Talk:Emmet Stagg

Paul Gogarty

Wondering whether anyone has an opinion about the inclusion of the Paul Gogarty swearing incident in this article. I can understand it being included in Gogart's article, but being the subject of the swearing (i.e. being sworn at)...is that worthy of an encyclopedic entry? Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It made the national media, and its only one sentence. Snappy (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The incident is important in an Irish parliamentary context and also in the context of Gogarty's political career. That Stagg was sworn at is a lot less significant and isn't that important in his biography. That it's only one sentence and that it "made the national media" isn't exactly relevant. Neither are arguments for notability in themselves. If the incident is to remain, it should be written in a way that is relevant to Stagg - e.g. the impact the incident had on him, how he reacted (if his reaction is of significance),etc. Being on the recieving end of swearing is hardly notable in itself. I have (again) removed the contribution. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I disagree with you, it is relevant. Also, there is no consensus for its removal, I and several other editors have added/edited the relevant sentence. You are the only editor wanting to remove it, so you are going against the clear consensus. Please do not remove it again. Snappy (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Consenseus comes through discussion! One or two opinions doesn't make a consensus on WP. I'll see if I can't get some further discussion on this. Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about notability of incident where Paul Gogarty swore at him in the Irish Parliament. ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Emmet Stagg and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

See WP:NOTNEWS. Althought the 47 hits on google regarding the event in reliable source news agencies definitely makes the event notable in and of itself, the subject of this article is not a primary subject of those news stories. Therefore, in the context of the subject of the article, it is not necessary to mention the event. The event can mention that it was directed towards him, but seeing as how he was the recipient of the harsh words, and not the originator, it's not necessary to provide the information for the event on this article. Furthermore, if expanded any further in may fall under WP:COATRACK against the originator of the harsh words.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Emmet Stagg said he wasn't bothered by the remarks as he had a "thick hide". The remarks are covered in Paul Gogarty's article, so if other editors want to remove them from this article then go ahead. Snappy (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion, RCLC. And Snappy, thanks for the discussion. I've removed the incident. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmet Stagg. 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/20060617053120/http://archives.tcm.ie:80/irishexaminer/2001/09/25/story13434.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/09/25/story13434.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)