Talk:Irish Bulletin

Edit-warring

Hiya, as an uninvolved administrator, I have no opinion on the content of this article. However, it does appear curious that an edit war is ongoing, with one editor adding what appears to be sourced information, and another reverting that information wholesale, but without any attempt at discussion on the talkpage. Could I please encourage all editors here to try to bring disagreements to the talkpage, rather than simply reverting each other? This would be helpful both to try and find some sort of consensus, and also because it would assist other editors who are not familiar with the dispute, to try and understand the points of disagreement. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks, --Elonka 23:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflict here is essentially a spill-over from a dispute at Black and Tans, as you are aware. I am currently working on a properly referenced re-write of this article, to get it at least beyond stub status. Any attempt to add piece-meal here would, judging from recent experience, only lead to unjustified reverts and the same application of unreliable references. Obviously, I will make it available to all in its entirety for discussion and criticism before it is applied. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My edits are supportable Reliable Source additions. The article continues to be reverted and all references removed. Not one comment has been written here regarding what, if anything, is objectionable. Apparently the owners of this article don't feel the need to discuss - or allow sourced material. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how this could ever occur on Wikipedia. A silent edit war where my every comma is removed - no explanation or discussion seemingly necessary. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This was the mess you had made of a simple stub article. It was reverted to its 'pre-mess' state. There are concerns regarding your sources, at least one of which you have accepted elsewhere. For such an experienced editor, by your own account, this is not acceptable. RashersTierney (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've brought my concerns about the inappropriateness of removing each edit, reference or comma from this article with vague edit summaries and no discussion attempts on talk to AN/I.99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has weighed in to this dispute, and rather than discuss the shortcomings of the article here, has restored the mess/version mentioned above with the edit summary "this revision looks fine and isn't a copyvio, what's wrong with it?" The copy-vio canard was raised by the anon IP. Please do not exacerbate the issue by attempting discussion through edit summaries. If you do not understand the issues involved, you only have to ask for clarification. The 'new' version has also restored at least one ref. that was deleted by 'agreement'. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which ref are you referring to? What is wrong with it? Is that your only specific objection to the content and ref's?99.135.170.179 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit particularly of uninvolved observers, your first two 'references' (#1 and #2) are nothing more than a POV justification for changing the word 'newspaper' to 'news-sheet/magazine', a construction entirely your own, and used in neither source. Your third ref. #3 in fact refers to the word 'newspaper', so undermining the terminology of your first two. The Jackson claim #6 that the Bulletin was the creation of Childers is just plain incorrect. As you must by now be aware, it was 'created' (on the authority of the Dáil) by Desmond Fitzgerald, three years before Childer's involvement as editor (and while he was still in the RAF). Your ref #7 is the introduction to a novel and has no bearing whatever on the subject. RashersTierney (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref #7 is not an introduction to a novel, it's a historical overview of individuals from the period by the author. I do see your point about it's usefulness, but it's removal does not change content in and of itself. On your other point - that ref's differ in their description of the publication - Why are the two ref's with one description ruled out by the one ref with another? Isn't a conflict about whether to describe it as newspaper, news-sheet or magazine, just that? A conflict in terms? I have a compromise: Let us remove the term and substitute the descriptive "militant nationalist newspaper" found in this Reliable Source report from the BBC:[1] -99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the ref you've contested. The former #7.99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You have removed one contested ref. Morgan's 1921, is a novel, and your apparent acceptance of it as otherwise speaks volumes re. what you consider to be reliable sources for a historical article. On the question of the subject of this article, lets be reasonable and re-introduce the NPOV term 'newspaper'. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any RS contesting of the referenced term "militant nationalist newspaper" as found in this Reliable Source report from the BBC:[2]? Also please note that the writer's name is Morgan Llywelyn, and she is a highly decorated historical writer specializing in Ireland whose books are used as classroom history texts. I removed the ref as you are contesting it, and because any use of such a tertiary source should be for only the most uncontroversial edits - of which this is apparently not one. -99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets take the BBC claim in its entirety; that Cumann na mBan "produced the militant nationalist newspaper, the ‘Irish Bulletin’". While individual CnB activists were intimately involved in its production, the claim that that organisation 'produced' it is patent nonsense. So much, once again, for your reliable sources. RashersTierney (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you objecting to, " ...with its production aided by Cumann na mBan[7]." - or applauding it?99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting your source. The statement of fact contained in the BBC source does not say 'aided by'. You are again being disingenuous, or at the very least fast and loose with references. RashersTierney (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is, "...helped run Dail courts and local authorities, and produced the militant nationalist newspaper, the ‘Irish Bulletin’." What exactly do you think produced means? Does produced mean run the press? Funded? Organized the various trades needed for physical production and distribution? Published? Distributed? Edited? Wrote? Acquired paper? What exactly is your remarkably tendentious objection to the BBC as a Reliable Source? The Reliable Source Noticeboard is the appropriate venue for removing the BBC from it's place on the list of Reliable Sources. _ 99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your objection to the use of the NPOV term 'newspaper' at this introductory stage? Why the determination to apply any qualification? RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As it was a weekly broadsheet primarily, although not exclusively, aimed at foreign journalists and diplomats and an official organ of an arm of the government, specifically the self-titled Ministry of Propaganda, it's really not a member of the category. We should clearly denote it's well referenced function as a generally militant nationalist vehicle for propaganda - albeit one with a reputation for hyperbole and general accuracy. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally we agree on something. In the body of the article, certainly its role as a nationalist propaganda piece should not be minimised, after all that is why it was established. The term 'gazette' would appear more appropriate at the introduction, from your description, with which I concur. RashersTierney (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Done. But I'm not necessarily comfortable with Gazette. It seems a bit off in left field, stilted and inappropriate.99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I see the term is chiefly British. "esp., the official journal published by the British government, and containing legal and state notices." Still, perhaps it's usage can be revisited later.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor is the inclusion of the qualifier 'militant nationalist' what was agreed, but I have a life outside of this ping-pong game. Can we loose the 4 redundant refs? RashersTierney (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific objection on RS grounds, I'd prefer the ref's to remain for the moment. I understand that we may streamline our ref's later.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My objection is only that we have finally agreed a formula of words, but which is not reflected in any of those refs. making them misleading as sources for the wording. RashersTierney (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally see citations as conceptual support for assertions found in the content. I'll try to adjust the emphasis you see in the placement of the ref's. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There can hardly be any doubt that it was published. What exactly is the purpose of refs 2 - 4 inclusive? RashersTierney (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Conceptual support for assertions found in the content. We'll revisit this, but now is not the appropriate time to remove RS citations.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As things stand, each of those refs could justifiably tagged with . I don't see what timing has to do with anything. Either they are appropriate or they are not. 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)RashersTierney (talk)

I find them to be quite informative and appropriate, and I prefer their initial placement - my effort is to compromise on the emphasis you feel derived from location. Perhaps we should move all the ref's to the end of the sentence itself? ..-99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification

The above notice means that this article falls within the scope of an Arbitration Committee case known as "The Troubles". Articles that deal with Irish (or British) conflict and nationalism, fall within its scope, which means that administrators (such as myself) are authorized to place additional editing restrictions on articles or editors within the topic area. Currently I am not placing any new restrictions, though I am notifying editors here that the possibility exists. To avoid such restrictions, simply work hard to edit in a civil and collegial manner: Keep discussions on the talkpage focused on the article, and not on the motivations (or perceived motivations) of other editors. Avoid reverting, and instead work on changing someone else's text to a version that you like better, as a means of trying to find a compromise. And whenever making a controversial edit, be sure to also engage in discussion on the talkpage. Note that these are not formal restrictions at this point, but simply strong recommendations on my part. If I (or some other administrator) does issue formal restrictions, the way it (usually) works is like this: We'll state restrictions formally on an article talkpage, or on a user's talkpage. If the restrictions are violated, we'll issue a warning on that user's talkpage, notifying them of the possibility of further sanctions. If they then violate the restrictions again, further sanctions may be placed which could range from banning them from an article or topic area, to completely blocking their access from Wikipedia. But usually bans and blocks are not necessary, as long as editors are willing to voluntarily moderate their behavior when warned.

Another thing to be aware of, is that articles in this topic area are already under a 1RR restriction, which means 1 revert per editor per article per day. Anyone reverting more than this, may be subject to an immediate ban or block. So again, to avoid restrictions: Work on editing towards compromise, rather than reverting. Stay civil. Explain controversial edits on the talkpage. Keep discussions focused on the article, and not on the editors. Where a dispute occurs, work through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. And with those simple guidelines, no one probably needs to worry about ArbCom restrictions.  :)

If you have questions, feel free to ask, --Elonka 16:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You have got the 1RR sanctions wrong it was stated in, Request to amend prior case The Troubles, that, Sandstein is correct that 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy... that is what was said by User:Stephen Bain when User:Sandstein refused to block for a breach of 1RR, so if editors agree to 1RR on this article that would help but it is not part of the decision of the arbcom case on The Troubles, and for you to enforce it with out community backing would create lots of drama. BigDunc 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wider involvement needed

I've left a notice at Irish WP notice board asking for broader input. This laborious one-to-one is beginning to fray my nerves. RashersTierney (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)