Talk:Brendan O'Neill (columnist)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brendan O'Neill (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108163459/http://www.cis.org.au/research-scholars/contributors/author/656-oneill-brendan to http://www.cis.org.au/research-scholars/contributors/author/656-oneill-brendan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brendan O'Neill (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/brendanoneill2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109003301/http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11963/ to http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11963/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100169490/why-its-now-safe-to-say-i-love-marx/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just added (and Irish) to nationality following comments about his natonality made by Brendan O'Neill on the BBC Radio 4 programme "Any Questions" March 2 2018 - from 8.00 pm - whilst talking about Brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7486:3100:6DA8:F066:861B:7F70 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Marxist libertarian - source

User:Kind Tennis Fan has said that the YouTube source for B O'Neill self-identifying as a 'Marxist Libertarian' is unsatisfactory. But the video has B O'Neill himself saying he is a Marxist libertarian. I do not see how you could have a better source. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to cite a video you saw on YouTube as a source, such as an excerpt from a documentary or TV program, don't use the YouTube information, but instead find the original movie or TV program's data (a web search should be sufficient to find this information if you know the title). Sites such as imdb and Amazon often have the data you will need. If you provide readers with the necessary data, they can search a video out on YouTube themselves. See WP:YTREF (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:YTREF&redirect=no) Sirfurboy (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t understand what is required. The video title is ‘The Rubin Report. What is a Marxist Libertarian? (Pt 2) Brendan O’Neill POLITICS Rubin Report’ . How should the citation be changed? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

D.o.B?

Date of birth, please, as standard on wiki pages. Valetude (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valetude: it needs reliable sources, and for the full dob it needs to be clear it's well known, see WP:BLPDOB - "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." Doug Weller talk 17:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We have no idea, a primary source would be great but we don't even have that. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

Just wanted to log the removal of the following long-standing content: O'Neill and others associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), Living Marxism and Spiked—including Frank Furedi, Mick Hume and Claire Fox—are often seen by commenters such as Nick Cohen as having shifted from a far left position to an extreme stance on the libertarian right. Although O'Neill says he is part of the left, critics such as George Monbiot have suggested that this is typical as a ploy adopted by those associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) to split and discredit consensus upon the left and to cause impediments for such movements as environmentalism and the reduction of carbon emissions. Removed as inadequately sourced. It certainly could have benefitted from updating and additional sources but I wonder if additional sources rather than removal would have been better strategy. The current article is heavy on primary sources and light on independent ones. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Hallo. The inf was not previously in a ‘Criticism’ section – this heading was added by RichardWeiss before he deleted the para as inadequately sourced. I would dispute the heading, because it is implicitly editorialising, and assumes that Wikipedia’s readers and writers prefer the left to the right. Do you have any sources which you would suggest to support these statements, and if so, what wording would you suggest? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I imagine I could find some,[1] but I wanted to test the waters first, to whether editors see the kernel of something useful and encyclopedic here or not.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Long-standing isn't relevant. I removed a primary source re being in the RCP but if you can find a secondary source please re-add. It wasn't me who added the PS tag, and even long-standing content is vulnerable to that legitimate tag. The first Monbiot ref doesn't mention O'Neill so is original research. Could go in the RCP article. The 2nd Monbiot ref is a self-published blog. If we are to restore should be in a criticism sub-section with reliable 3rd-party source about O'Neill. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970 (talk · contribs) Nope, we don't assume our readers prefer the left or favour the left over the right. See WP:NPOV, no mention of preferring the left over the right. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley An accusation that someone who presents himself as left-wing is, in fact, right wing, might be worth reporting if there are significant sources saying so. I’m not much impressed by the results of your search – I don’t think any of them are usable. (And presumably you noticed that some of them are about the ‘wrong’ B O’N.) It’s not my aim that you should do a lot of work providing sources, only for me to say that I think they are unsuitable, but I have a feeling that is likely to happen. So perhaps it would be better just to leave the article as it is (?) Sweet6970 (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970 I didn't do an actual search, just showing the Google News hits for B O'N minus the outlets where the hits are his article, just to show that there is a bunch of independent/RS coverage of him, as our current article is light on independent sources. So far, consensus is clear that it it's not worth looking at, but only a couple of us have commented so let's see what other editors say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RichardWeiss No – you have misunderstood my objection. You added a heading ‘Criticism’ over a statement that B O’N has moved from left to right. This is only a criticism if you prefer the left to the right. Some people consider that moving from left to right is a sign of maturity. So by using the ‘Criticism’ heading you are, as I said, assuming that Wikipedia’s readers and writers prefer the left to the right. This is not neutral. I stand by my objection. Sweet6970 (talk)

Not relevant unless we restore the section, which was deeply critical of O'Neill. Monbiot's claim he is on the right is just an opinion. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the real motive for the movement of these individuals from the communist left to the climate denying libertarian right really one of left-wing accelerationism, seeking to accelerate capitalism until its collapse, naturally out of which communism will emerge (haha). Indeed if you consider their positions on Brexit and Covid, it appears they consistently choose ones that they feel will maximize political instability. If any published authors/journalists have made this same observation as I have made, then I suggest you consider it for inclusion. Also there exists a video on youtube of one of their close long-time associates, a "Sabine Reul" (a.k.a Sab(e/i)n(e/a) Norton/Jansen), praising the violence of the 1981 Brixton riot, calling for more riots, and laughing into the camera about how these communists seek to exploit such divisions for their own game. She wrote a little apologia for Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 in Spiked, seems that old habits die hard. Nasty people. 84.215.98.25 (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Brendan O’Neill and Jeremy Corbyn

Regarding this addition: O'Neill has also defended Jeremy Corbyn for having met with members of Sinn Féin in the past: "If Corbyn is a nutter unfit for public life because he talked to the IRA before it stopped its campaign, so is John Major."

I do not see that Brendan O’Neill’s views on Jeremy Corbyn’s meeting with people from the IRA are at all notable. Also, the article referenced [2] is about the hypocrisy of the people who criticise Jeremy Corbyn, and not much about Mr Corbyn himself. A better summary of the views expressed in the article referenced would be: ‘O’Neill has criticised the hypocrisy of those who condemn the violence of the IRA without also criticising violence committed by Loyalists.’ But I do not think that this is actually sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the Wikipedia article. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No evidence this is noteworthy unless mentioned in secondary sources. O'N has expressed views on a huge number of topics, so picking opinions from his articles to feature here should proceed via what is considered of note by other sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently agreement on this page that the addition quoted above is not sufficiently noteworthy to be in the article, and so I am deleting it. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is noteworthy due to his past support of the IRA, it shows the development or otherwise of his views on them over time 84.211.51.170 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Citizenship

He claims (TV interview today) to be a dual national. I'm guessing British and Irish, but clearly this is in need of a reliable source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Marxist Libertarian?

I don’t see the rationale for deleting the inf that he identifies as a Marxist Libertarian. Four years is not long in the life of an adult. More importantly, I know of no reason to believe that he has changed his views since 2019. If the present tense is not considered appropriate, then the wording could be changed to say In 2019 he said he identified as a Marxist Libertarian. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this content should be included. Perhaps we should specify the year, but I agree that it's unlikely he's changed his opinion since then. But who knows? GnocchiFan (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now made this change. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Update bibliography?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Heretics-Manifesto-Essays-Unsayable/dp/1913019861 T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the section here on 'Sexual Abuse' helped or not by his article on Owen Jones' Hamas Massacre film video

The section had contained only 1 thing - something he said in 2012. Since O'Neill he wrote on the relevant theme here of sexual violence in his article about Jones, I added O'Neill's article.

Like the 2012 mention, the source was an article by O'Neill himself.

Vladimir.copic -reverted it. Please can you expand here why you think the 2012 content is worth keeping but you deleted the 2023 new content. Will readers not want to see more details of O'Neill views on sexual abuse?

Vladimir.copic - please will you please withdraw your formal Wiki complaint against me: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement until this issue has been discussed here and other editors views shared.

I oppose the addition of this material. (1) It is about Owen Jones, who is not the subject of this article and (2) There is no indication that B O’Neill’s views on Owen Jones are noteworthy, since there is no reporting of them in independent sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit warring from LadybugStardust

This is regarding this block of edits, which LadybugStardust has been edit warring to restore with slight modifications.

Opinions about how "staunch", "steadfast", and "adamant" this person is would need to be attributed to a reliable source. Further, cherry-picked quotes do not demosntrate that any particular opinion is worth mentioning, which makes it a form of editorializing. Even without these words, this would be arbitrary and artificially promotional. Our goal is not to promote him or his views, iti s to provide context via reliable, independent sources. Since you do not have consensus for this content, stop edit warring and discuss here.

Grayfell (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)