Talk:Carál Ní Chuilín

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

Name[edit]

Carál Ní Chuilín is this person's legal name and she does not appear to use any other name. While one (markedly hostile) source is given for the suggestion that she was known in the 1980s as "plain old Carol Cullen", that is only an anglicised version of Carál Ní Chuilín. The specific right to use personal names and surnames in the Irish form is recognised in Northern Ireland as a human right under two treaties to which the UK is party, and the lede wording should not (at least, without strong sources) suggest that the real name is a changed name. "(b. Carol Cullen)" (=born as Carol Cullen) seems to deny that Carál Ní Chuilín was this person's name at birth, which, using the Irish form that she prefers, it would have been. "Formerly known as" avoids that issue. Brocach (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Carál" a gaelicised version of "Carol" and not the other way round? — Jon C.ॐ 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to imagine that you could be wrong, Jon, but I believe it's come to both Irish and English from the Old German. Brocach (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A feminine form of "Charles", according to Caroline (given name). Anyhow, the current wording ("formerly called") seems to imply that she changed her name even more than the "b." did – "formerly known as"? Makes it sound like she did it by deed poll – but I'm not too fussed. Adieu. — Jon C.ॐ 07:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now idea when or how she used one form or the other, but as a matter of law, there is no requirement for a deed poll or other formal procedure; the name that a person routinely uses is, in law, their name. All that the single source for the other form states is that she was known as Carol Cullen in the 1980s. The article can note that without leaping to the assumption that she was born with a name other than Carál Ní Chuilín. Brocach (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carál Ní Chuilín. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former IRA member[edit]

Considering IRA membership was proven in a court of law. Is there any subsequent information that proves she is no longer a member? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IRA is disbanded (Brendan O'Leary - A Treatise on Northern Ireland, Volume I: Colonialism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199243341, page xxiv). FDW777 (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessment_on_Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland

The Wikipedia page for the IRA shows that the assessment on paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland determined that the IRA continues to exist. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then if the British government is so convinced then they can prosecute anyone they say was still in the IRA after they had previously been imprisoned for the same offence, since continued membership would still be a crime in their jurisdiction. Until then WP:BLPCRIME says they are innocent until proven guilty, and I suggest you check when O'Leary's book was published. FDW777 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether someone is convicted of a crime or not is nothing to do with Wikipedia, it’s a matter for the courts. Your standpoint that the IRA no longer exists is incorrect and is not an argument that can be used with regard to determining membership. Someone convicted of membership of an organisation that still exists who has not stated they have left said organisation cannot be described as a former member. Again, is there anything that shows she has left the organisation? In addition I don’t believe that a book is a more authoritative source than a government report. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you contact Brendan O'Leary and ask him to publish a retraction. Your interpretation of policy is incorrect, as is your assertion that the IRA no longer existing is not an argument that can be used with regards to membership. It is not possible to be a member of something that no longer exists. FDW777 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O’Leary can publish what he likes, nothing to do with me or with Wikipedia. The governments latest report on the existence of the IRA is that it still exists. There has been nothing to state that membership has ended. Therefore stating that she is a former member is incorrect. This seems straightforward to me. I am not sure why you are insisting that a mr O’Learys book is a more authoritative work that an official UK government report?

Could you expand on how I have misinterpreted policy? Genuinely interested. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any references that state, as of right now 24 November 2020, the IRA still exists and Carál Ní Chuilín is a member, then we can discuss. Do you have them? FDW777 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried several times to link to an Irish news article from February 2020 which cites the Irish police belief that the IRA still exists. Do not seem able to do so. The following is a quote from the Taoiseach, made on Twitter this year.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar asked on Twitter: "Why doesn't McDonald disband the Army Council and the PIRA or if she cannot, repudiate them and sever all links and do so publicly and unequivocally?" 

Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the part of my sentence after the word "and". FDW777 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an acknowledgement that you now agree that the IRA still exist? Would like to get that resolved before addressing your second point. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an acknowledgement that tweets by the Taoiseach are completely irrelevant as to whether a WP:BLPCRIME violating change should be made to this article. FDW777 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you are coming from now. I honestly don’t believe you are correct in thinking that policy applies here. The individual in question is described on her page as a former IRA volunteer. If we accept that she was at one point a member of the IRA then surely there should be some reference to show why she is no longer a member. The British government, Irish government and both police forces all agree the IRA still exists. There is nothing available that I can find that states she has left the IRA so I simply don’t understand why she is a former member. Surely we should not assume someone has changed their status without a reference? I thought that’s how Wikipedia worked? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was a member, she was convicted, she went to prison. Per WP:BLPCRIME, it's impossible to describe her as being currently a member as that's saying she's continuing to commit a criminal offence. That's before we even get to the fact that the IRA doesn't exist any more. FDW777 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two points here. You have cited a book which states the Ira does not exist. The British government published a report which states it does exist and both Irish and British governments and two police forces agree with that assessment. I am interested as to why you think Brendan O’Leary knows more than them.

Secondly, as you said, she was a member, there is nothing to say she is no longer a member and therefore she should be described as a member. If you can cite something that shows she has left the IRA then I would be happy to acknowledge that. To my knowledge she has never stated that she has left and until she has done so it would be incorrect to assume she has. I thought any changes, especially ones that are controversial, should be backed up by evidence, not assumptions. The assumption in this case being that her membership status has changed when there is no evidence to back that up. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPCRIME, you cannot describe her as currently being a member, as that accuses her of a current criminal offence of which she has not been convicted. FDW777 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened this up as a topic in the tea house. Would it be better to continue the discussion there as opposed to on this talk page. I do not wish to inadvertently contravene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCRIME Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see by your comments there you didn't bother to check the publication date of O'Leary's book. So I'll tell you, it's 2019. He's more than aware of government reports from 2015, yet he still says the IRA are disbanded. And if you want to even think about challenging his credibility, I suggest not wasting your time. As for whatever people said in early 2020, if you bother to check the references they are talking about the supposed continued existence of the Army Council. Not the IRA. And you have zero references saying Carál Ní Chuilín is even in the IRA at the time of writing. And even if you somehow manage to navigate all those problems, there's still WP:BLPCRIME which says in no uncertain terms can you say a living person is currently committing a crime they haven't been convicted of. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t like making assumptions, she was in the IRA, she has not said she has left, ergo we should not assume any change in status. Would it be a reasonable compromise to describe her as a someone whose membership of the IRA is currently unknown? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t like making assumptions, so stop assuming Carál Ní Chuilín is still in the IRA. FDW777 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the references. Harris states that the Garda and the PSNI both agree that the army council oversees SF and the IRA. This must mean there is an IRA to oversee. I appreciate the slant you are attempting to put on the article but it’s pretty clear. The 2015 assessment has not changed. The Ira still exist. My O’Leary may have sources that are better informed that the police forces both in Ireland and in Northern Ireland but I doubt it. I think I will believe the Garda commissionaire, two police forces and the two governments above the writings of an author.

I am not violating the policy as I am not accusing someone of a crime for which they have not been convicted. She was convicted and she has not stated that her status has changed. You are making an unsubstantiated assumption that her status has changed. I am not assuming anything, I am following facts, not beliefs. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. She was convicted, and served a prison sentence. You are claiming that since that prison sentence she committed the offence again, all without references. Should you reply again without references that unequivocally state Carál Ní Chuilín is currently an IRA member I will not be replying, and should you continue down this path I will be asking for sanctions to be applied. FDW777 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I at no point made any claims that she committed an offence again. You are perfectly within your rights to ask for sanctions if you wish. Would you be against me filing a 3O in Order to resolve this issue? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is indisputably a violation of BLP policy to say in Wikipedia's voice that a person is currently a member of a criminal organization, without an impeccable and recent reliable source confirming that she is still a member . Debating whether or not the PIRA or the IRA Army Council still exist is entirely secondary. What is absolutely essential is the presence or absence of reliable sources stating whether or not Carál Ní Chuilín specifically is an active PIRA member since the decommissioning in 2005. Without such coverage in reliable sources, it is a serious violation of BLP policy to include that content. Fletcherchristian101, you were confused about whether or not another editor was an administrator. Let me confirm to you that I am an administrator here for the purpose of enforcing BLP policy. As a side note, the resemblance between her birth name and my username is a coincidence. I have no connection with her or with Irish politics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c)I came here after Fletcherchristian101's inquiry at Wikipedia#Teahouse#Assuming too much. At the time of my initial response there, I didn't have the time to look into the matter more carefully, but now that I have, here is my take on things. The Provisional Irish Republican Army was ofiicially decomissioned and ceased operations in 2005. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources covering the topic agree on this point, and they characterize any leftover activity as "splinter groups". There is no evidence that Carál Ní Chuilín has any association with any of those splinter groups. Similarly, there is no evidence of consensus by reliable sources that the main IRA has somehow resumed operations. Fletcherchristian101's objections to describing Carál Ní Chuilín are entirely groundless and without merit, and provide a transparentr example of tendentious editing and POV pushing. Moreover, according to the WP:BLP policy, making defamatory allegations against a living subject, anywhere on Wikipedia including at article talk pages, such as arguing that someone continues to belong to a terrorist organization, without providing evidence of such claim, constitutes a severe violation of the WP:BLP policy. Moreover, this page is subject to WP:Discretionary Sanctions under an active ArbCom case, and User:Fletcherchristian101 has been made aware of this case, according to the notice at their user talk page. If a report is filed against User:Fletcherchristian101 at WP:ANI or WP:AE based on what has traspired here already, it is quite likely it will result in some kind of a sanction, either a block or a topic ban or a page editing block. Nsk92 (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carál_Ní_Chuilín&oldid=1207210353"