Talk:Joan Freeman (politician)

July 2018 edits

Hello, Lucymc12, welcome to Wikipedia! I wonder if I could talk about your recent changes: e.g. this rewrite. Are you a member of Pieta House? You imply it by the use of "we", Wikipedia has policies on conflicts of interest, and we would ask that you disclose this relationship if it exists. You've also made it a bit too "advertisy". Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, so we'll have to tweak some of the wording wikipedia is not for advertising after all. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I am not a member of Pieta House. I think you read an early draft of the changes I made which included some errors based on content taken from the referenced sources. As a new user of Wikipedia I was updating/editing content sequentially but I will avoid that in future. I believe the article to be neutral at this point but I am open to any feedback or suggestions you may have. Thanks Lucymc12 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

OK good to know. Do you have any other possible conflicts of interest or connections with Ms Freeman? ____Ebelular (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ebelular, no I have no conflicts of interest in relation to Ms Freeman. I was asked to fix this article by another user in order to provide a neutral and updated view of Ms Freeman. This was done specifically to avoid a conflict of interest. Lucymc12 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, ElleToTheTea - you've mastered the ping template quickly! What other user? Where did they ask? There's nothing on your talk page, the talk page of Lucy12, or the article talk page. I'm curious - how was them asking you to edit an article avoiding a conflict of interest?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, I'm not sure what you mean by the ping template comment? I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia just yet, but we all start somewhere! Do you mean adding a user's name in my response to a question they tagged me in? Maybe this is not correct protocol, but I was under the impression it was based on my user name being tagged (pinged?) in the above. Anyway, let me know if I'm pinging inappropriately. In regards to conflict of interest, I believe that someone, like myself, who has never met/worked for/associated with Joan Freeman/Pieta House would have a fairly neutral view of Freeman, her work, her views, her politics etc. Therefore, if I add/remove information from this article I believe that this avoids a conflict of interest that might otherwise occur should a user with connections to Freeman edit the page. I first began editing this article as it was quite sparse. However, I have been editing this article again of late as I do not think that the information about "strong family links with the anti-abortion movement" is relevant to Freeman's biography. I also think that the phrase used, albeit a quote from the source, is unnecessarily sensational. The majority of Irish citizens could be described as having family links to both sides of referendum, as undoubtedly many people would find they had relatives that voted yes and relatives that voted no. You will note that in this article (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/senator-joan-freeman-happy-to-sign-abortion-bill-into-law-if-elected-as-president-despite-no-vote-in-referendum-37171723.html) Freeman mentioned her daughter was "heavily involved in the Yes campaign" - should I therefore edit the wikipedia article to include that Freeman also has heavy family involvement in the Pro-Choice Movement? Freeman has openly come forth stating she voted No in the referendum. I think this information, as well as her intentions regarding the referendum legislation, is highly relevant to her biography and should undoubtedly be mentioned on her page, especially given the current circumstances regarding the presidential election. However, I do not think that the voting position of her relatives is relevant to her biography. I think it is misleading to associate her with the No campaign via the actions of her relatives, as, although Freeman voted no, from what I can see she was not involved in the No Campaign itself. Perhaps you have a source that proves otherwise, in which case it should definitely be added to her biography. If I wanted to read about Freeman's relatives and their history of campaigning, I would go to their wikipedia pages (if they have them?). In the words of a true leader, "I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative" going forth as frankly I'm not that interested in engaging in a wiki war ElleToTheTea

What other user asked you to "fix this article"? Where did they ask? There's nothing on your talk page, the talk page of Lucy12, or the article talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of info

Very strange that many newbie editors are trying to suppress the fact that Freeman has connections with the Pro-life movement. Why are they trying to suppress such info? It seems to be a co-ordinated effort. Several editors, all with only tens of edits, come in with the same agenda. Who is behind this and why? Is being related to pro-life people something to be ashamed of now? Spleodrach (talk)

Spleodrach, why is this information relevant? How do the views of her family have any bearing on her political views? Do you have any information related to Joan Freeman's own views on abortion? You are going to have to have a very strong argument to keep this information. This certainly seems like nothing more than gossip (see WP:BLPGOSSIP) and I'm not sure how its relevant to the article. SWL36 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

SWL36 stuck the above notice up at the top of the page - luckily I noticed it. The actual discussion is here.

Restoring per BRD as there is no consensus that a breach of BLP has occurred. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have replied at the BLP noticeboard. Yes, we have Freeman's own views on abortion now, don't try to remove it. Also, thanks to SWL36 and co, for trying to continually remove this info, thanks to the Streisand effect, it's here to stay! Spleodrach (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spleodrach, just to highlight that none of my edits (or those of User:Applebyfour or User:SWL36) involved the removal of Freeman's views on abortion. The info that was removed was regarding the views of her relatives on abortion. I personally removed this information as I don't think that the views of Freeman's relatives are relevant to Freeman's bio. I think including the views of her relatives is an attempt to associate her with the No Campaign in which she was not (to my knowledge) involved. If you have a source that indicates otherwise, please add it. I think it is extremely important that the information regarding how Freeman herself voted in the referendum remains in the article as, not only is this relevant to her bio, but it is particularly relevant as she is currently seeking presidential nomination at a time where abortion legislation is due to be signed into law. But that's my opinion, and (I'm not sure how this whole thing works) but if it has been decided by the Wikipedia Gods that this information should remain, then so be it. But I feel that this is not the last time you will have to deal with Users with differing views to yours regarding what you have written in this article. May the Force be with You ElleToTheTea

• The content seems WP:UNDUE and off topic on its face. Information on the political activity of family members should go on the main article for the family member, if or when the family member has an article written. If there are sources for the political positions of the subject of this article, then it should go on this article. GMG^talk 12:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never tried to remove THE SUBJECT'S views on abortion and they should absolutely stay. I have removed, and will continue to remove information that is not relevant to the subject. Now that we have her views on abortion why would you bother with including the views of her relatives? You two, Spleodrach and Bastun, are involved editors and are the only ones who advocate keeping the contested section. I implore you two, open a RfC on whether or not this information belongs in this article. The political views of her relatives belong on their own pages. One of these relatives Maria Steen is barely notable enough for her own article while the other is not. SWL36 (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Involved editors"?! What does that mean? Are you and the other WP:SPAs not involved editors?! Given that Ebelular added references to that section, I'd imagine they support inclusion too. Maria Steen has an article so would seem notable enough to have one. I'm quite surprised Theresa Lowe doesn't have an article of her own, but she would certainly qualify for one on notability grounds and any claim to the contrary is ridiculous. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is for the information to stay, Spleodrach, Bastun and Ebelular for, and only SWL36 and ElleToTheTea against. I'm excluding Applebyfour because its an obvious sock. Spleodrach (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm a person...that probably exists. Presumably User:Collect and User:Masem from the BLPN discussion are also people...that exist. GMG^talk 17:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a very high probability of existing as well. :) Also any RfC should only be closed by a disinterested party. This suggests that there is no clear consensus for this inclusion, by the way. Collect (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC

Start an RfC. It requires a positive consensus for restoring questioned "contentious claims" to any WP:BLP by the way. Collect (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding family

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.

---

Should the following content be included in the article? GMG^talk 17:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

She has what has been described as "strong family links with the anti-abortion movement" - her niece Maria Steen campaigned against the 2018 abortion referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland and is a member of the Iona Institute, and Freeman’s sister is Theresa Lowe, a barrister and former RTÉ presenter who argued against repeal on The Tonight Show on TV3 debate on 23 May 2018.

References

Survey

• No - The content is related primarily to her family. Her family is not the subject of this article. If or when her family members have articles of their own then the content may be appropriate there. GMG^talk 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - Including the political views of a subjects relatives is off topic and is not "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" (WP:BLPGOSSIP). SWL36 (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - The content is related to the views/campaigning of Freeman's family and would be appropriate in articles about those family members if such articles exist. This information within Freeman's article could mislead readers into thinking Freeman was involved in the No Campaign which she does not appear to have been. The use of a sensationalised quote also seems to lack neutrality. ElleToTheTea

• • — ElleToTheTea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Absolutely not – the proposed text is a copyright violation as a near word-for-word lift from The Times source (see threaded discussion below). Even if it were acceptable on BLP grounds (about which I have serious doubts, the article being about Freeman and not her family), this text is unacceptable. Since Freeman is in politics and has spoken directly about signing legislation about abortion, that material is relevant for inclusion from suitable sources and worded in a neutral way. IF she is regularly attacked / criticised using her family's associations and her Catholicism, etc, then it may reach a point where the coverage of her campaign will need to address those areas. I have not followed politics in Ireland and have no idea whether such a point will come or if her statement that on her vote in the referendum and intended actions if elected when presented with abortion-related legislation is sufficient. EdChem (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

SWL36 has removed the COPYVIO and I have made subsequent edits (cumulative diff) that does mention the family connection but in a way that I see as supported by sources and relevant. Input from any and all welcomed. 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. Ireland has just recently had a constitutional referendum on the issue of abortion in Ireland, following a lengthy, controversial and divisive campaign. Due to legal challenges, the resulting Bill still hasn't been enacted. This is - and will be - a majorly contentious issue in Ireland, and almost no sooner had Freeman announced her interest in becoming a presidential candidate than her family links to Iona, etc., were being reported upon. There are two references included thus far on her family connections, and likely there will be more. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No Feeling a bit snowish at this point, as all the objections are sound. Collect (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Collect, do you have any thoughts on this version that I suggested, from the BLP perspective? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Links have been suggested" is a teeny bit weaselish. The opinions should be cited and ascribed as such to sources holding them. In my opinion. "A and B have stated their opinion that Freeman's relatives are part of an anti-abortion movement" would be a lot easier to source without implying in Wikipedia's voice that this is "fact" rather than what certainly appears to be opinion (that having a family member believe something makes you have to believe it, for example). Collect (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what?! It's an RfC that's literally less than 7 hours old; one of the participants has made edits to no other articles, ever; one has less than 70 edits, with around 20% to this article or related noticeboard discussions; and the other people who've contributed in support of inclusion haven't had a chance to comment. So, no, really, it's not in any way a case of "snowish." Show some decorum, please! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"show decorum" You have done a good job of attacking my edit history (and that of the WP:SPA) but have had very flimsy arguments trying to defend against concrete criticisms grounded in policy. The policies are obvious in this case, and you acknowledge that by instead focusing on edit histories and editors removing content that violates guidelines with potential legal consequences. Her relation to anti-abortion candidates is probably "interesting" in Irish poltics and no doubt it is discussed on news programs. However, it is not relevant to a neutral biography on the subject even if the policy violations were not a problem. SWL36 (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No The family relation is possibly interesting, not what those family members stand for. Their vote/advocacy is of no relevance for Freeman. No matter how you formulate it. The Banner talk 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Notified [Wikiproject:Ireland]

• Yes covered by at least three mainstream media organisation it's an important aspect of her stance on a hugely important political issue. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Quite possibly: Unfortunately, as has become unnervingly typical when I arrive at RfCs of late, most respondents here, bar a couple of obvious exceptions, are all predicating their !votes on idiosyncratic notions of what is a important, fair, or rational secondary coverage of the subject. But that is simply not the question here, under this project's policies. As EdChem points out, if there was sufficient coverage in WP:reliable sources of the subject's relatives in relationship to her political ambitions, we would certainly be bound by a simple WP:weight analysis to discuss those facts, and no amount of shouting "but BLP!" would change the fact that deciding to omit such details because "what her relatives think has nothing to do with her" is a blatant exercise of WP:Original research as to what is "truly important".

So I do tend to lean toward inclusion here, but the truth of the matter is that this RfC has been neglectfully approached in every respect; it puts forward a simple and straight-forward question, which is a good thing, but it provides zero context or explanation of the previous stances on the issue, and absolutely nothing in terms of available sourcing, which is critical to resolving the issue. Why so many editors feel comfortable still adopting strong !votes despite this, I don't know (perhaps they took the time to chase down the edits and sources), but these are basic details that ought to be provided to respondents to frame the context of the proposed changes. If anyone should add these to the discussion, please feel free to ping me back and I will be happy to provide a more concrete answer one way or the other. Lacking the time to do that research independently, however, I can only note that a number of the "No" !votes seem predicated on reasoning that does not in any remote sense jive with policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - over and above the copyvio issue, which may be fixable, devoting so much text - indeed almost any text - to the views of relatives, is UNDUE and Off-topic. That she has some catholic support and her own position on 'catholic' issues is clearly significant - what relatives think about those issues is not and is fairly blatant 'guilt by association'. The level of coverage, and the ties to the subject's own actions, would need to be much stronger IMO to warrant inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - It's important information that is reliably sourced. Freeman is related to Maria Steen, they both have Wikipedia articles, so it's standard practice to mention relations. Why is the issue important? Because the recent referendum is subject to court challenges, and has not been signed by the president yet. Apart from shouting "BLP!", no-one has given an intelligent reason why the info should not be included. Spleodrach (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Re-phrase to include what reliable sources say about this. "She has what has been described as "strong family links with the anti-abortion movement" is not a statement of fact, like "Argon is an inert gas". It is an opinion, or more precisely a opinion about some opinions. "What has been described as" - which reliable source described those opinions? Now WP:INVOLVED - broadly construed - as I have edited the article and added a reference impugned here. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes As well has her family connections, she was involved, for many years, with the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, going beyond mere family connections. Freeman works against suicide, and for decades the issue of abortion in cases of suicide has been politically contentious. From the X Case in 1992 to PLDP Act 2013. To say that abortion campaigning shouldn't be here is to make this article misleading, making this very much on topic. Wikipedia's neutral point of view doesn't mean we don't say anything negative, and doesn't work like Irish broadcasting law which requires 50% coverage to everything. During the SSM and 'repeal the 8th' referendum, it was common for media in Ireland to have No campaigners on, and not tell the audience of their family connections, or membership of the same campaign group. Attempts to remove this info from this article should be viewed with that context. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue is about the "family connections" as her own position is fully covered in the BLP. And WP:BLP is quite clear on claims not directly and specifically about the person. Collect (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No the article is about Freeman, not her family. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just like to note that the RFC as worded has to fail, because the result of an RFC cannot override the copyright policy, and the suggested wording is a copyright violation. Perhaps a new RFC should be started with a new suggested wording? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly should have been snowed a while ago but because it has stayed up, many have weighed in and all of the 'no's use a rationale other than the obvious copyvio for excluding the political views of family, while the 'yes's argued that because a RS mentioned the family links, it should be included. Opening another RfC will result in the same votes I think, as the rationale of both sides applies to the new, non-copyvio wording. SWL36 (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet again I'm amazed an entirely new account is so familiar with WP practice and procedure! There was, of course, no basis whatsoever for a snow close, because why the hell would you close an RfC after a few hours rather than the standard three or more weeks? Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the RfC is essentially about the inclusion of Freeman's family links to the anti-choice movement rather than the actual wording, which has been changed anyway. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The RfC was based on including a blatant copyvio. If it was closed quickly and reopened with different wording we would not have to be talking about a new RfC after we already have a large amount of votes based on whether the "family links" information (not just the suggested section) should be included at all. I fully agree that the votes are indeed not based on the rule violation of the proposed section and are people's thoughts about the inclusion of the "family links" section and I hope Diannaa will agree so we don't have to do this again. I'm also really sick of Bastun and Spleodrach assuming bad faith non-stop and accusing and insinuating that I am a sock or that I am trying to "suppress" the truth. Clearly this section had many problems and trying to fix it is not "suppression." I think the RfC weighs towards not including it or substantially altering what is included now but how it is used is up to Diaanna at this point, I think. SWL36 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's not just "family connections" but "family connections to big name campaigners on such a very contentious, recent, issue", and that makes it very relevant, and on-topic, to a (prospective) politician. a twitter search for "joan freeman maria steen" or "joan freeman theresa lowe" shows that this connection is politically relevant. Maria Steen & Theresa Lowe aren't just random people voting no, but were on 2 of the 5 national prime time TV debates on the topic. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No one objects I think to the subjects membership of other previous campaigns ('catholic' or otherwise), no one objects to neutral mention of close relatives with their own articles (her niece is person X). The "strong family links" is vague to the point of being meaningless - which of us does or does not have 'family links', and whose opinion is it that they are 'strong', and strong in what sense, emotional or political? The text implies much, but imparts no factual information. Presumably the subject will be quizzed in depth as to what her political positions are (by both 'sides'). That is/will be relevant to the article, this isn't IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"IMO it's not just "family connections" but "family connections to big name campaigners on such a very contentious, recent, issue", and that makes it very relevant, and on-topic, to a (prospective) politician."

"The "strong family links" is vague to the point of being meaningless - which of us does or does not have 'family links', and whose opinion is it that they are 'strong', and strong in what sense, emotional or political? . . . Presumably the subject will be quizzed in depth as to what her political positions are (by both 'sides'). That is/will be relevant to the article, this isn't IMO."

Respectfully, you are both off into the WP:original research weeds with your opinions here. If you were two Irish citizens having a debate about this matter (or two people having a private discussion about the matter in general) you both would have very solid points here. But that's not the context of this discussion. We have to decide whether this content should be included based on Wikipedia's neutrality and weight policies, not your idiosyncratic analysis about whether this is "important enough" to mention. Those opinions are absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the weight discussion here. If WP:reliable sources made enough noise about at a familial connection to a given individual, Wikipedia's article on the subject absolutely would reflect (at a minimum) the existence and nature of that noise--and this would be done regardless of whether or not particular editors here thought that the point being asserted by third parties is relevant or makes sense, whether they were proponents or opponents of the idea. It is not our responsibility or place as Wikipedia editors to stand as guardians of what we think are rational thoughts or "important" facts. Our readers are perfectly capable of arriving at their own conclusions about whether certain statements are logical or complete and odorous nonsense. The only analysis that should be undertaken here, per our policies, is this: has the coverage of these facts received sufficient WP:WEIGHT to warrant inclusion? Let's please try to keep personal opinions as to the content of those observations out of the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If WP:reliable sources made enough noise about at a familial connection to a given individual. The entirity of the 3rd paragraph on the The Times article covers these connections. ____Ebelular (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not OR to point out that whilst "she is the aunt of person X", is specific, "she has close family connections with X, Y, Z" is vague to the point of being almost meaningless - and imparts no factual information. The article is not about people she may be awfully fond of! Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) Not UNDUE or a BLP concern, and an article about a BLP will mention their family, and the proposed section is not beyond the pale. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Relevant in this particular instance. The information we provide about relatives varies. We normally do include information about parents, who can be presumed to have some relevance to the person developing thee interest in what was to bome the person's career. In cases where this might be true of siblings also, it can be included, usually by being in the same field. . Beyond there we normally do not, unless it is clearly relevant--and we include more if the person is famous. (A good example on both counts is Darwin, whose entire cousinage back 3 generations was a direct influence on a famous person. ). In this case she is a politician, there's a relevant major political issue, the question of her views on it is relevant to the election; her sister and cousin are actively involved in the issue. It's therefore relevant. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Obviously requires revision for copyvio but otherwise seems pretty straightforward that RS are treating this as relevant context. ETA: the revision currently in the entry seems fine to me, as far as copyvio is concerned (didn't see it at first as I was looking for it in the personal life section). I revised a piece of WP:CLOP about her daughter. -- Innisfree987 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I have copied the relevant paragraph from The Times below, highlighting in red the portions that match the proposed text and italicised the part that in the proposed text that is in quotation marks:

The senator, who founded suicide crisis centre Pieta House, has strong family links with the anti-abortion movement. Her niece Maria Steen campaigned against the recent referendum and is a member of the Iona Institute. Freeman’s sister is Theresa Lowe, a barrister and former RTE presenter who argued against repeal in a TV3 debate.

Looked at the other way, here is the proposed text (wikilinks removed) with the parts lifted directly from the source in red:

She has what has been described as "strong family links with the anti-abortion movement" - her niece Maria Steen campaigned against the 2018 abortion referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland and is a member of the Iona Institute, and Freeman’s sister is Theresa Lowe, a barrister and former RTÉ presenter who argued against repeal on The Tonight Show on TV3 debate on 23 May 2018.

Leaving aside the BLP issue entirely, I can't see how the proposed text is even close to been acceptable paraphrasing – it is, in my view, a straight WP:COPYVIO. EdChem (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You see the quote marks around "strong family links with the anti-abortion movement", meaning - well, that it's a quote? We can't reuse common verbs like "has"?! How many ways are there to say that someone is a member of a particular organisation (that's very relevant to the topic) that don't sound like tortuous constructs? (Answer: You don't, you just say "X, who is a member of Y." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Bastun, I italicised the part that is a direct quote to separate it as it is not a COPYVIO problem, precisely because it is a direct quote. Yes, a verb like "has" can be used but in this case is part of what has been lifted directly from the source. Taking a piece of text and changing a few words, like "recent referendum" to "2018 abortion referendum", or adding a couple of words ("has strong links" becoming "has what has been described as strong links"), or dropping an "and" in favour of a new sentence does not mean that the "new" text is no longer a copy of the old. In particular, paraphrasing which involves retaining the existing structure and sequence of ideas – which this does, precisely – results in plagiarised text that is unacceptable. It would not be difficult to write something like the above proposal in a way that was acceptable for use in a Wikipedia article. What has been proposed, however, is not acceptable. You are free to seek other opinions, of course, and I will abide by consensus, but I doubt you will find many people experienced with copyright / plagiarism issues who would say this was ok. EdChem (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's already substantially changed. SWL36, don't remove the section while there's an RfC underway. That's not how WP works. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The section is a likely violation of two major rules with legal implications for Wikipedia. Not including it until this RfC is finished is the right thing to do according to WP:COPYVIO. This section of the guideline applies to this case: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism." SWL36 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Again - it's already substantially changed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Changed, yes. Substantially is arguable, as changing "X who is a member of Y" to "Y's X" is not altering the content of the line of reasoning advanced in the source at all. And the fact remains that you restored content you knew was thought to be a COPYVIO, just as you are fighting to keep text that you know others think is a BLP issue. The way WP works is to remove problems and only restore with consensus, particularly in areas with legal implications like BLP and COPYVIO. By the way, did you even read the text I wrote and note the additions that actually made a mention of family relevant, or did you just revert? EdChem (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, my experience of RfC's is you don't remove the content in question during the RfC; SWL36's went ahead and removed anyway, despite previously being asked not to. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Quotes are allowed, when marked as such by quotation marks and properly referenced and attributed to who ever said it. COPYVIO is really for when big chunks of text are copied and pasted into an article. Clearly that's not the case here. Editors should not be using an over zealous interpretation of WP:COPYVIO to remove material that they don't like. Spleodrach (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have done some further paraphrasing and removal of the copyright content, as the new version was still too close to the source webpage. Simply rearranging a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure and wording of the original sentence is essentially preserved. Our copyright policy is a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations and takes priority over the concerns of the RFC that is underway. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Diannaa, can you review your edit? I think you've actually re-introduced more content directly from the cited reference than was present following my edits. (Admittedly I think it's pointless rephrasing "X is a member of Y" to avoid an alleged copyvio, when it's the obvious way of writing it clearly, but others' mileage may vary...) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's okay to say "Steen is a member of the Iona Institute", if that's what you're thinking. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still a little leery of including the "family links" bit into this biography, especially when a non-notable and semi-notable person are the ones named. I think the same point that Spleodrach and Bastun want to include is that she has strong and close support from the "No" movement even though she technically was not part of it herself; this can and should be included (I think the full Times source goes into this, though I cannot access the rest of it). The section that is currently there is much better than before though.

Also, I've added quotation marks to the sentence on her own views because it is a direct quote from the source. SWL36 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-notable and semi-notable... er, which do you think is which? And - you're not from Ireland, are you? >6,800 Ghits for Maria Steen +Iona; >13,000 Ghits for Theresa Lowe - not at all bad for a TV presenter most known for a show in the pre-internet era. It's odd she doesn't have her own article, but she's certainly notable enough to have one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:44, 2 August 2018 (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.

Article title

The title for this article currently describes Freeman as an "Irish psychologist". In lieu of her election to the Senate and her presidential campaign, it would probably be more accurate to refer to her as an "Irish politician". Irishpolitical (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd wait on calling her a "politican" before she gets a nominatim. I think most media in Ireland (ie reliable sources) still referres to her as a psychologist for now. ____Ebelular (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Well she is a senator. She holds political office. Most media refer to her as a senator from what I've read and seen. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Given she's now an official candidate would anyone else support changing the article title as I had earlier proposed? Irishpolitical (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I don't see that as a controversial move at all. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Was going to move this today per WP:BOLD but Joan Freeman (Irish politician) is "occupied" and I don't know how to do a 3-way move to protect article history. Will ping WP:RM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)