Talk:Rory O'Neill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Panti)

Untitled[edit]

Pantibar mentioned in The New York Times -- Horkana (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTE controversy[edit]

Why is this section being removed? There is nothing in it that has not been reported in the media. The facts are laid out, O'Neill said X about Y, then Y objected, RTE apologized and paid damages. How does this contravene BLP? Snappy (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Material relating to other living persons must be strongly sourced as a claim - the material is not complaint with WP:BLP and must be removed. I suggest you do so post haste lest edit war be appended to the problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly stop accusing me of edit warring and assume good faith. Secondly, what is wrong with the sources, they are from the mainstream Irish media? Snappy (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion at WP:BLP/N and read WP:BLP. Meanwhile, I strongly urge you to self-revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the discussion and BLP and I share your concerns, so to that end I add another reliable reference (from The Irish Times) and I have removed the names of those mentioned on the show. I hope this alleviates your concerns. If you have any specific issue, then let me know. Snappy (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the section needs further improvement, please let me know. The matter has been discussed at length in the Irish media in the last few weeks, so I think its important that it is mentioned, however I do want it to be in accordance with BLP and not to have any legal issues. I hope this can be achieved without removing the section entirely. Snappy (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From here, it looks like RTE did what its counsel told it to do -- pay a small amount now or a huge amount later. Not "censorship" at all. Collect (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like usual "controversies", people on both were outraged for different reasons. I've removed the word 'censorship' from the section heading and removed the word 'controversial' before apology because it wasn't such to those receiving it. Snappy (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, your opinions about whether the incident was or is not censorship is irrelevant. This has gained much coverage amongst reliable sources, and there is due weight for it to be mentioned here. your personal opinions about the controversy appear to be swaying your approach. The amount of sources covering this material is very very large and there is no doubt that O'Neill made the claims and it is widely covered in Irish media. Pick a specific sentence you have issue with. It would take some inconceivable stretch of the imagination to portray coverage of something here that is in every irish newspaper, every news channel every website (and that includes RTE) as somehow a BLP violation. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Removal of the names of living persons who were the subject of what appears to be an admission by RTE that it would not prevail in any defamation actions would seem quite sufficient. We can say that people were called "homophobes", that they threatened defamation actions, and that RTE removed the material from availability and paid 85K to settle any defamation claims. Simple, and avoids any BLP issues. Unless there is a need to call people "homophobes" when RTE considers the section defamatory? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to venture opinions on the controversy do so elsewhere. It has no relevance to this page. You also want to censor protests at the payments and severe criticism by Irish Senators and ministers etc. Why is it that you want only to mention the payment and present an impression of culpability on the part of Rory O'Neill (this is a BLP too or did you forgot)? You are implying Rory O'Neill/Panti is guilty of defamation. There is no other way to read your comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that - I said that RTE on the advice of counsel apparently felt that they would not prevail in any defamation suit. Which, by the way, is from the newspaper reliable sources. Not my "personal opinion" about it at all. [1] ‘Irish Times’ columnist says RTÉ libel payment was not about the money , [2] RTE blames Irish defamation laws over €85,000 'homophobia' row payout to journalist and Iona Institute , and the old Guardian article at [3] Several key figures in Irish state broadcaster RTÉ have retired or resigned ahead of what is expected to be a damning report into the libelling of a priest the station falsely accused of rape and fathering a child in Africa which appears to have been quite costly and ended financial consequences at RTE; [4] including an enormous fine. There is always the chance that RTE did not wish a repeat fine. Collect (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We report what they say, we report what the senators and ministers and other critics say. That is how we cover things. We cover the sides in a controversy looking at the weight of coverage. We don't decide to censor the part we don't like. To only provide one side of what is said in the sources is to slant the articles. The material about the false rape allegations is purely speculative and also irrelevant to this discussion. Your version of events is not consistent with the sources, which show a general criticism of the settlement and public protests as well as rebuke from the Senate, TDs, MEPs and ministers etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we obey Wikipedia policies. RTE got very badly burnt with defamation law, and the reliable sources state that as the reason why RTE paid off this time. That is the gist of the story. And the only "version" I know of is what the reliable sources state (check on the cites I gave) - so I do not know precisely what I said that you "know" is wrong. See Will Rogers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To say that is the gist is misleading. The criticism is severe, including protests and it featuring in Dail Eireann, the Seanad, and the European parliament. You are also cherry picking your sources out of the hundreds available (and also the many others available on the same news websites), how convenient. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what we have from reliable sources is that after the payout of hush-up-and-go-away money became a public relations nightmare they say that they paid out on advice of legal counsel. There is nothing about any proof of libel anywhere in that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Panti. 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) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panti → Rory O'Neill – The article is about O'Neill himself, rather than the character Panti Bliss. O'Neill is not trans; he merely has a stage name that he uses in his drag act. In his everyday/business life, he goes by Rory O'Neill and identifies as a man. Panti Bliss is a stage act, which is only one aspect of his life. I propose renaming this article in O'Neill's own name.

Gatepainter (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Assuming that what is stated above is true, it seems clear that the article should refer to him as Rory O'Neill, per MOS:GENDERID. However, if he is more notable as Panti, then it seems less clear what the title should be. Incidentally, I notice that the article refers to him as "they" in several places, whereas MOS:GENDERID and the above comments indicate that gendered references should indicate male gender (i.e., "he"). Should that be changed? It seems somewhat less clear what gender to indicate when referring to occassions when O'Neill is portraying the Panti character. Also please note that the article describes several works as "Written and performed by Panti". If Panti is merely a character, shouldn't that say "written and performed by Rory O'Neill as Panti"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rory_O%27Neill&oldid=1217233218"