Talk:Justin Barrett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Place of birth

First sentence says "born in Cork", last para says "native of Longford". Anyone know which it is? Demiurge 13:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assault

Hi. I am opening a thread here as another editor indicated (in an edit summary) that we should talk about a change that they are proposing. Specifically, the editor perhaps wants to discuss their proposal to add additional content relating to a specific 2004 event. @Irelandwatch: you have the floor. As you suggested in your edit summary, please open the discussion so consensus can be agreed. Be conscious that other editors may raise concerns relative to WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE and WP:NOTNEWS (as the proposed content seems expansive relative to a single event that occurred quite some years ago, and its relevance to context may need to be considered). Over to you... Guliolopez (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ,

firstly ,

The UCD event in which Barrett was assaulted made news at the time including the Irish Times and RTE's Liveline programme , indeed it was the first time the literary society at ucd had to abandon a debate without a vote , I have provided the relevant sources and given the fact that this happened in 2004 and the previous versions of the page have mentioned things Mr barrett did before this , even prior to 2000 , I cant see what the problem is . I really cant .

I also included a section about the last time Mr Barrett spoke in public before his 10 year absence from politics which was also removed .

secondly , there are rules about implying people are fascists and neo nazis , just because somebody attends an event doesn't mean they share the same views as those people or are "linked" to those people .

for example , the NDP party in Germany have representation in the European Parliament , Would you say the European Parliament have 'neo nazi links'

the previous version of the article is clearly biased , I mean , I dont know mr barrett , I'm not a member of the party , but I like to see impartial non biased accounts of peoples lives . its in everyones interest that wikipedia is accurate and truthful . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irelandwatch (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Not credible that an editor, Sinead murphy, with an entire two edits would stumble upon this article and make the same edits as Irelandwatch. Please see WP:SOCKING.

The assault on Barrett should be included in the article, and it is. A single sentence with two references is entirely sufficient. Expansion to several paragraphs - approximately one fifth of the article! - for an assault that didn't even result in arrests is entirely unwarranted, per WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE and WP:NOTNEWS.

A single, insignificant, radio interview for someone in "public life" is most certainly WP:NOTNEWS and should not be included.

Barrett's attendance at neo-nazi events is well referenced per WP:V and WP:RS and is entirely within WP:BLP guidelines. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am broadly neutral on whether to include the debate. I don't think it deserves a massive amount of space. Likewise a single radio interview isn't so big. I think "fascist"/"neo-nazi" is an appropriate term and has many references. I echo Bastun's concern about a new user (Sinea murphy which does really look like a sock puppet account. ____Ebelular (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hold on a second , the talk about barretts 'links' with 'fascists' and 'neo nazis' takes up 2/3 of the entire article and mentioned repetitively , furthermore , most of the links provided are from the Irish Times as is the link I provide about the assault on barrett at UCD , secondly , there is no evidence to suggest Barrett has links to neo nazi groups or fascist groups , speaking at an event on the subject of abortion does not mean you support hitler .

It is clear by anyone reading this that there is a clear bias against the man , what is happening on wikipedia is that people who know the ropes have taken control and want to put their own spin in relation to people they obviously dont like , In my case , I have no feelings on the man just that this is a biased description of his life and I am sure it would never appear in a real encylopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irelandwatch (talk • contribs) 11:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(I started writing this before the intervening edits above. Hopefully not superceded.)

Hi. Thanks very much for your note. On the two main points raised.

1. "for balance the 2004 assault should be covered". The 2004 assault is already covered in the article. To a level which other editors have suggested is balanced with the coverage received at the time (per WP:UNDUE), and with respect to its lasting relevance (per WP:LASTING and related norms). If you feel it needs to be bulked-up slightly, then that may be OK. But adding "copy and paste" text and quotes from primary sources is seemingly concerning to a few other editors. And their understanding of NOTNEWS, UNDUE and related guidelines.
2. "people shouldn't be called nazis if they are not". Where in the article is the text that you are concerned about? And what change to that text are you proposing?
3. "its in everyones interest that wikipedia is accurate and truthful". Yup. Agreed. But you may want to read the WP:BUTITSTRUE guidelines. There is not just a single content inclusion criteria. Truth alone doesn't make something relevant. Other criteria (balance, verifiability, lasting relevance) are also applied.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Irish Times reference on the assault is still there, and is now in the proper format. An Indymedia forum page really isn't a reliable source, but I've left it there for the moment. But again, 1/5th of an article on an assault that apparently wasn't even reported to the Guards is simply not warranted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ,

Please explain to me in detail quoting relevant wikipedia policy and guidelines how anything I mentioned in the version I proposed is a breach of those guidelines .

you say I am giving too much information about the assault on Mr Barrett in UCD yet you go into detail about a meeting Barrett attended in Germany and talk in detail about this meeting and how it was full of skin heads , anti-semitic speeches, quotes from Adolf Hitler and standing ovations to elderly Nazis , would it not be enough to say he attend NDP rallies and spoke on pro life issues .

furthermore , I would like some independent wiki admins to look at the version I proposed and tell me exactly how it breaches any of the wiki community rules .

If this cannot be done , then my friend , you are trying to control or propagandise most likely content on wikipedia to suit your own views .

kind regards , irelandwatch Irelandwatch (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? How about no. How about you read the policies and guidelines that were already linked to? They're written in easy-to-understand language. If you actually read them, you'll have no problem working out for yourself why your proposed edits aren't acceptable. As to Barrett's neo-nazi links, they're reliably sourced in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS, comply with WP:BLP and are very much relevant in an article on a politician and leader of a political party. Good day, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"He spoke in a pro-life capacity" How do you know that's all he said? Before and after those meetings Barrett had campaigned on exactly the issues that neo-nazi parties campaign on, namely immigration, multiculturalism, gay rights, secularism, divorce, anti-EU, anti-communism. So what makes you think he doesn't hold those views? He's literally set up his own National Party (of Ireland)! As far as I can tell, the only people stating that Justin Barrett spoke only in a pro-life capacity is Justin Barrett himself! There are numerous third party sources that detail his neo-nazi/fascist political views. Hence I think it should stay. ____Ebelular (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

wikipedia policy

"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:

Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). "

In my case , I want to know why exactly you will not include the information about the UCD incident especially given the fact that you allow a detailed description of an event he attended in Germany and Italy , about skinheads being in attendance , anti-semitic speeches being read out , quotes from Adolf Hitler and standing ovations to elderly Nazis , you allowed all of this detail but wont allow me to describe what happened at the UCD event , also , I quoted two sources that AFA were involved and this was not good enough either , you also took out the part about his last public interview before his 10 year absence.

I just want explanations , and quoted wiki policy that shows I breached wiki law , I dont think I have done anything wrong , apart from taking a neutral point of view .. kind regards Irelandwatch (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

His facist and nazi links have been covered by many, many sources while the assault was only covered by two Indymedia and the Irish Times.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... I don't think any Wikipedia Administrators have weighted in on this? I'm not an admin. _____Ebelular (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The explanations you're looking for are in the answers and links above. Try reading them. We do cover the assault in as much detail as necessary, and we don't cover a non-notable interview because, well, it wasn't notable or newsworthy. Not seeing why you're having a problem understanding this. Your editing is clearly not neutral. The sock account has been blocked, I see. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Easter Egg link to Irish nationalism article in lead

The article body makes no reference to England, Britain, the English, the British, the United Kingdom, Unionists, Northern Ireland, Belfast, London, United Ireland, or anything like that, except for one reference to him once fraternizing with member of Sinn Fein. While I do suspect he probably is an "Irish nationalist" in the very specific technical sense of that term, given its coherence with his other views, the claim should not be in the lead without appearing in the body, and honestly it looks like someone took a source that described him as a "nationalist" (in the conventional, non-Ireland-specific, sense) for, e.g., his anti-immigration stance, and someone inadvertently linked the word to our article on Irish nationalism based on the flawed assumption that "nationalism that is Irish" is the same thing as "Irish nationalism" (as defined in the linked article). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed that link to point to nationalism rather than Irish nationalism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

the Heading "Neo Nazi Links and Neo Fascist Links" is misleading and unjustified

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This heading implies that Mr Barrett currently has links with Neo Nazis and Neo Fascists

There is no direct evidence given within the account of his life that can reasonably justify that Mr Barrett himself has "links"to any neo nazi or neo fascist groups

The article says he spoke on behalf of youth defence on the subject of abortion at NDP and Forza rallies .

Speaking to someone does not mean you share the same views as them or you are "LINKED" to their organisation .

As already stated the NDP party have an MEP in the european parliament , when a politician in the European Parliament speaks to the assembly he also speaks to the NDP , does this mean the speaker has 'links' to the NDP party or shares their views ???

In the Stormont assembly in Northern Ireland , politicians communicate on a daily basis with loyalists and republicans who were involved in killing people , Does this mean that those politicians support killing people ?

If someone works with prisoners , does this mean they support criminality ?

Its important to point out that Mr Barrett was sent to those events by his Job 'youth defence' to speak on pro life issues . He since left youth defence some 13 years ago .

we are 13 years on , its 2017 , and the article is implying he currently has "neo nazi" and "fascist" links.

I suggest the headings be changed as they are misleading , also I wonder if the details of the event are necessary , is it not enough to have used the words fascist and neo nazi , I think people get the picture

kind regards, Irelandwatch (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

New discussions go at the bottom, please. Irishpolitical, you seem very concerned about this article. It's odd that it appears to be the first and only article you've edited. Are you connected to Barrett in some way - if there's a WP:COI it needs to be declared. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this one before - Alison ^❤ 04:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"There is no direct evidence given within the account of his life that can reasonably justify that Mr Barrett himself has "links"to any neo nazi or neo fascist groups" There is evidence, that section has numerous, high quality, sources quoted, including the front page of a paper of record. Please read the section before you complain about it. ____Ebelular (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi , those sources quoted refer to the organisation Youth Defence and not Mr Barrett personally , Mr Barrett worked for Youth Defence 13 years ago and as part of that work spoke to groups on the topic of abortion , as I have already stated with examples , speaking to someone does not mean you share their views , the reason I want to edit the article is because its possible one of the most biased accounts of someones life I have ever read on wikipedia , I dont know mr barrett and I'm not a member of his organiation , but it is just wrong to imply somebody currently has 'neo nazi' and 'neo fascist' links simply because they spoke on the topic of abortion on behalf of a pro life organisation at events almost 20 years ago Irelandwatch (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the sources mostly talk about Justin Barrett as the leader of the No to Nice campaign. Do you have any 3rd party, independent, sources which state that he only organised with them on the topic of abortion? ____Ebelular (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ebelular , none of the sources quoted so far provide any evidence that Mr Barrett himself is associated with or has any direct links to "neo nazi" or "neo fascist groups" , if the claim cannot be verified it should be removed as it is untrue , thank you Irelandwatch (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you have read the sources. Because the literal headlines say otherwise. Here's 3:

• Humphreys, Joe (12 October 2002). "Barrett admits he attended far-right meeting". The Irish Times. p. 9.
• Scully, Derek (11 October 2002). "Extreme-right group confirms Barrett link". The Irish Times. p. 1.
• Scully, Derek (12 October 2002). "'Neo-Nazis' affirm links with Youth Defence". The Irish Times. p. 9.

____Ebelular (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ,

The Quote from NDP says ""We have been in contact with his group since 1996. We are friendly with his Youth Defence organisation."

Being friendly with Youth Defence 17 years ago , the organisation barrett worked for , does not mean Justin Barrett has "neo nazi" and "neo fascist links" , the claim is wrong and should be removed , thanks Irelandwatch (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, Barrett's far-right and neo-nazi links are detailed in the sources. You need to click on the linked articles and read them, that way you'll see that do indeed say what the article says they say. Such information is certainly relevant in the bio of a political party's leader. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Being friendly with Youth Defence 17 years ago , the organisation barrett worked for , does not mean Justin Barrett has "neo nazi" and "neo fascist links" At the time Barrett was the leader of Youth Defence. It wasn't like he had just worked there as their cleaner or something! And "friendly" doesn't mean that that the NPD like him/YD, they literally invited Barrett to be guest of honour at one of their large events! ___Ebelular (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bastun,

Prove it , give me just one quote from any of the sources that show justin barrett himself has links with 'neo nazi' and 'fascists' , in fact he says himself he's not a nazi here - https://www.oceanfm.ie/2016/11/22/im-not-a-nazi-justin-barrett-on-his-new-national-party/

can we please change these headings today , otherwise , I'm going to have to start reverting again , and I'm NOT giving up on this one . thanks Irelandwatch (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't threaten to blindly edit-war against consensus, particularly on something that's as well-cited as this is. We've been over this again and again. I'm all for upholding WP:BLP, but we've too many clear reliable sources here. Anything else will look like a whitewash, if you'll pardon - Alison ^❤ 06:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Per Alison, threats of the type above (to continue edit-warring against consensus) are inappropriate under the relevant guidelines. In honesty, and having followed this thread for at least a few days, the demands for supporting cites seem (to my view) are more than met. Per Alison, WP:BALANCE works both ways. There has been significant coverage of this issue,[1][2] and that coverage seems to be represented here. Perhaps the only change that may be appropriate would be to consider moving some of the quotes to the cites. (As they seem to be offered to address WP:VER reasons, rather than other reasons). Involved editors might also want to review the WP:IDHT guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not "threatening" anything, I making the point that the headings are "factually" incorrect , this is supposed to be an encylopedia is it not ? if so , facts must come before 'feelings' , because nobody has provided any evidence that Mr Barrett himself has "links with neo nazis" or "neo fascists" groups despite asking several times for these facts they have not been provided in any sources mentioned , Therefore the heading must be changed , and therefore I will have to revert to my version because its more accurate . kind regards . Irelandwatch (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Proposing wholescale reversion is at least "threat-like", and there are 4 or 5 other editors who are not in favour of such a change. Continuing to threaten advocate such a change is there in the realm of WP:IDHT. I'd be interested to hear what other editors might think about changing the section headings from "Neo-nazi and fascist links" to "Neo-nazi and fascist meetings" or "Neo-nazi and fascist groups" or "Neo-nazi and fascist contact" or "Neo-nazi and fascist connections" or "Neo-nazi and fascist assemblies" or similar. (As it seems that the SPA editor involved seems concerned that "invites from/speaking engagements to/association with" such groups are not EXACTLY the same as "links with". (Personally I think that "links" is a perfectly reasonable summary of these three things, but would be interested in hearing thoughts on possible compromise). Guliolopez (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

if you look at the version i proposed , there are only a few minor changes to the current , why not just have "attendance at JN and Forza events" all under the one heading and remove the references to "skinheads" , does peoples hair style really matter that much ? also is it really necessary to describe these events , cant people just check out the sources Irelandwatch (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: I agree that "links" is a perfectly reasonable summary and see no need to accede to the wishes of a SPA. @Irelandwatch: no, we won't be whitewashing Barrett's links to neo-Nazi and fascist groups. It is verified, reliably sourced, notable content, and very relevant to the bio of a public figure who is also the leader of a political party. Wikipedia isn't censored because you don't like the content. Step away from the expired equine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"does peoples hair style really matter that much ?" Read definition #2 of skinhead on Wiktionary, "Member of the skinhead subculture arising in late 1960s England or its diaspora, often associated with violence and white-supremacist or anti-immigrant principles.". We're not talking just about the haircut of the people. You sound like you're trying to white wash things. You're claiming "there are no sources", and I provide sources, and you ignore things. Justin Barrett is currently active in Irish politics, after founding a political party opposed to immigration. he was much larger in politics 15 years ago, on broadly similar platforms. All of this is sourced and references. Stop trying to downplay the man's politics. ____Ebelular (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Guliolopez and Ebelular, I have looked at the references provided and there is just no evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr Barrett himself has or has had "neo nazi" or "neo fascist" "links" , to imply that this is the case is factually incorrect , my only interest is in seeing a fact based neutral account , the content only bothers me because those headings are just not true . kind regards Irelandwatch (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You're suggesting that that sources provided aren't neutral? ____Ebelular (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

what I'm saying is that the sources dont provide any evidence that this man Mr Barrett (the person) has links to any Neo Nazis or Neo fascist groups , when it comes to JN , the youth wing of the NDP , the quote from their spokesperson says they were friendly with youth defence , and thats 17 yrs ago ,youth defence is not Justin Barrett , please be reasonable and re-consider re-phrasing these headings as they imply that MR Barrett is somehow connected to the NDP and Forza , kind regards Irelandwatch (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. RE "the sources dont provide any evidence that this man has links to [those groups]". those sources definitively confirm that the man was invited to speak at rallies by those groups, spoke at rallies organised by those groups, and was described as an "honorary guest" at least one of those events. The sources state that the man himself confirmed his attendance at those events. The continued suggestion that the sources do not support what they purport to support has surpassed IDHT and is now bordering on trolling. Guliolopez (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree The sources are blatently clear, and Irelandwatch is outright not listening. This no longer a discussion. I'm not going to participate anymore, and say the same thing over and over again. I will continue to watch the Justin Barrett page for vandalism. ____Ebelular (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Bordering on trolling? Guliolopez, you have the patience of a saint! Any objections, then, if I hat this section? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Never feed the trolls.

Guliolopez , read the sources , it was youth defence that the NDP said they were friendly with , barrett went to the event as an employee of youth defence and spoke for that organisation on the issue of abortion , speaking to someone does not mean you share their views or support hitler or mussolini , or HAVE "links" to them . Remember this all happened 20 years ago and the suggestion is that Mr Barrett today has "links" with neo nazis , its clearly false information and should not be in an encyclopedia , can we please come to some sort of understanding on this . kind regards Irelandwatch (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Five other editors (four in this section and one in a previous section) have come to an understanding on this, and there is clear consensus that the headings are justified and in accordance with policy. End of. Really. End of. We're done. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Bastun , in relation to the editors who agree , you say "four in this section" , are these editors admins ? also are there people involved in policing a section ? who are these people , are they ordinary independent members of the public , or are these editors organised ? if organised , by whom ? kind regards , Irelandwatch (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a [[Wikipedia::Administrator]], there are very few admins, less than 1,500. I don't think anyone else on this page is an admin. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Exact same Paragraphs about Neo Nazi links appears on the Youth Defence page too , so who is it that had the links , youth defence or justin barrett or is both because you dont like either , feelings before facts ? Irelandwatch (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you changed your spelling of defence. Is your lack of Irish roots showing? 😉 ____Ebelular (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes are relevant to YD not JB. They are also excessive and W:UNDUEApollo The Logician (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The quotes are directly relevant to Barrett's participation at the time; they're certainly relevant for the leader of a political party. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok but we don't need to dedicate so much space to explaining the links and give multiple block quotes to things that can be explained in one sentence.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun, this section is talking about these German & Italian political parties and their connection to JB. He was known, and frequently introduced as leader/spokesman for Youth Defence. To strip them seems pointless. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Apollo The Logician on this , Wikipedia:Point of view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

Balancing aspects

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic

Impartial tone

Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The lengthy focus on mr barrett's attendance at two events 15 years ago is "disproportionate to their overall significance" , furthermore the tone is very impartial given the way in which they have been "selected, presented and organized" in this article occupying most of the content and using very emotive headings like 'neo nazi links' and 'neo fascist links', very little information on Mr Barretts involvment in the Nice Referendum or any positive contributions he has made to the pro life cause have been considered or anything else about his life , regards Irelandwatch (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Many experienced editors disagree with you and currently blocked editor, Apollo The Logician. The reasons why we disagree have been explained, ad infintum, in the sections above. Good day. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "minor aspect". When the National Party (Ireland) was founded, the media described it as a "far right" political party. The media asked him if he was a fascist on radio interviews at the time. The NPD are described as a far right and neo-nazi party. Reliable, usable newspaper sources have lead with headlines of 'Neo-Nazis' affirm links with Youth Defence. You seem to think that Wikipedia's NPOV means that everything must be "neutral" and cannot say anything negative about the subject. Like it or not, that's what people think about when Justin Barrett comes up. These are all connections made by other people, by reliable, third party sources.

If you want to expand the article by adding "information on Mr Barretts involvment in the Nice Referendum or any positive contributions he has made to the pro life cause", then go ahead. I won't stop you. By all means add it. Please expand on other parts. But please do more than just try to whitewash out the fascist links. ___Ebelular (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ebelular , I never suggested the events should be omitted , but there is too much emphasis given to these 2 events , the wikipedia guidelines above state that discussion of isolated events should not be "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" .

also I noticed a source that lacks verifiability ..

The Line Reads "By 2016, Youth Defence were claiming to have never heard of Justin Barrett, or ever had any dealing with him " - citation 14 which references a journal.ie article in which an unnamed spokesperson from youth defence allegedly made the comment to a reporter . This person in youth defence is unnamed in the journal article and therefore is not verifiable .

WP:VERIFY when adding information

it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and avoid weasel words). For example:

A human rights spokesman said that the incident was part of a wider pattern of violence in the region

This is difficult to verify, because it's hard to know where to start

Irelandwatch (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

And what's the problem? TheJournal.ie is the reliable source secondary source cited for that claim. With the obvious exception of the likes of a White House press secretary, for example, it'd be very rare for spokespersons of organisations to be named, and it's bizarre that you'd seek to have this sentence removed on WP:V grounds. Your obsession with this biography needs to be wound back, Irelandwatch - 59 out of 67 edits to the one biography... Are you sure you've no WP:COI? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bastun , my only interest is seeing an impartial , non biased account thats in accordance with wikipedia rules Irelandwatch (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've explained before why these are not "isolated events", (see also Talk:Youth Defence). You haven't addressed the points I've brought up. And TheJournal.ie is a citable source. ____Ebelular (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If you really want a different kind of article which highlights "information on Mr Barretts involvment in the Nice Referendum or any positive contributions he has made to the pro life cause", then why don't you add it yourself? All you seem to do is want to remove any reference to JB's neo-nazi links. ____Ebelular (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ebelular , if you looked at the version I have proposed , you will see that I have included the information about his attendance at those events , I only made minor changes . Having said that I still believe there is far too much focus on those 2 events 15 years ago and this is contrary to wikipedia guidelines as quoted earlier in relation to 'balancing aspects' and 'impartial tone' Wikipedia:Point of view kind regards Irelandwatch (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see you added information about involvement in Family Solidarity, which had a {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) label, is there a source for this? That's basically the only new information added that I can see (or am I missing something?). If you can cite it, add that bit. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Irelandwatch, you've repeated the same point ad infinitum. Many more editors disagree with you. Stop flogging a dead horse. We're not removing relevant, sourced content against policy, no matter how many times a single-purpose account repeats the same incorrect point. If you really can't see how the information is relevant on the bio of a leader of a politcal party, you have no business editing the article. By all means, add additional relevant, sourced, content. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"minor changes , have attempted multiple times to negotiate on talk page to no avail..." Irelandwatch: 1) your changes were not 'minor', they were a 1225 byte excision of referenced material you deem unfavourable. Do not label them as such. 2) "to no avail" is because the consensus, in accordance with policy, is against your edit - what part of this don't you understand? You don't get to unilaterally override consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Irelandwatch, stop removing the officeholder template, please. It conveys useful 'at a glance' information to the reader, the information is referenced, and use of the template is entirely appropriate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sources from AFA's "geocities" website. These are hardly reliable sources. They're also original research. Why is this a problem? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a perfectly fine source, further sourced to other reliable sources, for starters. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The source isn't a geocities website, the source is a newspaper, Sunday Mirror. It's just that the contents of the article are archived on that website. So you've removed the archive link... I think it's better to keep the archive link. If you have a better link, add that. ____Ebelular (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

So Barrett is "an Irish far-right Irish nationalist"? When there's something in the article about his Irish nationalist activities, as opposed to his far-right nationalist activities, by all means add a link to Irish nationalism but until then all the referenced content points to far-right nationalism. "MasterChiefGuardian" (and/or whoever else you edit as), get consensus for whatever changes you're proposing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's original research.MasterChiefGuardian (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:OR. Barret's far-right nationalism is very well covered in the article, and is well referenced. There is nothing about his supposed Irish nationalism. If you can add additional verifiable material supporting the inclusion of Irish nationalism in addition to (not instead of) his far-right nationalims, feel free.

Lastly, you might clarify what account you previously used to edit with? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Barrett believes x therefore he is y is absolutely original research. You must be able to provide a source calling Barrett a nationalist as opposed to coming to your own conclusions about his beliefs. You have edited for over ten years judging by your contributions. How do you not know this?MasterChiefGuardian (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Quack quack quack! Spleodrach (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you should go see a doctor about all that quacking.MasterChiefGuardian (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I should consult Dr. Sockpuppet Investigator. Spleodrach (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The same group of people who ran boards.ie years ago are now running wikipedia ,I recognise some of the editors names on here from years ago .Bastun and Ebullar own up and dont deny it , Do you guys work for the EU commission or something ? Irelandwatch (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have never ran boards.ie, nor been a moderator, nor been a particularly heavy boards.ie user. You're seeing conspiracy theories. ____Ebelular (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I also have never run boards.ie, nor been a moderator, nor been a particularly heavy boards.ie user, nor have I ever worked for any EU institution. That said - what if I did? I'm familiar with WP:COI and have never been in the position of needing to declare one and I've only ever had one account on Wikipedia. Can you say the same? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Justin Barrett. 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/20161130202913/http://www.nationalparty.ie/faq/ to http://www.nationalparty.ie/faq/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161130202913/http://www.nationalparty.ie/faq/ to http://www.nationalparty.ie/faq/

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: 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) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jim Jefferies

Please stop removing relevant, referenced content, IP. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason for removal. The quote is entirely appropriate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a case of narrative pushing. Saying he was pranked is speculation on your part, the source doesn't say he was pranked. It could just as equally, or more accurately said, that Jeffries had him fly to London to prove a pro-abortion point. Also the "make him go through this bullshit" quote is gratuitous for the purposes of the article. Is it even really relevant that he flew to London and sat in a taxi? For the purposes of this article I think not. The most relevant point to gather from the article is him making the claim that the doctors should receive the death penalty, that's the more relevant statement here.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, despite Jefferies saying right at the start of the segment "I'm here in Dublin, but let's make him travel to London... then put him in a taxi for ages with an annoying writer... etc." we'll ignore WP:SKYISBLUE and take out the word "prank." Feel free to add the death penalty for doctors quote, though - that's comedy gold! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've also restored the wording where Barrett calls for the death penalty for doctors, specifically, who perform abortions, because that's what he actually said. Your edit summary "anyone who performs an abortion, not just doctors should receive death penalty... in Barrett's mind.." - do you know Barrett's mind better than he does? Are you Barrett's mind? Do we just need to go for a straight article or topic ban here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are so opposed to bringing the quote into a consistent policy line. It seems obvious, and really this is a WP:SKYISBLUE issue, that if he supports the death penalty for what he deems "murder" [abortion] then it would apply to all those who perform it, not just doctors. The quote may be specifically related to doctors, but the broader implication is that it applies to all who perform abortions - be they doctors or not. I fail to see why you're so opposed to this. Perhaps you no longer will be now that I have once again explained my rationale. Irishpolitical (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't just make up policy to suit yourself. It's A QUOTE! Stop edit warring on this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)