Talk:Emma Groves

--Domer48_'fenian' 19:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion of bias

Referenced sources were provided, if alternative sources refute them, they should be included. Regards --Domer48 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

six minutes in. Not for the faint hearted.--Vintagekits 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a question of whether or not the material has sources - its the way in which the article and material therein is presented: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Before reverting again, please check the comments included in my edits. Thanks. --Mal 07:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:::"There were several edits I made that were undone wholescale with no consideration for merit on individual basis." Explaine your actions before removing material, this information is referenced! --Domer48 07:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I already explained in my edit summary. Please do not revert again: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Mal 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The information is therefore relevant

Emma Groves devoted her life to the fight against plastic bullets. It therefore played a signifying and notable part. The information is therefore relevant. Do not remove this information, it is considered vandalism. Just because you do not like it is hardly a reason. --Domer48 07:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Justify removal of referenced information

Setanta747 has used the following reasons to remove the same information.

• removal of several things for various reasons, including removal of biased sources. (Bold type my own)

Although Setanta747, also says, "Its not a question of whether or not the material has sources - its the way in which the article and material therein is presented: Wikipedia is not a soapbox."

• rv to non-POV version: Also - please do not remove the tags I added. (Note: Tags were placed on a referenced source)

• reverted article to a less-POV and more encyclopediac version.

Obviously Setanta747 dose not like the information and considered it biased, and has shown that they wish to push this POV on other editors.

Explain how the information is biased?

Why POV Tags were placed on referenced information?

Why the information in the article is POV?

Regards--Domer48 08:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I chose a username on this site for a reason. Please refer to me by that username: I find your insistance of including my other name and linking it quite unnerving and rude. I have changed your links in this section. Thank you for your co-operation.

"Explain how the information is biased?"

The information in the article is quite obviously biased. Although much of the woman's life after she had been shot by a rubber bullet, was focused on a campaign against the usage of rubber and plastic bullets, the article need only state that fact: it needn't join her campaign.

There is no need for a table outlining the numbers of these types of bullets fired in Northern Ireland during an eleven year period, though such a table might be useful in an article specifically about rubber/plastic bullet usage.

"Why POV Tags were placed on referenced information?"

I believe Wikipedia has a policy regarding biased sources. The Andytown News is well-known for a particular bias, of which IrelandClick.com is a stablemate. So, too are Ireland Initiative Heidelberg (reprint of a story from Irish Republican News), Sinn Féin, Relatives for Justice and I would suspect Irish National Caucus also.

"Why the information in the article is POV?"

*shrug* I guess either the person or people that added the information had a POV, or they weren't aware of Wikipedia's policy on reliable, unbiased sourcing. --Mal 01:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Setanta747, the removal of sourced material without discussion is out of order, are you saying that all the sources are bias because you disagree with what they say, as for the table on the number or plastic bullets used in Northern Ireland, I would say that is very relevant in this article.--padraig3uk 13:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mal, nearly every newspaper in existence is biased about some things; that does not mean that everything they write is wrong. If it did we couldn't quote from the Irish Times, Irish Independent or any British paper. The Andersonstown News is no more biased than any other Irish newspaper. You also reject IrelandClick.com; Ireland Initiative Heidelberg ; Irish Republican News; Sinn Féin; Relatives for Justice and the INC. On that basis a good chunk of (non-Nationalist) references in various articles related to NI must also go. Maybe we should look at them? (Sarah777 13:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

POV pushing

Without the work done by Emma Groves this type of information would never have been produced. It is as a result of this work that she became an outstanding and notable member of her community. This article is to be expanded, and as such this section will play a major part.

As to you deciding what is and what is not a reliable source that is your problem, as you have to find sources to refute the information and give it balance if you feel it needs it. As to your assertion of bias you will have to establish that, again through referenced information.

And finally your User name, go talk to someone who cares! Not interested in a user who feels the need to have two names, and pulls editors up for using the wrong one!

It would be very difficult for me to accept the advice of an editor on wiki policy who themselves cannot accept the consensus on the issue of flags, and flouts the policy on there user page! You are pushing an agenda which I find tedious, now if you persist we should just take it to an Admin, and I will have as little to do with you as possible! --Domer48 08:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take what ever you like to whomever you like.

I resent your accusation that I am "POV pushing" when, in fact, I have edited this article to actually remove POV from it!

As for the "work done by Emma Groves" - that is not my primary concern as an editor of Wikipedia, and nor should it be yours. By all means expand the article in what ever way you see fit, but bear in mind that there are other editors here, some of whom might see this article and come to the same conclusion that I have: that its an advertisement (for want of a better description) rather than an encyclopedic article. Emma Groves is obviously a notable person, as you say, and probably quite courageous. I have not challenged that however.

The reliable source thing is, by the way, your problem: you are an editor of Wikipedia. I don't need to find sources to back up things I haven't been involved with adding in the first place - you need to find alternative sources which are less biased, in line with the policy and/or guidelines of Wikipedia.

As for it being "difficult" for you to accept the advice of and editor on wiki policy etc.. flags have nothing whatsoever to do with this article, and I'd thank you to refrain from being so damned patronising. Since you mention the flags issue (and presumably you're talking about the Northern Ireland flag), I saw no consensus. Things in that regard had been relatively stable in Wikipedia for some time before the New Year, to be frank. And I don't know what policy you think I have "flouted" on my user page.

Lastly, with regard to my name, I was in error. As I said, I got quite unnerved.. basically because I saw it excessively wiki-linked.

I'm sure you have experience as an editor enough to deal with the problems the article had in a mature and rational manner. I will be steadfast until I see some attempt to sort it, instead of merely reverting my edits wholesale. --Mal 09:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mal/Setanta; I see one of you has reported Dormer for 3RR. As the "intermediate edits" have vanished I can't follow the exact sequence of events (though I'm sure it can be done - just not by me!) It appears that alledged 3RR involved restoring legitimate references. Could you explain the problem you have with those references? Thanks (Sarah777 10:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Sarah/Eoghan: Only one of me has reported Domer for 3RR, and informed him of it on his talk page.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intermediate edits" and how they've vanished, but I've already explained the problem Wikipedia has with the references I removed or queried: Talk:Emma Groves#Justify removal of referenced information. --Mal 10:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Setanta747

Named editor has displayed a complete lack of respect of consensus on this article. I do not accept their rational, as it continually changes. If anyone suggests that this editor has not got a narrow agenda, they are deluding themselves, and seriously questioning the intelligence of editors. To quote policies, and flout them on their own page should been seen for what it is, If I don’t like it I won’t accept it! --Domer48 09:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry.. where is this consensus? I can't seem to see it here amongst the three people in total who had posted on this page before Sarah posted above.

And hey - you wouldn't mind actually addressing me perhaps, instead of .. what are you doing.. talking to thin air..?

Ignoring your latest insult to me (save to remind you again of Wikipedia's WP:NPA policy), I'm still wondering what it is about my user page you feel is "flouting policy"! --Mal 11:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more than just this page and well you know it! You created trouble on a number of pages with your POV pushing. Don’t throw policies around as if they were some sort of defence, they were based on the premise of good faith edits. There is no consensus reached on this page to your edits. Sick to the back teeth of POV Editors and there disruptive behaviour! --Domer48 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Domer, I am now giving you a final warning about your conduct towards me: please cease from the abrasive personal remarks and insults. I would advise you to look up Wikipedia policy regarding this matter: WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. --Mal 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

I was asked to look at this article. The way it currently looks, I thought at first it was a user page. It doesn't look like an article. It is a biographical article, so should concentrate on that. The poster shouldn't be there, unless it is specifically related to her (or the organisation she co-founded), not just about plastic bullets in general. If it does relate to her, this needs to be stated in the article and/or poster caption. The same goes for the plastic bullet table. This is not an article about plastic bullets: that already exists and the table is in it. The only justification for including it is if it specifically relates to her, not just to plastic bullets in general: there is no indication that this is the case. Same thing goes with "additional reading". Unless it helps the reader to find out more about her specifically and her particular situation, then it is inappropriate. Maybe one or two books about the troubles if it covers her general environment etc, but that's about it. At the moment this looks more like a campaign blog than an encyclopedia article. However, there should be more factual information about her in it, and her organisation for that matter. A small section about plastic bullets could probably be justified, as the implement is key to her story and it would help the reader to understand better what happened to her, with a link to the main article on the subject in the normal way. Tyrenius 16:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tyrenius. At last a clear reasoned point. Yes the poster is connected to both Emma and the campaign, and the chart likewise. I will compile the additional information and place it in the article. Thanks again Regards --Domer48 17:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead section should be a summary of the main text, i.e. not include information which is not in the main text, so the info currently in the lead needs to be included as the start of the main text, and unnecessary details (i.e. number of children) removed from the lead.

The poster, if relevant, would be better in the section(s) dealing with the incident and its aftermath, not as the main image, which needs to be of her, maybe the existing one put there, or no image until a "nicer" one is obtained.

Tyrenius 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What Tyrenius has said is exactly the view I had initially take with regard to this article. There is virtually no difference between the rationale behind my initial edits and Tyrenius' summation. --Mal 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius said "If it does relate to her, this needs to be stated in the article and/or poster caption. The same goes for the plastic bullet table." I said quit clearly that "the poster is connected to both Emma and the campaign, and the chart likewise. I will compile the additional information and place it in the article." What part of that did you not understand? --Domer48 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that your edits are POV motivated, that is why they lack any sence of meaning. I will just work away on the material and when I add it, it will containe a lot more information that is going to pop your cork, it will be referenced, and the first peep out of you about bias, I will put a list together of your biased edits! And let our peers decide! So carry on my gallent comrade, carry on! --Domer48 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you pull the other one, it has bells. --Domer48 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Requests

This article has been the topic of a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Emma groves. Please review any advice or comments offered by the EAR team. --Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have edited the article, and replaced some of the content and retained some of the changes. The fact that Emma Groves was shot with a plastic bullet does not in itself make her notable, that she started a campaign to highlight their use dose. Edit summaries such as these here and here with the assumptions of bad faith are less than helpful. Not using this talk page, but rather going here here is also an issue which needs some explanation? --

Domer48_'fenian' 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Untrue. The above editor appears to have rv all my edits, including the most innocuous of changes (1920 to c. 1920, although date of birth is unknown; "Belfast mother" back to "mother") and provided no edit summaries to clarify what he/she was doing. This is the reason I initially sought a disinterested editor's opionion. That editor (Kudpung) appears to agree with me -- see below for full reasoning and explanation. As well, the addition of the word "fenian" to the above editor's signature (Domer48_'fenian'), some years ago, but which was not the editor's original signature, merely illustrates his/her brazenness, should tell any disinterested party everything he/she needs to know about this editor's agenda. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And yes, based on this editor's relentless comments to any editor he/she disagrees with, such as

"is my opinion that your edits are POV motivated, that is why they lack any sence of meaning. I will just work away on the material and when I add it, it will containe a lot more information that is going to pop your cork, it will be referenced, and the first peep out of you about bias, I will put a list together of your biased edits! And let our peers decide! So carry on my gallent comrade, carry on!;

"If you pull the other one, it has bells."

do make it impossible to assume good faith with this editor.

"The fact that Emma Groves was shot with a plastic bullet does not in itself make her notable, that she started a campaign to highlight their use dose [sic]."

Although this may sound rational, in fact this was the conclusion of the WP:AFD initiated on the Groves article several years ago. That fact is not being disputed. What is disputed is the emotive martyrology with which the article has since been larded by (Domer48_'fenian') and his/her ilk. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of replacing the edits of this editor here, here, here, and here. The editors blank revert here however, removed this information here, here and here without explanation. That the editor, rather than explaining their edits, has simply used the talk page as a platform to launch personal attacks. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I rv your edits in one fell swoop. And why should I waste time on edit summaries when you don't? You didn't have a problem when your side did the same thing on the Martin McGartland page.

More efforts to engauge in assumptions of bad faith, these personal attacks and bad faith assumptions damage the project, and are not they way we use talk pages. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that the "Royal we"? I am not trying to "engauge" [sic] in bad faith; I am simply acknowledging with as little fuss as possible what years of experience dealing with you have taught me: that I cannot assume good faith on your part, which I made clear to User:Kudpung. Your inability and/or refusal to directly respond to statements regarding your behavior is but one manifestation of this, as is your inability to refrain from attacking anyone you disagree with. Outside the subject of IR, I have no difficulty maintaining good faith with other editors, nor they with me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop attempting to turn Article Talk Pages into your personal battlegroung. Again more baseless accusations, I've added concise edit summaries here to suggest otherwise is dishonest. I've never interacted with you, and based on this exchange will stop feeding your bizarre ideas. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is you who have turned this page into a battleground (not "battlegroung") long before I looked into what was going on. Your attitude and treatment towards Mal above, who saw what you were up to 3 years ago, is a clear indication of your modus operandi. You push WP:POV relentlessly (from IR propaganda mills and outlets) but accuse everyone else of doing the pushing. You keep kicking the same can down the road and never admit when you're wrong. You even still have the same circle of diehards to defend you (minus one or maybe two). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

With the editor accepting that they removed the "edits in one fell swoop" including neither an edit summary or talk page post to support their blank revert, I will be replacing the edits. Should they continue to use personal attacks and baseless accusations as an alternative to mature discussion, they should be aware that ANI take a dim view of such provocative and inflammatory comments. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Requests

This article has been the topic of a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Emma groves. Please review any additional advice or comments offered by the EAR team. --Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason for seeking editorial advice on this page

As per Kudpung: Although no comment has been made on its talk page for over three years olicit that is the place to solicit any feedback. A brief 'unattached' look at the article raises the question whether this is indeed a biography, or a history of the use of rubber and plastic bullets, their associated dangers, and campaigns against their use. As very few editors have in fact contributed to its creation or development, I would suggest that your edits are covered by under WP:BOLD. They are not the kind of edits that require long and tedious debate, but I would be more concerned in looking to see what parts are not directly relevant to the biography, and should be cut.

The reason I did not come to this talk page first is because I know that those who mindlessly repeat the mantra "Take it to the talk page" are those agenda-driven editors who have no intention of seeing reason, which explains why even the most innocuous edits are rv (i.e. c. 1920 instead of 1920, Belfast mother rv to mother, etc.). In short talk pages tend to be where those who can summon a bully pulpit tend to congregate and are usually negative and destructive in nature, particularly when pro-IRA editors are involved, and constructive criticisms die a horrible death.

The Groves article as it stood is unencyclopaedic, filled with martyrology and emotive language. That is why I sought a disinterested editor's opinion first. Kudpung confirmed that "A brief 'unattached' look at the article raises the question whether this is indeed a biography, or a history of the use of rubber and plastic bullets, their associated dangers, and campaigns against their use", but obviously that was the intention of those who manipulated the article and depended on getting their philosophical opponents banned or blackballed. My edit summaries were not "emotive" but rather clear; the editor who reverted all my edits did not even bother to provide edit summaries, because he/she has not changed agenda since his/her first day of editing, which I saw through quite clearly. Screeching about "calumnies" merely confirmed it. As I said if an editor wants to create a page dedicated to the topic of plastic or rubber bullets or listify same he/she is free to do so. However, piggybacking propaganda is not and should not be acceptable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the history of human conflict, innocent civilians have been casualties. That is a different article; so also are the troubles in N.I., modern crowd management munitions, and the tactics of domestic peace-keeping forces - all material that can be spun off and merged to other articles or used to make new ones.

Yes, there is certainly no excuse for refusing to make the required edit summaries, but on the other hand, compensating for a three-year absence of dialogue on the talk page by making ilnfammatory es, is not conducive to preparing the ground for civil discussion on the talk pages.--Kudpung (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

When I've been asked to intervene at EAR, I usually keep the pages on my watchlist. I see that my major observation has not really been addressed. However, there is, IMHO, another article waiting to be written here. Advice is available at WP:COATRACK.--Kudpung (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Emma Groves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070410173418/http://www.irelandclick.com:80/emma.html to http://www.irelandclick.com/emma.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070715055507/http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/nireland98/bullet.htm to http://hrw.org/campaigns/nireland98/bullet.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 11:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)