendees, the statement in the Wikipedia article currently lists two individuals that are then identified as belonging to organisations that some people would consider terrorist or terrorist-supporting groups.

Whereas the website that we are using as a source for this statement, lists the attendees as "1000 delegates from anti-war groups, political parties, NGOs, Trade Unions and Peasant organisations in Egypt and the wider region". It then mentions Hamas as "the Palestinian Islamist group" in the same sentence as mentioning representatives of Sunni and Shia resistance groups in Iraq. In short, the source is at pains to point out the widespread nature of the delegations from many different communities and groups, and goes on to re-emphasise that point once again when it says "organised by the major opposition currents in Egypt Islamist, Nationalist and Socialist".

The website then identifies speakers to have included Sheik Hassan Al Zarquani of Al Sadr, Alaa Y Hadaad who is a newspaper journalist, Sheikh Majid Al-Gaoud who is from "the National Front of Iraqi Intellectuals associated with the resistance", Mohammed Nasal of Hamas, and some more general comments suggesting things that were said by unnamed Iraqi and Palestinian delegates.

The point is, why is the individual from Al Sadr and the individual Hamas singled out for mention in the Wikipedia biography of this Irish chap, but the newspaper journalist and the intellectual (who are given just the same coverage in the source) are not?

Secondly, what is the relevance of mentioning these individuals in the biography at all? Are there reliable independent secondary sources that discuss their role at the conference in relation to Boyd Barrett? If we are just relaying the information provided in this primary source (the webpage) then should we not be covering what they are stated to have said at the conference? (About how Hamas had undertaken a ceasefire, Al Sadr organisation was set up to distribute medicine, et cetera.) If the nature of what was said at the conference is not relevant to Boyd Barrett's biography, then why is the affiliation of two of the speakers relevant to it?

Cherry-picking names and affiliations of two specific speakers, is just as point of view as if someone had written the article stating "Boyd Barrett visited the Cairo peace conference to promote the distribution of medicine in areas stricken by conflict and to encourage the Middle East peace process" and then gave the same webpage as the source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its noteworthy if he attended a conference with someone dodgy. I would suggest that these two paras be deleted but retain the rest of the section including the quote questioning Israel's legitimacy. MoyrossLADY (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting words in Boyd Barrett's mouth about Hezbollah

Right now, the Wikipedia article has a quote which says: Boyd Barrett argued that "banning the Hezbollah representative from Ireland amounted to the suppression of free public debate in this country".

This is sourced to a newspaper/online editorial where the actual text is: Boyd-Barrett, whose Socialist Workers' Party is now re-branded "People Before Profit", said banning the Hezbollah representative from Ireland amounted to the suppression of "free public debate in this country".

The point here is, what we put between quotes in a Wikipedia article as something that Boyd Barrett said or argued, needs to be something he actually really did say or was reported by a reliable source to have said.

The source (the editorial) is not reporting him to have said the text we are quoting in the Wikipedia article. It is quoting exactly six words of it, out of seventeen words. The source is not claiming that Boyd Barrett referred to Moussawi as "the Hezbollah representative" while demanding that he be allowed to enter the country, and if the source doesn't claim it then Wikipedia most definitely shouldn't claim it either.

It is the source itself that is labelling Moussawi as "the Hezbollah representative". We can report on them doing so, but we certainly can't put words in Boyd Barrett's mouth that he (apparently) didn't say. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this - we can't put words in peoples' mouths. Perhaps it would be better to say: According to the Irish Independent, Boyd Barrett said that banning Moussawi amounted to the suppression of "free public debate in the country". Moussawi's alleged link with Hezbollah is previously mentioned and needs no repitition. MoyrossLADY (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note that this particular revert does not re-introduce the misattribution that the earlier reverts introduced. Specifically, this particular revert does not have quotes around "the Hezbollah representative" as if to suggest Boyd Barrett had used those specific words in that context. So that deals with the most significant problem. However, I still agree that MoyrossLADY's suggested phrasing is better (much better) from a neutrality point of view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree that MoyrossLADY's suggested phrasing is better (more precise). I corrected the article accordingly. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/Israel quote

I would like to make the following change to the quote.

Current version: "He said that “it is entirely legitimate to argue that Israel has no right to exist because it is not a normal state but a state built on violence, oppression and apartheid. We must convince people that Israel has no right to exist as long as it denies rights to Palestinians.”"

New: "He said that Israel is "a state built on violence oppression and apartheid" which "has no right to exist as long as it denies rights to Palestinians"."

This avoids "no right to exist...no right to exist unless..." while preserving the gist.

Also, no-one has been able to verify this quote, since the article is behind a paywall. Can anyone with access please confirm and let us know any useful context or other information? Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources for WIkipedia articles need not be easy to access. See WP:PAYWALL for policy allowing sources behind paywalls. I have access and I'll have a look later. MoyrossLADY (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of WP:PAYWALL and not suggesting deletion of the quote, just verification.Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Businessman?

[1] says RBB is a "well-known employer". Anybody have any information on this? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

no he is not an employer or businessman and never has been. the journalist is being ironic. 188.141.33.215 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Addition

(It is usual to add to the end of a talk page - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC) )

I believe that ChloeSands and SorchaNi had no intention of abusing wiki's guidelines but wanted to correct the contentious articles by viticulturist99 that were obvious political smears against Mr Boyd Barrett. Like myself they seem to be unfamiliar with wikipedia. I would like to make further contributions to this article and am posting these here. Hopefully I've done this correctly and if not please advise.

Campaigns and Policies

Richard Boyd Barrett has campaigned against Ireland's bank-bail outs and NAMA, organized protests, and led initiatives such as the The Right to Work Campaign [1] . This campaign calls for increased public expenditure on infrastructure projects to simultaneously create jobs and improve facilities such as hospitals, schools, public amenities and social housing [2] [3]. He is also proposing direct investment in public enterprise and strategic industry to create jobs in areas such as renewable energy, food production, generic medicines and IT development [4] . Boyd Barrett has led various campaigns to protect public amenities in Dun Laoghaire [1] including public access to the sea front, public transport, and more recently he has been campaigning to prevent the sell off of Dun Laoghaire harbour to private companies[5]. Moreover, he has been involved in campaigns to reverse unfair job losses such as those endured by the Connolly Shoes workers [1].

Sovtek1971 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

seems reasonable to me - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the article is protected, we need to reach a consensus here and then ask an admin for permission to make the changes. I will spend some time looking at these suggestions and the sources later before giving an opinion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Either four or five of the references provided are to sources which are not independent of the subject. What's needed are reliable, independent, secondary sources. Obviously these five websites are useful as references for what the subject of the article, and his party, say about themselves; but they're not the sort of sources we'd want to build the bulk of the article (or any significant part of it) on. Further, the proposed paragraph is phrased too promotionally, in my view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The present article has too much on foreign affairs, and too little on the campaigns he spends most of his time promoting - local and national issues. - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a very reasonable criticism. Can you find any links to secondary sources that talk about his campaigning on local and national issues? For example, a newspaper or news website (not a blog) that says "Richard Boyd Barrett said that ........" or "Richard Boyd Barrett criticised (some party or government or organisation) for ......." ? Even better would be a newspaper or news website that specifically says that he's campaigned on a particular topic over an extended period of time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all thanks to everyone for their assistance and guidance. Secondly I am in agreement that the artcile needs to be reweighted to give due prominence to MR Boyd Barrett's involvement in a range of issues. To avoif accuations of conflict of interest I am not willing to edit the page myself- but I can point to the kind of source material demiurge and others have requested. for example these:

workers rights opposition to minimum wage cut

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0203/1224288894318.html

Mr Boyd Barrett claimed the reduction of the minimum wage on February 1st, combined with social welfare cuts and the incorporation of the low paid into the tax net, was part of a wider agenda to force down wages.

campaigning against evictions http://www.independent.ie/national-news/evicted-family-say-they-are-scapegoats-2183513.html

support for special needs campaigners

The campaign to secure Angel a school place is also supported by Cllr Richard Boyd Barrett of the People Before Profit alliance.

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/call-for-special-needs-placing-unit-as-angels-dad-battles-on-104196.html

People Before Profit councillor Richard Boyd Barrett organised the protest outside the council offices to protest against what he said was the appalling treatment of the family.

He said: "To treat a vulnerable child with special needs in this way beggars belief... Angel’s father has done everything to try and get his daughter an education and get her medical needs provided for, yet he comes up against a brick wall of cutbacks, indifference and bureaucracy.

"Angel’s plight shows the shocking human reality behind the cutbacks and the under-funding of our vital services. It brings home the true obscenity of billions being poured into banks and hundreds of thousands paid in salaries and bonuses to people like Brendan Drumm, while the most vulnerable in our society are being savaged with cuts," he added.

sorry people keep forgetting to sign with the tildes Dave Lordan (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I hope you remain on wikipedia. Is seems to me that you have reasonable references and the article should be ammended. Didn't he contest last time under "people before profit", the article implies that constesting this time under that banner was a surprise. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Clem, I do intend to stay on. I have an interest in contemporary irish literature and l;iterary biograophy that I can put to some use maybe. He did contest last time as people before profit. There was an attempt to get the broader United Left Alliance on the ballot paper this time but that failed for technical reasons. I can get provide a more detailed answer than that if required Dave Lordan (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

here are another list of sources showing another range of campaigns and views publically and independently recorded as belonmging to Mr Boyd Barrett. Please include them in any edit. dave lordan

RBB is against the bail-out of private banks and bondholders, and for hiking up taxes on the super-wealthy and closing tax loopholes, and capping public sector salaries at €100,000 euro. Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0205/breaking13.html

RBB is for protecting public sector workers on low and middle-ground incomes. Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0202/election_tracker.html

Generally, on investment in health, education and social housing: Source: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/economy-key-in-election-campaign-15074268.html

"He led the campaign that stopped St Michael’s Hospital being taken over by developers." Source: http://www.newstalk.ie/candidates/cllr-richard-boyd-barrett/ and also mentioned here: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cusacks-son-boyd-barrett-springs-another-surprise-685684.html

On being a key figure in organizing the 100,000-strong Dublin rally against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Source (same as above): http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cusacks-son-boyd-barrett-springs-another-surprise-685684.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/04/irish-general-election-labour

On supporting the Egyptian revolution Source: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/protesters-demand-justice-and-democracy-at-embassy-demo-2516024.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Lordan (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this?

Anti-war Work

Since having been instrumental in mobilizing mass protests against the war in Iraq in 2003[1], Boyd Barrett has continued to chair the Irish Anti War Movement which advocates for an end to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the end of the Israeli occupation in Palestine, as stipulated by the constitution of the organization [2]. In relation to domestic policies, the constitution calls for an end to the use of Shannon and other Irish facilities by the U.S. military and opposes Ireland’s involvement in military alliances and the international arms trade. In 2009 Boyd Barrett supported the pro-democracy protests in Iran [3]. On the issue of alleged Irish passport cloning by the Israeli Mossad in early 2010, Richard Boyd Barrett commented that "the double standards being applied to Israel after this action are bewildering. If Iran was implicated in an action like this, it is highly likely that it would be used as a pretext for a military assault on the country or at the very least we would hear demands for hard-hitting sanctions. Yet Israel is treated with kid gloves and there is not even a mention of sanctions or diplomatic expulsions." An Israeli official was subsequently expelled from Ireland as a result of that passport abuse issue [4].

Following the Egyptian uprising which began on 25 January 2011, Richard Boyd Barrett said: "The Irish government and Irish political parties who have previously co-operated with the Mubarak regime and his political party must come out now and publicly repudiate this brutal dictator and use their influence to ensure an end to his regime and a transition to real democracy in Egypt."[5]

[1] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2003/0329/1048583770059.html

Revision

Its better than it was, but needs more copy-edit, and needs more balance, we will get there. - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I reckon that the article is in a reasonable condition at present. - ClemMcGann (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Its slipping again. User:MoyrossLADY wants to stick the label "Trotskyist", while user:Viticulturist99 wants to highlight any who question Israel. Richard Boyd Barrett is a local councillor. He is far more involved in, and known for, his stand on local issues. He can claim some success on these local issues; he has failed in other local issues. imho his attitude to the provision of scoop-bags for dogs fouling the east pier are more relevant than his verbal support for an external lobby group - because he is in a position to do something about it. As for the Trotskyist label, in time the united left alliance might br registered as a political party, at present - it isn't. Until then, he is a member of 'people before profit' he represents that party at local level, he competes for that party at national level. Introducing other labels is confusing. He is not a members of Joe Higgins socialist party afaik. that party is also described here as trotskyist. Some clarity is required. - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rossport Five - clarity

"In the run-up to the election he participated in high-profile campaigns against highrise development, bin and water charges, privatisation of hospitals and support for the Rossport Five."

Can we assume this means that he supported the Rossport Five, rather than that he campaigned against support for them? I've checked the cited source, and it's just as unclear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

a reasonable assumption, but as you say, the source is unclear. without a clear source, I would drop rossport - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

environmentalist

An IP and User:Viticulturist99 don't like the description environmentalist even though thats how the cite describes him. The article speaks of his renewable energy campaign. I fail to see the objection to the term "environmentalist". If a good reason is not advanced, I intend to restore the term - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Campaigner and environmentalist are not synonyms. The article you are referring to doesn't give us any information on his hypothetical involvement with any environmental movement. If you can provide any source proving that RBB actually belongs to one of them, please do. Also, the fact that the Irish Independent called him an 'environmentalist' proves nothing and can't be counted as a source. E.g. the footballer Gary Neville was called 'an idiot' in the Daily Mail of 24 January 2010. This doesn't give us a license to write in Wikipedia that GN is a footballer and an idiot. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

you could have responded earlier - ClemMcGann (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your note until today.--Viticulturist99 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the Irish Examiner myself, but the Independent article is sufficiently reliable to include it without further clarification, unless perhaps Mr. Boyd Barrett objects. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The description of Richard Boyd Barrett as an environmentalist in the UK Independent article appears to be a one-off mistake. I doubt there is any other similar reference. Boyd Barrett is a revolutionary socialist. He makes no claim to be an environmentalist on his website. wp:lead tells us to include only well referenced information in the lead section that reflects its relative importance to the subject. A singly sourced description that appears out of character does not belong here. I will include the description of him as an environmentalist with attribution in a later part of the article. MoyrossLADY (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You wrote : Boyd Barrett is a revolutionary socialist. When, Where did he advocate rebellion? - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"although he is not known to belong to any environmental movement"

This is an unattributed vague statement. Who is it who doesn't know if he belongs to an environmental movement? see wp:weasel for a discussion of why this kind of phrase raises problems. I would prefer of this phrase were removed. MoyrossLADY (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt - cut it out - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Snappy (talk) thinks that Dun Laoghaire councillors, even standing as candidates in the forthcoming election, fail WP:Politician (see Talk:Mary Mitchell O'Connor). I disagree because WP:Politician says that "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" are notable. Anyway, I believe that either both Richard Boyd Barrett and Mary Mitchell O'Connor are notable or none of them, as simple as that. We can't apply double standards here. Would be interested to hear the other editors' opinions. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit articles in an attempt to make a WP:POINT - this person is clearly notable, he is chairman of the Irish_Anti-War_Movement, a lot of independent coverage of the person with some articles that are exclusively related to him.and adding a notability template here because of something that happened at another article is not the way to edit here. I suggest you remove the template yourself.Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Viti, your action was probably defensive, you probably want to defend your own article Mary Mitchell O'Connor However this is not the best way to do that. There are 14 candidates. Just being a candidate is not in itself notable. RBB, as the article notes, is frequently quoted in the media. I advise that you remove the template here and defend MMOC on her talk page. ClemMcGann (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that being a candidate is not in itself notable; I never said it was. What I said was the following: "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" are notable, and this is a quote from WP:Politician. I will remove the template as soon as soon as it is removed from Mary Mitchell O'Connor. Alternatively, I would welcome another editor to remove the template from both articles. I don't have to defend the article about Mary Mitchell O'Connor, as the person is clearly notable, even without a hint of notoriety that Richard Boyd Barrett's reputation seems to have. I notice that my point about double standards hasn't been addressed yet. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the template from the article; you clearly just don't want to listen to what others say here. Please feel free to AfD this article or Mary whoever or any other article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary Mitchell O'Connor is ~~not notable because there are no~~ less notable than RBB because there are fewer articles written about her - but many incidental references. Richard Boyd Barrett, on the other hand, has been the subject of many published articles and is therefore notable. MoyrossLADY (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-referenced

There are three cites to the politician's own website, and I think now would be a good time to either remove those citations or make it clearer that they are merely what he represents his own views as. The site is already listed under "website" in the infobox. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Views on Middle East

Can the following be added to Views on Middle East section of the article.

In his capacity as a councillor in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, Richard Boyd Barrett proposed a motion to end diplomatic ties with Israel stating that Israel's policies against Palestinians amounted to Apartheid. Quoting Nelson Mandela, he stated that Israel should be treated in the same way as South Africa was treated during Apartheid. Against accusations of anti-semitism Boyd Barrett noted that he had, in the past, brought holocaust survivors to Ireland to highlight the importance of opposing anti-Semitism and that he was vehemently opposed to any kind of racism, including anti-Semitism.

See section 17. RÚIN/MOTIONS: Councillor R.Boyd Barrett - Diplomatic and Economic Ties With Israel (00:40:28) http://www.dlrcoco.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=46616&t=0&m=wms&l=en_GB#the_data_area

I'm not sure about using video as a reference so if thats not acceptable then maybe this alternative.

In October 2010, Richard Boyd Barrett proposed that Dun Laoghaire County Council call on the Irish government to sever diplomatic and economic ties with Israel until that country lifts its blockade on Gaza, ends its "occupation of Palestinian land", and "grants full and equal rights to the Palestinian people.”

Source: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/meetings/2010/CountyCouncil/Oct10.htm

Sovtek1971 (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While this is all true, and could be added, it would leave the article with too much material commenting on external affairs and too little on local politics. We need more on local government. Possibly your text could be added as footnotes as it supports existing text. btw I hope you will contribute to other articles on wikipedia - ClemMcGann (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be strange to stress that RBB quoted Nelson Mandella - when the quote is not relevant in the much larger Mandella article - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The video of a council session is a primary source. We should use secondary sources. If no secondary sources exists, this is an indication that the event is not notable. Politicians say things every day - not everything is worth including in this article. In this case the statements that Israel should be boycotted and diplomatically excluded are less notable than stating that the country has no right to exist. MoyrossLADY (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't debate that issue, wikipedia is not a forum. Others have opinions which are critical of Israel, why do his deserve a heading? ClemMcGann (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If a politician announces that another country has no right to exist, that is notable and should be on his Wikipedia entry. Politicians are notorious for fence-sitting and making empty platitudes so recommending the annihilation of another sovereign state is a 5-star notable event. Other examples of people who've made similar statements and then these statements being recorded on Wikipedia include: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bobby Fischer. Being merely critical of Israel is not notable . MoyrossLADY (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not debating, but for accuracy the words were "has no right to exist as long as it denies rights to Palestinians" ClemMcGann (talk)

Hi Clem, sorry I didn't mean to be argumentative - I just meant to discuss the article. I agree that the above quote in full should be included in the article - which it is at present. MoyrossLADY (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's generally understood that you can be anti-zionist without being antisemitic, but some zionists like to try to conflate the two. Many followers of Haredi Judaism are anti-zionist.Red Hurley (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 election

Stylewise, the mention of his defeated rivals comes across as crowing in victory, which may not read so well in 10 or 20 years' time. BTW I added the fact of his success and have no axe to grind.Red Hurley (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Plus, in a multi-seat constituency system, where several people lost "their" seats, it's impossible to say that he took a specific person's seat. Couldn't he just as easily have taken Ciarán Cuffe or Barry Andrew's seats? I'll delete it now. Mpidge (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing Years

What was RBB upto in the almost 15 years from him finishing university to running for public office? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooneradam (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Political activist"

The beginning of the article refers to RBB as a "political activist". The source given is an interview where he says that he doesn't like to be called a politician, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that he is, eh, a politician. He has had two political titles, both of which appeared to be his full time jobs, and the reason why he's notable to appear on Wikipedia is because he's a politician. The term "politician may be pejoritave to those who want to appear anti-establishment or whatever, but I don't see how it's justified in this case. He's not notable because he campaigns, he's notable because he's a politican.

Also, it is near-impossible to think of a politician who isn't a political activist. Any objections if I change it to "politician"? Mpidge (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Change to politician. Political Activist might be OK if he didn't stand for election. MoyrossLADY (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Corrections Needed

As this article is protected, I can't fix the following: In the sidebar, it states that RBB is a incumbent councillor. Since his election to the Dail this is no longer true. His party has nominated a replacement (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/blow-for-boyd-barrett-as-replacement-disqualified-2609473.html) 94.210.24.225 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just fixed this (or at least I think I have). Incidentally, I don't think the article is protected at the moment (although it was a few months ago). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)