Talk:Burke family (Castlebar)

Reason for suspension of Enoch

My understanding is that Enoch Burke was suspended from his teaching position not as a result of his opposition to the school’s acknowledgment of the transgender students gender identity, but rather the manner in which he behaved at the commemorative service and dinner. Is this immediately clear in the article? Xx78900 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It could be reworded to be clearer, I think. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

PhD court case

Isaac Burke was involved in a court case with his PhD advisor. He received a payout but I'm not sure if actually holds the degree. 213.205.198.64 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sentence required due to deletion of original source due to ongoing defamation proceedings

• What I think should be changed: Delete the sentence: "On 9 October, the Irish Independent reported that Enoch Burke had been moved to a new jail cell for his own safety, after repeatedly expressing his outspoken views to other prisoners."
• Why it should be changed: The footnote for the sentence cites a news article which has been removed from the internet due to ongoing defamation proceedings.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/10/13/enoch-burke-claims-he-was-defamed-in-newspaper-article/

2A02:8084:80A0:ED00:2C1C:8FC4:EDBA:334D (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The fact of the publication of the Independent's allegation can still be covered by our article, and the Independent's article is still available via the Internet Archive. It has been further referenced in the Irish Times, as noted above, and this has been added to our article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Closing this as answered, per above. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Too much detail

Each of the many sections can be pared down, do we need 5 paragraphs on one incident? Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an ongoing news story that should reach a conclusion fairly soon; it can be pared back then. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Does Enoch deserve his own article?

He’s been getting a lot of media attention lately. Is Enoch notable enough to have his own article? The Optimistic One (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you could make the case that Enoch is notable enough for his own article, but most of his past controversies have been relatively minor so you might be falling into a bit of a WP:BLP1E challenge, though I don't think that such an objection would really hold any weight. I guess my stance would be that technically, yes, Enoch is notable enough for his own article, but I really don't think it's necessary for him to have one, I think the family article is sufficient. Xx78900 (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Xx78900: I’ve decided to create a draft for Enoch for the time being. The Optimistic One (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this article is sufficient for the time being. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Misleading section heading

The section heading Student pronoun dispute (2022–present) was misleading, and the section should not have been a subsection of Anti-LGBT views. The dispute is not about pronouns; it is about Enoch Burke's behaviour towards the school principal, and his defiance of an injunction against his attending the school while he was suspended, and again after he was dismissed. It is only Burke himself who says it is about pronouns. I have moved it into its own section, Wilson's Hospital School dispute (2022–present). --Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Good call. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is correct, can someone take a look at Preferred gender pronoun#Legal issues and legal recognition (permanent link [1]) and consider if the paragraph on Enoch belongs there and with the current wording? I'm not comfortable with doing this myself as although out article does suggest this might be the case, I'm not able to see that from the snippets I can see of the sources as I can't be bothered registering to see any more. The snippets do mention pronoun issues. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph, as it mis-states why Burke was suspended. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Biblical names

212.129.87.65 removed the phrase "all of whom have biblical names", with the edit summary "Perceived anti-Christian bias, names are simply names, why highlight they are biblical?" Bastun reverted this, but Dubarr18 reverted Bastun, with the edit summary "212.129.87.65 appears to be correct, there is no reason to note the Biblical origin to the names in the lead." Now, I wonder, how is it "anti-Christian" to say that a fervently Christian family named their children after people from the bible? Is this illegal, immoral or otherwise frowned upon? It seems to me that this family is notable for their Christian fervour, and an illustration of that is their giving their children biblical names – not Ruth or Daniel, mind, but relatively uncommon ones. If the Irish Times or the "Western People" find this worth noting, that is reason enough for us to note it. Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

On my end I will say that I did not remove that statement because I thought it was an anti-Christian comment but rather because it didn't seem necessary to highlight it in the lead. Perhaps elsewhere in the article but to include it in the lead itself seems largely unnecessary, it ultimately is a minor foot note and not all that notable about the family. Dubarr18 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I reverted for exactly the reasons outlined by Scolaire - there is nothing "anti-Christian" in saying an Evangelical Christian family gave their children Biblical names. I take your point about whether it's worthy of inclusion in the lede. Possibly not. But the correct thing to do, following the 'bold, revert, discuss' process is to discuss, rather than re-revert. I will adjust the academia section to become a background one, and include it there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Detail about academic achievements

Hi all, when I started this article I included a few pieces on the achievements of the Burke children, because I wanted the article to be balanced and not read as a hit-piece, something which I think is difficult to do given the notoriety surrounding the subject matter. In particular the detail of the Burkes' academic achievements gets removed reasonably regularly, most recently in this diff. I'm just seeking consensus on whether or not it should be included? It's commonly mentioned in reliable sources, and I personally think it should be included but I'd love to hear the thoughts of others. Xx78900 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xx78900, it's sourced and I think it's relevant to that section. Dogsrcool420, could you explain why you think it should be removed? Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

sorry, I made the edit on mobile and accidentally didn’t post my reasoning

I thought it was an unnecessary detail for the following reasons:

1. Their academic achievements are clearly stated in this section with their degrees

2. Unlike their individual qualifications as individuals saying that they all got honours is a broader and less specific piece of information that seems like a redundant extra detail that makes sense in the cited piece but seems more “fluffy” in a wiki article

3. in my opinion the last line about them getting honours doesn’t add much to their qualifications as outlined in the section, and similarly removing it doesn’t undermine those qualifications and achievements either

Because this is such a controversial topic right now thinkee it’s important tsimply o be as concise apossible. Dogsrcool420 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, @Dogsrcool420. That's a reasonable argument. Unfortunately I'm torn now. I think both views (including it and removing it) have good points and I simply can't decide which side of the fence to jump to. There are other editors watching this article; hopefully some of them will weigh in on he question. Schazjmd (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a line I remove regularly when editing other peoples work so I didn't think twice removing it, however with the context of this discussion I understand that it's more complicated.

Here's an example of different wording:

"(Burke) graduated from (undergrad course/college) with honours"

I may keep this line if:

1. It's describing a specific qualification achieved by a single person. Broad claims that describe an unspecified amount of people are hard to verify even if the claim has a citation

2. It's the highest level of qualification that person has. Generally undergrad degree marks aren't relevant when talking about people who have higher level degrees, as many of the Burkes do.

That's just my opinion. I think the section itself is good, I just think that line should be removed to keep it concise. Also apologies for all the spelling mistakes on the last reply.. I'm not using the mobile editor anymore Dogsrcool420 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Radical"

What is the issue with inclusion of the word "radical", please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s unfounded 67.250.12.135 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the meaning of radical in this sentence in the leading paragraph? When the word is used with no elaboration or context it insinuates a particular point of view. The word adds nothing factual to the already existing adjective religious. It should be removed. It's another example of unnecessarily motivational language in the article.--Scootertop (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

There are quite a lot of problems with the handling of neutrality and NPOV by this article. On reading through I sensed that the overall message is critical. I am adding a tag to reflect this. A summary of my concerns to bring it into a form that does not promote a negative view of the subjects would be as follows (although there are probably a lot more that emerge as you deal with these):

a) delete language that promotes disapproval or else unacknowledged bias (and there's a lot, so I shall only mention a few to start with.) E.g. the sd uses the unnecessary adjective "repeated", in Wilson's Hospital Dispute, the Westboro Baptist church is described with the word "notoriously", in the anti-LGBT activism paragraph, Enoch "confronted" passersby etc.

b) all the children's names are listed in the heading paragraph even though some are not mentioned elsewhere in the article;

c) the article is written like a charge sheet, with a series of contentious events set out together with details of the negative consequences or penalties that ensued, but no attempt to show mitigation. In fact this article is supposed to be about the family so we are missing a section to explain what the foundation for their actions is and basis for their objections but it is instead it is inappropriately a litany of controversies where the subjects are presented just as in articles about criminals. Most other articles of this sort have subjects presented as genuine activists, but I don't see this here.

d) most of the sections have too much minor detail that could be removed to make it NPOV.

e) when details are needed, however, we get excess information (or motivational language), such as in Opposition to Gay Mural where the text turns the Burkes' opinions on the issue into another controversy. Then, when opposing views by other callers are added (no supporting views are included), they are not presented for balance, but rather to refute the Burkes - as though the reader is being forced to partake in this argument.

f) why does the heading "Negative campaigning against LGBT politicians" contain both the motivational terms "negative" & against? In a democracy, campaigning against someone is understood to be essential for the system to work and although I don't like this kind of campaigning, there's nothing unusual about it, yet the reader is being invited to disapprove.

Other similar uses of manipulation in language abound. Scootertop (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

a) The use of the word "repeated" actually conveys information that something happened more than once, therefore it is not an "unnecessary adjective". The word "notoriously" conveys that the Westboro Baptist Church is not obscure and have a reputation for being controversial. We could replace "confronted" with "engaged with".

b) Only 2 of the ten names (Esther and Keren) aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article but they are involved members of the family and are named in some of the referenced articles.

c) The subject's notability is substantially based on the series of contentious events more than anything else. I think a "Positions and views" sections like on Westboro Baptist Church might be akin to what you're suggesting but I think it might be out of place.

d) The Wilson's Hospital School dispute section is probably lengthier than it needs to be

e) I don't see how the "Opposition to Gay Mural" section is not neutral. It seems to be a fairly straightforward account of what happened?

f) Negative campaigning is a specific concept, it's not being used just to have the word negative in there. They took out attack ads which are described as negative campaigning in the second sentence of that article. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policies on short description content, what belongs in the lead paragraph, and what the requirements of core content WP: COPO and neutrality are WP:NPOV.--Scootertop (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)