Talk:Shoneenism

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 May 2015 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Political Bias & Lack of citation

This article seems to be written from a place of personal and political bias, almost as if it was just a rant, the article also lacks many citations to back up points. Fionn Kivlehan-Hayes (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have removed the unreferenced claims. And added verifiable refs for the stuff that remains. You may wish to note, FYI, that deletion is not cleanup. Where there are issues with content, that content may be updated. We do not delete the entire article/title. Like the proverbial baby with the bathwater... Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Summary

I would like to know why the edits are being reverted expanding on what 'shoneens' view positively, we already include what 'they' view negatively and added what is obvious, but yet some would like to omit the obvious facts. What has been added but reverted constantly by the is common knowledge and does not fit the criteria of requiring sources. I would like to kindly ask why @Guliolopez is demanding sources for what is common knowledge, and why he disputes it given the constant reverts by them, especially considering that Guliolopez seems knowledgable on Irish current affairs and history. Tyrsóg (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. While WP:BLUE and WP:BIT could, perhaps, be considered two sides of the same coin, the simply fact is that the text you are proposing to add is uncited. And, to my read, doesn't fall within the scope of the "[patently] obvious". Given the concerns raised about the lack of refs in the discussion above (and the recent editorial which sought to characterise some/all members of FF and FG as "shoneens" and some/all Irish Times staff as advocating "political narratives associated with shoneenism", then it is doubly necessary to support any similar text. As clearly "material [..] likely to be challenged". And, without supporting refs, can only be read as unattributed opinion. Not least as, when the term was first coined/used in the 19th century, many of the things you mention (SF, The Troubles, etc) didn't yet exist. In short: If clearly obvious, to the extent that writers/academics/politicians/columnists/commentators/etc frequently opined in the way you mention, then examples/refs should be readily available... Guliolopez (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]