Talk:NORAID

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics 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.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern 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.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

Untitled[edit]

After the 9/11 attacks, im sure the government made all organizations funding terrorists illegal, perhaps this article needs updating? andyjm 86.137.151.21 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are Irish Northern Aid and NORAID related?[edit]

It appears that one is the fundraiser, and the other is the recipient. Which is the US charity, and which is the one in Ireland?

Fredsmith2 21:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This article is on a significant subject and requires footnotes for the aid of the reader. Am tagging as such.--Mantanmoreland 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:CITE that requires inline citations. If any facts in the article are unsourced or unclearly sourced please tag them with {{fact}}, there's no need to resort to the blunt instrument that is {{unreferenced}} when ample links to references are provided. Thanks, Demiurge 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the "fact" tags and an overall unsourced tag for the article are redundant, but they basically say the same thing, which is that the article needs to be sourced. An external link section is not a substitute for citations, particularly when the external links don't link to independent, verifiable sources. Instead of squabbling over this, why not add the citations and references to proper third party information, not just the Noraid and other websites? There are numerous articles as well as of course books that describe Noraid and its history. I will chip in if you do.

I would add that this article is too brief for the subject matter. It needs to be and should be expanded.--Mantanmoreland 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I just noticed is that it says that Noraid was created in 1969. While that specific organization may have been created in that year, I do know that a group with that or a similar name existed long before 1969. I believe the name was "Irish Northern Aid." I shall try to hunt out clippings on that. --Mantanmoreland 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Article Please[edit]

Can someone or some people who know about NORAID produce a fuller article. Thanks --81.132.246.132 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and perhaps someone can address my point on the scope of the article to include predecessor organizations.--Mantanmoreland 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear[edit]

are other editors so blinded by their own beliefs/nationality that they are unable to make a neutral edit. there are enough claims that noraid have funded terrorists to warrant the section. BLP is nothing to do with it, these claims have been made many times and I have given one additional source.

It would seem common sense to anyone without an agenda that the category is fine, sensible and not in conflict with BLP. please discuss here and get some unbiased 3rd opinions before reverting me again. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noraid has openly expressed support for the IRA but says it gives money for humanitarian aid, and denies its donations are used for the purchase of arms. If you add that category as fact it's stating Noraid members (who are living people) fund terrorism, which is a BLP violation. BLP violations are removed without discussion, and are not added back without consensus. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So what you are trying to say is that any organisation that has at least one member, cannot be mentioned because one/some/all members might be offended, and therefore all organisations are protected by BLP?? I have not heard anything quite so absurd for a long long time. BLP has nothing to do with this. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it does. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now I am wondering why you removed my message from your talk page? After taking the liberty of templating my talk page with a final warning, you might have the manners to let me put a message on yours. nice. real damn classy.

anyway, since it might disappear from your page if i put it there again, lets put the original message here instead

"== last warning ==

I am sorry, but maybe you dont understand the difference between a content dispute and a disruptive edit. Perhaps you dont consider my source (the BBC) to be verifiable, however I imagine most wikipedia editors would consider them to be pretty reliable. I put a category on an article, that was backed up with a reliable and verifiable source, you removed it with an acceptable reason, despite my article talk page message. Please point out where in BLP it states that organisations are protected in the same way that inviduals are. Please also explain why you consider my source not to be reliable, and please in future dont put annoying templates on my talk page.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC) "[reply]

I dont see what that log is supposed to show me, apart from BLP was a factor, it does not tell me if BLP was a factor due to references to individuals, or organisations. be a little more explicit please.

feel free to comment, I really am interested in your opinion. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given above. It's a BLP violation, and will be removed without discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the tips on BLP issues, are you trying to tell me that I can remove anything I want, that is related to an organisation, because of the BLP rules and the fact that a member of the organisation (even when specific members are not mentioned) might take offence. I hope you can clarify this for me. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that Noraid cannot have that they fund terrorism being stated as fact. What has taking offence got to do with anything? I take it you don't even realise the gravity and seriousness of the edit you made? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

enough reliable sources have claimed that they have funded terrorism, to warrant the category. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not "organisations claimed to have funded terrorism". Ty 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read this and the BBC article much more carefully. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've been asked to comment on this per an earlier deletion of mine cited. The BBC source says, "But the British Government and some US officials have openly accused Noraid of being a front organisation for the IRA." This justifies a statement in the article that says exactly that (and no more), i.e. that these people have made this accusation. It does not justify a category "funding of terrorism", as there is little wriggle room in categories. They are definitive, so the article text should also be definitive to support that inclusion. In this case it is not. Therefore I agree with ONIH that this is a very serious accusation without the proper grounds to substantiate it. It fails accuracy to the source. I would see it as a WP:BLP violation, as it is a strong reflection on the leaders of the relevant organisation. I hope this helps. Ty 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NORAID. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://inac.org/mission

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]