Talk:Rossport Five

Untitled

Removed some refernces in relation to Shell to Sea and the Protest due to there vague nature and possible POV on the subject

Yes they are vague but that is not the same as pov. I will label as appropriate. Djegan 09:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. i just live in the area which it why had that view.

Link deletion and selective blanking

Once again, 9x5, I'm having difficulty assuming good faith when I notice exactly what comes under your definition of "unnecessary detail" and what escapes. Could you explain what criteria you use? As I've said at Talk:Shell to Sea Fleet, the Shell to Sea website is often the only source for certain newspaper articles; I can't see a way around this. The only way we could definitively reject it as a source is if we found out that the article content was being changed to suit S2S' purposes; as far as I have seen, they have all been exactly the same as the originals, even when the article content was highly critical of the campaign. Out of interest, could you give me an example of these "various minor grammatical fixes" you refer to?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you really shouldn't be editing these articles at all per WP:COI.

The only bit I took out by saying "unnecessary detail" was: "The government granted planning permission to Enterprise Oil (subsequently taken over by Shell) to build an onshore gas processing plant and to supply it using a high pressure pipeline which runs close to the houses of some of these men.". Which is exactly as I've just said, unnecessary detail, it's aptly covered in the paragraph already (unnecessary detail).

I also removed "but omitting to mention the many others that had also blocked Shell workers" as "omitting" is a weasel word implying that he was deliberately trying to mislead everyone, which is speculation/pov (weasel words).

"The men refused" was removed because it didn't suit the flow of the article/sounded like an account of the event (grammatical).

I tidied up the poll bit so it read better (grammatical).

Regardless of the quality of Corribsos.com, it cannot be used as a source because it's the Shell To Sea website. Referencing the original articles is fine, referencing the website is not. I'm not implying the change article content (I'd be close to 100% sure they don't), but the bits I've seen have used selective highlighting, I imagine they're quite selective about the articles and topics they cover too. It can't be considered a WP:V source as WP:V sources have to be third-party.

I'm not going to respond further, cos we'll just go round in circles, as always. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my user page, you'll see your interpretation of COI is not quite accurate. You removed all reference to Enterprise Oil and the proximity of the pipeline to people's homes, hardly irrelevant. I don't see how "omitting" is a weasel word or implies deliberate deception; the omission could have been accidental. You blanked all mention of the men's reaction to the judiciary's offer, again hardly irrelevant; it's now unclear what that reaction was. You insist that we cannot source WP:V third-party newspaper articles from http://corribsos.com; what do you base this on? Do you have a precedent for this insistence? If you continue to refuse to adequately defend your edits, we'll have to get a WP:Third opinion; currently your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines seems extraordinarily selective.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rossport Five. 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/20071119065646/http://www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/oct05.pdf to http://www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/oct05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026105433/http://www.publicinquiry.ie/reports.php to http://www.publicinquiry.ie/reports.php

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) 13:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)