Talk:100% Redress

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Party?[edit]

Should it be "100% Redress Party" or just "100% Redress".
I'd personally be in favour of "100% Redress Party" since that's what the website and news articles refer to it as. JoeMcCaff (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTÉ "citation used is incorrect"[edit]

Hi. In a recent series of edits, an editor has removed cited material and added unsupported editorial. Including, in at least one case, directly changing the title of one of the linked sources. In each case, up until now, the editor has not provided any explanation/justification/support of any kind. Whether in the form of an edit summary or reference or otherwise.

Today, the editor has added editorial (with unusual language, to my read at least, in which a proposal to form a political party is framed as a "threat"). And also removed cited material. With, finally at least, an EDSUMM explanation that the "[RTÉ News] citation used is incorrect". While far from infallible, given that RTÉ is generally considered to be a reliable source, a flat declaration that the source is "incorrect" needs more specific justification and explanation. Or, perhaps, an alternative/reliable/verifiable source.

(Note that the repeated removal of cited material [esp. without explanation], and the repeated addition of uncited material, are (both) indicators of what the Wikipedia community considers to disruptive editing.)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible that the Donegal Mica Action Group is totally unrelated to 100% Redress, but also this may be an editor who is close to the subject, which could be WP:COI. It would be best if he explained his actions though, because removing sources and changing information without detailed explanation doesn't help fix the problem. Lough Swilly (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]