Talk:Justin Barrett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Jim Jefferies[edit]

Please stop removing relevant, referenced content, IP. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason for removal. The quote is entirely appropriate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
You can't just make up policy to suit yourself. It's A QUOTE! Stop edit warring on this. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Self-described right-wing republican'[edit]

The sentence, "Barrett, as a self-described 'right-wing republican',[36] attracted the support of former Provisional IRA volunteer and Sinn Féin national executive member Gerry McGeough who defected to Barrett's campaign.[37]" is misleading. Reference 36 is An Phoblacht in April 2004, which calls him a "right-wing, self-styled republican" (not the same thing as a self-described 'right-wing republican'), but doesn't anywhere suggest that he would be attractive to IRA or Sinn Féin members. Reference 37 is a May 2004 story of how Gerry McGeough is defecting, but not because he sees Barrett as a republican, but rather because he supports his "Catholic patriotism". To splice the two together like that is to add two and two to make five, or, in Wiki parlance, synthesis. I'm taking out the first part of that sentence. Even with it in, it doesn't belong anywhere in the lead. WP:LEAD says that the lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." That Barrett is leader of the far-right National Party is an adequate introduction to the article. Saying in the second sentence that he is a "self-described 'right-wing [[Irish republicanism|republican]]'" does not summarise any important part of the article. Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle[edit]

Central discussion here on the removal of content and replacement with flowery prose more suited to an election leaflet. In the meantime, reverted to status quo veriosn per WP:BRD. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah - someone beat me to it!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion doctor death penalty - reliable source needed[edit]

The article says Barrett supports giving abortion doctors the death penalty, but the only source is an article about an interview published by comedian Jim Jeffries.

It's recently been documented that Jeffries slices and rearranges the statements of interviewees to put words in their mouths:

A Jim Jeffries interview (or an article based on one) is not a reliable source.

But no fear! With such a clear position, surely Barrett has made similar statements elsewhere, so we just have to get a reliable source and then everything's fine.

(Or are we to believe that Barrett, of the National Party, gave this opinion as an eternal exclusive to an Australian, in England, for broadcasting in the US?)

Get a reliable source. Great floors (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a reliable secondary source, thanks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Great floors. I hadn't watched the video before, but there is no way that it could be called reliable. We see Jeffries (nobody else in frame) saying "What should happen to the doctors who give the abortion?" Cut to Barrett saying "death penalty". That might be an answer to any question. Or it might be just part of a sentence. There is no footage of Barrett saying "the doctors who give the abortion should get the death penalty." Per BLP it needs to go. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't the YouTube video, it's the Daily Edge report (the Daily Edge is an imprint of thejournal.ie, a RS). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the Daily Edge story. All it is is a summary of what's on the video, therefore no more reliable than the video. Take it up at WP:BLPN if you like, see what they say. Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also sourced to the Irish Times. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: Please read WP:NEWSORG. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece you link to is an opinion piece, not news reporting. You can't just say "Irish Times = reliable source". At best, the article could say "Ferdia MacAonghusa has accused Barrett of advocating...". This is a serious BLP issue. Please don't revert again until you have content and sourcing that satisfies BLP. Scolaire (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting as well Barrett's ever shifting tie position between scenes which makes it obvious there was lots of cutting going on. Since Jim Jeffries was exposed as a fraud in other interviews through duplicitous editinh, this removal is a good move, per WP:BLP. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! Also worth noting that the video was posted on 24 April 2018, the Daily Edge piece appeared on 25 April, the sentence in this Wikipedia article was added on 28 May, and the Ferdia MacAonghusa piece was published on 28 August. Where do people get their facts nowadays? Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politically Motivated Admins and Ill-Intentions[edit]

Frankly, it seems that the admins of this wikipedia page are politically motivated and never take any criticisms into account. I’ve watched this page’s changes for 2 years now and it’s clear to see that there is a select few, may I add foreign... admins who constantly revert 95% of changes. Some changes are made by those actually knowledgeable in Irish politics; yet, these are reverted by 2 foreign admins constantly. Surely... the admins of this page should be Irish and knowledgeable? Furthermore, these admins seem dead set on representing Mr. Barrett in the worst way possible with misleading and bad wording of titles, paragraphs and phrasing. RMedb (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people editing this page (incl me) aren't foreign and unknowledable. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, but that doesn't mean one must never say anything negative, or that one is required to have equal number of positive words & negative words (cf WP:FALSEBALANCE). We aren't RTÉ, or the BAI, requiring the use of stopwatches to ensure equal time for everything. All the content there is sourced. Just because you dislike that this article lists the Neo-Nazi activity of this campaigner doesn't mean it has to be removed. Ebelular (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RMedb. And welcome to Wikipedia. While I am unclear, specifically, which edits or editors you are referring to, given that your only ever edits overlapped somewhat with my own, I can't help but imagine that I'm one of the supposed "foreign" actors that you are referring to. In any event, while Ebelular has already welcomed you to the project and highlighted some of this project's applicable policies and norms, I might take the time to do the same myself, and highlight a couple of things:
  1. WP:AGF - While we might not always succeed, Wikipedia editors are expected to assume that each other's edits are made in good faith. Casting aspersions or making unfounded claims about the motivation for edits is not in keeping with project norms.
  2. WP:5P3 - While others might judge the validity of another's actions purely on the basis of someone's nationality or ethnicity, there is no such policy on Wikipedia. And, while it has absolutely no bearing, I would note that I am Irish. From Cork. And an administrator on the Irish language Wikipedia le fada on lá. (Not that it is relevant. But just FYI I guess. Seeing as nationality and ethnicity seems to be important to you.)
  3. WP:CIR - While a basic level of knowledge and capacity to read, understand and reflect sources (and follow project norms) is expected, Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts. Whether that expertise is simply claimed or somehow proven. Otherwise, while it has absolutely no bearing, I might note that (although my own university degrees are in science and business) I have probably read more on Irish history and politics in the last 30 or 40 years than your average history grad might in the 3 or 4 years of their college tenure. (Not that that is relevant either really, as it is the sources that matter. And how they are reflected. Not who is reading them. Or applying them. I mention it only as, while not relevant to Wikipedia, it seems to be important to you.)
Otherwise, while you are welcome to the project, you might want to have a quick look through the policies and guidelines which are relevant to your edits. And indeed to any talk page comments you might chose to make. Including the WP:NPA policy. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Guliolopez, you're no fun. Can we not just kick all the foreigners out? Of Wikipedia, and Ireland? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, nice to see you again, Guliolopez :) It's been too long. Also - how dare you have a 'foreign' name - clearly you're not Irish, since it's the law that everyone should have "O'" and "Mac" in their surnames - Alison ❤ 19:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's really Guli O'Lopez? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please name these 'foreign' admins. Admin here, and regular on this page. While I've no need to explain, and there's no inherent merit in one's nationality, I'm Irish-born but living in the US. Edits made - by anyone - should stand and fall on their objective merits, and this applies to everyone here. Please focus on the content rather than the editor - Alison ❤ 19:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to post this, but is this sentence credible? It states there is no source for the video, but then quotes from it. Is there a better way to phrase this? Or maybe find a link to the original vid? "In the run-up to the election, she was allegedly targeted in a since-deleted video by Barrett. In the video, he indicated that if his party would gain power, he would work to strip her of her citizenship, despite the fact she had been born in Ireland and lived there since birth"

edit: found a first hand vid. Maybe update the wiki to quote this vid instead of the 'allegedly' part https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQpDWURTOTI&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8084:513d:ee80:a5a7:56de:d887:d71d (talk • contribs)

OK. I have linked the video and updated the text to reflect. Guliolopez (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist[edit]

The article says that Mr. Barrett is a nationalist -- would it not be more accurate to say that he 'claims to be a nationalist' there is after all no evidence for his nationalism at all other than his assertion that he is a nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.158.66 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nationalists are generally self-described. Applying the proposed qualifier would likely require agreement or convention that similar qualifiers be applied to the articles on almost every political activist who espouses nationalism (over cosmopolitanism or globalism or internationalism or liberalism or communism). Unless or until the subject is elected to an office where the application of nationalist policies can be evidenced, the article (the lead and the body) is reliant on how the subject is described in the sources. In that sense, and in line with Wikipedia policy, the text in the lead ("A nationalist, he initially began activism in the 1990s") reflects the text and the refs in the body. Which refs describe the subject as "nationalist" in outlook. Including those sources which cover the subject's calls for a Catholic Republic, an "Ireland First" approach, and leadership of the National Party. The latter, as per the source, which describes Barrett as "the president of the National Party, whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform". The text in the lead therefore reflects the text in the body and sources. Guliolopez (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deposits[edit]

Thanks for the addition, Guliolopez. I didn't add one myself because it's clear from the Electoral Act that everyone running for election has to pay a deposit, and can forfeit it if they don't do well, and I really didn't think that needed referencing. You're right, much better to include an explicit one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun and Guilolopez have reverted my edit where I removed the incorrect claim that Barrett "lost his deposit" in contesting the Dublin Bay South by-election. I direct them to the Wikipedia page for Election deposit, which I quote here:
"Candidates for election to Dáil Éireann who have been nominated by political parties registered to contest Dáil elections, as well as non-party candidates who are able to provide detailed information of 30 electors in the constituency who have assented to their nomination, are not required to pay a deposit. Candidates who fail to meet either of these criteria, however, must pay a deposit of €500.[10] This follows a High Court ruling; the court found that the obligatory payment of deposits by all candidates was repugnant to the Constitution of Ireland.[11]"
As the National Party was a registered political party at the time of the DBS by-election (https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/members/partyRegister/2021/2021-06-24_register-of-political-parties-23-june-2021_en.pdf), and because he appeared on the ballot as a National Party candidate (by submitting a Certificate of Party Affiliation), therefore he was not required to pay a €500 deposit. Ergo, he could not have "lost" a deposit he did not pay. If there are further attempts to cite bogus sources which make this false which is not following WP:V, I must conclude these editors are acting in bad faith. Irishpolitical (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, pull your horns in. Your original edit summary was WP:SYNTH. Guliolopez's edit is cited to electionsireland.org, which is absolutely a reliable source and is used as a reference on hundreds of articles. The Electoral Act 1997 is the still the primary legislation and still mentions deposits - yes, it's since been amended. Nobody is citing "bogus" sources, so stop the personal attacks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Irishpolitical.
  1. (Guilolopez reverted my edit) As it happens, my first edit was to revert Bastun's edit. Effectively upholding yours. With an edit summary clarifying that relying on WP:SYNTH to restore that text (or remove it) was an issue.
  2. (attempts to cite bogus sources) As noted, electionsireland.org is not a "bogus source". If the operators of that website need to update their software to account for the legislative amendment in 2007 (such that candidates not reaching the threshold in elections after that amendment are not automatically labelled as those before the amendment), then so be it. But declaring it bogus (or its use to be bogus) is misrepresentative. As noted, the source is used well over a thousand times across the project. Without issue.
  3. (these editors are acting in bad faith) Both of my edits in this sequence (as ALL of my edits are ALWAYS) were made in good faith. Including upholding your original edit (when it was clear the linked ref didn't actually support Bastun's change). And my subsequent edit (when it was clear there were apparently reliable sources that appeared to support such a change). Implying that any changes I have made in the past, or might notionally make in the future, are/could be in "bad faith" falls well within the scope of WP:AOBF. (Speculatively accusing editors of potential future bad faith falls so far outside the etiquette guidelines I don't even no where to start.) As per the guideline, accusing others of bad faith is just not on, does nothing to improve matters and could be considered a personal attack. Certainly I consider it one.
GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Barrett political leaning.[edit]

The description of Justin Barret political leaning as 'far right'is incorrect. The correct description is 'Conservative'. 78.19.10.250 (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources refer to the subject as "far-right" (and indeed his party). For example, the Sunday Times (UK) refers to the subject as a "far-right leader". The current article text therefore reflects the reliable and verifiable sources. Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWITTER?[edit]

Bastun, am I missing something in my readings of WP:TWITTER? It appears to say that Twitter can be used as a source of information by people about themselves. The poster here appears to be Mark Malone rather than Justin Barrett, so I don't think it's a reliable source in this case. If I'm missing something here do let me know but otherwise I don't think this is suitably sourced for inclusion. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're correct. I missed the "about themselves" bit in my hurry. I've reverted. But I do hope we can find a usable source for this! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and ditto. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about the the latest Examiner article that mentions Barrett and saying what's in the photo that identifies him. I mean - it's Barrett, and he's wearing a replica Nazi SS greatcoat. I can see how WP:SYNTH might apply, as Ser! says, or possibly WP:OR - but also there's WP:SKYISBLUE. I'd say at this stage the Examiner is likely to be the only source that covers this (unless it's in one of the Sunday papers), and unfortunately a search for "Justin Barrett Nazi" returns this page and its mirrors, and a lot of results talking about Nazi gold :-) Worth a question on WP:RS/N? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bastun (talk · contribs) that the Examiner article with the photo is evidence enough. The photo is a source in and of itself, regardless of whether the Examiner explains the info or not. Xx78900 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh. Not sure about that one. If the article doesn’t state that he’s wearing this uniform, then we’re interpreting the articles ourselves and that surely falls afoul of WP:SYNTH. If it was verifiable I’d say they’d be reporting it, no? — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Barrett&oldid=1211870424"