Talk:Raytheon 9

Untitled

Wikipedia should rightly report this incident. It is not however a Socialist advertisting/ posting board. Therefore I suggest this article is trimmed back and MrMcCanns supporting references removed. They are not from a NPOV.--Reality check12 (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the NPOV question. As far as I know, this page was created by transferring the text out of an article about Eamonn McCann himself, because the coverage of a current event was unbalancing a biographical entry. While links (or perhaps just one general link) to the Website of the Raytheon 9 are appropriate to document their side of the case, I think we should try to present other links, e.g. from newspapers of record, to establish the basic facts of the case. However, until we do that I'm opposed to reducing the article effectively to a stub. --Mia-etol (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sources other than the Boston Globe are not acceptable as the they do not meet WP:V. (They are written by the leader of the Raytheon 9, they are not neutral and openly attack 3rd parties.) As a result I suggest these are removed and the article rewritten.

WP:V Quote -

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

the material used is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reality check12 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a critical remark from one local politician, who has a long-standing bias against McCann. A source stating the motives of the people involved is IMHO permissible. If you disagree I suggest we ask other contributors to comment.

I also feel that we need more than one comment to merit the heading "Local reaction". The move of the trial from Derry seems to suggest the the Crown Prosecution Service are concerned about the level of local support.

However, I do think we probably need a bit more input to get a properly balanced article. --Mia-etol (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is certainly relevant because of the crime, the arrest, the on-going trial, the public protests and the current support for the Raytheon 9. However, I agree that it needs to be rewritten from the top down -- and using independent sources -- and neutral POV.

One of the immediate problems is that the article makes statements which are not referenced -- even by biased sources. For example: "...actively assisting Israel's invasion of Lebanon..." and "...missiles were being created..." is never mentioned in the referenced McCann source. McCann talks about Afghanistan and military software.

The statement that Raytheon has not issued a press release appears irrelevant since they have spoken to the press about their actvities, such as in this http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/imported/article896974.ece article from the Belfast Telegraph from April 23 2004.

The article needs a full introduction which describes the Raytheon 9, their affiliation, and the reason they acquired their name (with the who, what, when, where, and why of the crime). Also a brief couple of sentences about the history of Raytheon controversy in Derry. Following subsections can then detail the support or criticism of the Raytheon 9 using independent sources. McCann's articles mentions sources which can be be verified independently. I would also suggest searching through articles from the Belfast Telegraph and other local newspapers. I hope this comes across as reasonable CactusWriter (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Perhaps I can work together with Reality check12 along the lines you suggest. However I think it is fair to point out that the article from the Belfast Telegraph above actually dates from more than 2 years before the incident described in the main article, but it would probably be useful in a section on the background to the case. What do you think Rc12? I'll be able to concentrate on the issue after next weekend, if that's OK with you. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms of your question regarding non-referenced statements as those mentioned above, these are sourced from a blue pamphlet distributed by the Derry Anti-War Coalition. Unfortunately, said pamphlet is not available online - perhaps this makes this source unsuitable, which would be a shame because it's pretty much the most detailed source there is out there (other than it's clear bias). The first part, before the description of the actual occupation of Raytheon, is cited at http://www.raytheon9.org/Articles/Story%20so%20Far.html . This also contains details on the work of the office in Derry. Perhaps it can be used as a source...but I don't want to overload the page in sources directly off Raytheon9.org. A problem in terms of finding sources from the other perspective is that only supporters seem to call the group "Raytheon 9" - reference to this title wasn't made at all in the courthouse this morning, so just searching for this title won't give a full range of sources. --Sadie_F GMT 18:58, 21 May 2008

More sources: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77825 , http://www.swp.ie/campaigns/raytheon-9/9-protestors-occupy-raytheon-in-derry.html (NB: This is McCann's party), http://www.marksteelinfo.com/pt/blog/default.aspx?id=10&t=The-evidence-mounts-that-some-things-are , http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=53921 , http://www.bawm.org/old/subpage2.html , http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87484 , http://justice4lebanon.wordpress.com/2006/08/23/chomsky-backs-raytheon-9/ , http://socialistenvironmentalalliance.org/cgi-bin/sea/aaSeaStatements/sea0607311_derry_lebanon_massacre.pl , http://cia.bzzz.net/raytheon_9_on_trial_in_belfast_may_17th_disarm_the_arms_profiteers , http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=12935, http://www.act4peace.org.uk/ (not on Raytheon 9, but see the section "Why Raytheon"), http://www.counterpunch.org/horgan08142006.html . Largely these sources are anti-Raytheon and pro-Raytheon 9, but there's a lot of valuable information between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.231.245 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been through these references. These are mainly not acceptable Wikipedia sources. This article requires rewritten from the start. Wikipedia is not a propoganda library. This article does have aplace but must be balnced.--Reality check12 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I, in conjunction with mia-etol, am happy to do this.--Reality check12 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more or less out of touch till Tuesday. I suggest a moratorium on major changes until then. For this reason I'm going to reverse the deletions made last night, as I don't think they are by any measure minor editorial changes. On Tuesday I'll do a similar check to that of Realitiy check12 and try to find some alternative sources from Irish newspapers such ast the Belfast Telegraph and the Irish Times - I find it a bit strange to have to rely on a Boston newspaper for information about something that happened in Derry. --Mia-etol (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial and POV tags

Mia-etol and Reality check12, it's good to see that you will be hashing this out together. In the meantime, while you work out the two sides of this article, I'm attaching a 'controversy' tag to this page and POV tags to the article -- just to let anyone who passes by know that there is an ongoing discussion here. CactusWriter (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorial discussion

I'm now able to devote some time to working on an agreed version. Firstly, I'd like to argue that the two references to writings by Eamonn McCann are justified to understand the motivation of the group. They should not be presented as facts but as indicating the POV of the group. The guidelines say "A self-published source may only be cited as a primary source in an article about the author or source itself and not as an authority" and that covers the usage here. Perhaps we should include direct quotes from the sources referred to, but I don't have access to the pamphlet. I'd like to hear other opinions on this before progressing further. --Mia-etol (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted a major edit by User:92.8.156.64, which contained lots of new information but none of it was referenced and nearly all of the existing references were deleted. In other words the edit made the article worse - plus the formatting was disastrous. I'm still waiting for a response to my suggestion above. If I don't hear anything in the next 7 days I'll proceed on my own. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The trial is now over and the defendants have been acquitted except for McCann who was convicted of stealing 2 computer discs and was given a conditional discharge. However the number of defendants has shrunk from 9 to 6, so charges must have been dropped against the others. A source for this information is needed.

Nobody has responded to my argument that the reference to the McCann articles is justified because they clarify the self-image of the group. Can I therefore assume that this is no longer controversial? There are also references to a number of other sources - primarily the Boston Globe - most of the discussion of the case, including details of the trial, has taken place in places like indymedia, which I assume isn't really a recognised authority. Very little has been reported in the press, even in the local press. BTW would sources like the Derry Journal be acceptable? --Mia-etol (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'll leave the "controversy" tag for a while even if nobody responds here in the hope that it will attract comment --Mia-etol (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that The Derry Journal is an acceptable source (even with an association with McCann), although national newspapers would be better. However, the McCann pamphlets can be used only to quote McCann, but should not be used as any statement of fact or to make unverified statements about Raytheon which would be libelous. If McCann makes reference to independent sources in his pamphlets then those original sources should be found and used as references -- such as any statements or reports issued by the Derry town council.

And given the lack of response for your requests for a discussion here, I think you should proceed with writing the article. CactusWriter 12:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" and "Self-published" banners

I've removed the "Unreferenced" banner because a number of independent references have been provided and nobody has disputed them during the last 5 months. I've removed the "Self-published" banner because the McCann quotes give evidence of the motives for the action. I've rephrased one of the notes to make it clear that this is the opinion of the occupiers.

I've left the "Neutrality disputed" banner as the differences have not been resolved. After my offer of editorial discussion I received no feedback from the main critic of the article, Reality check12. In the absence of such feedback I felt unable to proceed on my own with a rewrite that would take account of criticisms. My offer is still open, so I've left the banner in the hope that critics will participate in a discussion leading to an article that is accepted as being free of POV. If however there is no response to this, I'll remove the banner in a couple of months' time. --Mia-etol (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Actively assisting"?

"Raytheon missiles were actively assisting Israel's invasion of Lebanon". "Actively assisting"? What kind of newspeak is that? Were the missiles being *used* during the invasion? Say that! Were involved in some indirect way? Well, best explain that more clearly.

Is this terminology quoted from the pamphlet? If so, could someone put in a full quote? -- 70.179.91.2 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Raytheon 9 Women

As of yet there is no mention of the Raytheon 9 Women incident that took place in January of this year, during Israel's bombardment of Gaza. This needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.69 (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)