Talk:Clare Daly

Local Councillors in County Dublin

There is no County Dublin council so how can she be in it? She is FROM Fingal County and a member of Fingal County Council which is why she is in Politics of Fingal County. Why would she be in both? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've created Local councillors in Fingal County category and put her in there, so that's sorted. Btw, no-one is FROM Fingal County, well at least I've never heard any ever claim to be from it, and I know alot of people who live in it! It's not in common usage as a place that people say there from. It's Dublin, full stop. Snappy (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling Obama a War Criminal

Clare Daly Calls US President Barrack Obama a War Criminal in the Irish Parliament on June 21, 2013, Daly called the US President a War Criminal in parliament. This ought to be included in her article because it's of some significance in that it's at least fairly unique, I'm not good at fixing articles but I suggest this one be annotated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.169.115 (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll second that proposition. I've just audited in full her statement during Leaders' Questions, and she delivered a hammering of the Irish government's relationship with the present U.S. administration - not to mention our Dronemaster-in-Chief - suitable to draw enthusiastic support (for a former member of Ireland's Socialist Party) from the opponents of "Liberal" fascism in these United States. Remarkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.136.234 (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Her speech is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko5W_1Y47O8 Missaeagle (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

A large number of changes have been made recently an an IP, but seems mostly to be-moving text around and rephrasing. There is also the removal of some references; the removal of others with a different reference added in its place. I can't see how this improves the article.Also, it is claimed she is still an Aer Lingus worker but no reference is provided. I have added back the section on her Barack Obama attack, as an attempt at compromise. Snappy (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

International = Europe??

I recently amended a sentence in the lead to reflect what I believed the sources said. The sentence initially said that "Since becoming an MEP, Daly has gained international attention for her foreign policy views ... which have been the subject of controversy and criticism". I couldn't find any mention in the sources provided of "attention" from African, Asian or South American countries. I therefore amended the sentence to "Since becoming an MEP, Daly has gained European attention for her foreign policy views ...". One of our editors referred me to the fourth source which, according to the editor, "talks specifically about Asian and Arabic sources covering Daly's views". By my count the fourth source is the ByLine Times. That source does say "Daly and Wallace are highly cited sources in Russian and Chinese media, where this repetition of propaganda is presented as independent opinion". As far as I can tell, there is no mention of a South American or African country responding to Clare's foreign policy views. Whether this is enough to use the phrase "international attention" is unclear. However, the source does not support the statement that Clare's views were criticised and considered controversial by the international community. In fact, it implies that the most populous country in the world and a second large country view her statements favourably. Afaict the sources provided support the statement that Clare's foreign policy views have received coverage in Europe and China. The "controversy and criticism" seems to be restricted to Europe. Burrobert (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant to say the third source rather than fourth - the Irish Times one, which highlights the coverage Daly's views have received in China, Russia and Iran. I understand it's behind a paywall, but a quote in it directly backs up the "international attention" thing - While their activities may not always make waves in their own home constituencies of Dublin and Ireland South, in the past year their mere tweets have repeatedly made headlines internationally, from Russia Today to Iranian state news. As far as I'm aware from the sources provided, sufficient backing is provided that this coverage is international and that the views themselves have caused controversy. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes that source does support the use of the phrase "international attention for her foreign policy views". We should not imply that the "controversy and criticism" is international. That Irish Times source mentions that Clare's views have been welcomed in China, Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. As I mentioned earlier, based on the sources provided, it appears that the "controversy and criticism" is restricted to Europe. We should mention the opinion of the rest of the world as well since it is contained in the same sources. Burrobert (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion: "Since becoming an MEP, Daly has gained international attention for her foreign policy views, particularly regarding Russia and China. Her view have been the subject of controversy and criticism in Europe and welcomed by China, Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Burrobert (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've installed a similar sentence; I only went with the first three countries as the vast majority of the coverage noted in these pieces is from China and Russia, and aside from that, Iran and Iraq only get passing mentions in one piece, while it's noted that Syria's state news agency and Bashar Al-Assad's party's newspaper reported on it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Entryism

This entryist accusation seems to be only sourced to the Pheonix, a source with questionable reliability, and does not seem to be reported by any RS. The insistence on having such a poorly sourced claim featuring prominently in the lede only seems to be libelous and care must be taken per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional reliable secondary sources have now been added. The reliability of The Phoenix (magazine) would be a matter for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you start a discussion about the Phoenix on RS/N, I would like to be pinged. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne: The first two sources you added make no mention of the claim. The third source is an opinion article. Please self-revert and wait until this can be properly verified, per WP:BLP. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm adding an actual citation from a reliable source in the Irish Independent. The statement is verifiable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Phoenix Magazine - the Irish version of Private Eye - is a reliable source, or, at least, hasn't been ruled to not be one, to date. I would also like a ping if discussed on RS/N. That said, I agree that the sentence in question is not appropriate for the lede. It's by far one of the more minor details of the subject's political career and certainly isn't due that prominence. I've removed it from the lede, but it's certainly appropriate for the body. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Who keeps restoring this despite consensus against its inclusion? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a consensus to remove it. At the time, two users were in favour, two were against. However, I believe the basis of the original objection was then addressed. The original assertion was that the claim should be removed on the basis that it was poorly sourced. In response, the reliability of the Phoenix was discussed and additional reliable sources added by two users. A source that you objected to was removed.

Is it still your contention that the claim is poorly sourced? CeltBrowne (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read my original comment fully: "poorly sourced claim featuring prominently in the lede". This does not belong in lede because this is not a summary of the body. Also, as previously mentioned clearly: "The first two sources you added make no mention of the claim. The third source is an opinion article". You then discontinued the discussion and continued to restore this contentious claim to the lede, despite two users objecting to its inclusion in this way. There is no such thing as consensus for removal; the burden is on the user including the material to demonstrate verifiability and reach consensus for inclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The information is also contained in the body of the article. I did not restore the information as was, I adjusted the sourcing based on your criticism. The "opinion piece" has been removed. If you have an issue with other sources you'll have to refer to them by name as the ordering has changed. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)