This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I dont believe this article should be deleted due to notability concerns. The Iona Institute is a new organisation, established circa 8 Jan 2007. I have included a link to an RTE interview on the institute and I am sure over time it will be the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent". -- Trounce 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a story on the Institute here from The Irish Times (registration required) -- Trounce 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that Ireland is a small country, many organisations that are small may be significant may be notable. Personally, I'm an inclusionist anyway, so I'd keep an article on a small organisation anyway. Autarch ( talk) 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the above to the article in question. Autarch ( talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things need clarification:
The phrase "religious segregation" is more derogatory than the term "denominational education", breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OPED. Autarch ( talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:RS: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable - this affects this article as one of the resources is a blog. To fit with WP:RS a resource from a RS would be needed - say, a newspaper of record. Autarch ( talk) 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
To keep the current page focused on its' topic, there is now a page on denominational education. Autarch ( talk) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Also removed MOS:OPED from mention of denominational education. Autarch ( talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
In practice, the difference between the above can be so small as to be negligible. Autarch ( talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Ben Conroy from Iona here. We think the term "advocacy group" is a more appropriate and accurate one than "lobby group" - after all, the page that "lobby group" links to is actually called " Advocacy Group" - and Iona's activities are considerably broader than those described in Lobbying. Thanks. BConroyIona ( talk) 11:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The article currently says In 2008, the Institute organised a conference in support of denominational education, a system in which children are segregated according to the religion of their parents and which is used in over 95% of Irish schools. - this seems to be phrased to take a stance rather than reporting what sources say. The article on Denominational education mentions criticism of the system, but it is sourced. As this article stands, it seems to be a case of WP:SOAPBOX. Perhaps In 2008, the Institute organised a conference in support of denominational education, which has been criticised in recent years (with sources for criticism) would be the best phrasing. Autarch ( talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to explain why I am removing the last sentence of the "Criticism" paragraph. It fails WP:NOR and WP:SELFPUBLISH. The line is referenced to the Wikipedia editor's ( Jaimehy) own Blog "Aggressive Secularist by Jamie Hyland" and was added by him-- 92.251.255.12 ( talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to have a single-purpose account "looking after" it and adding lots of non-notable material. Perhaps a conflict of interest?
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
There was a murder in Clondalkin on 12th January 2014 of someone involved with the Iona Institute: Man expected in court over chess killing (Irish Times), Victim of 'gruesome' killing after chess match a 'quiet and devout' man (Irish Independent), Man held in Dublin over 'ritualistic chess killing' (The Guardian).
My own instinct is not to mention the murder given WP:NOTNEWS. However, he is described in some of the above news items as a researcher for the Iona Institute and David Quinn is quoted expressing "shock and sorrow" concerning his murder, so he may have been a significant member, which might merit a passing mention. Autarch ( talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone with no knowledge reading this article, would not get the impression Iona are a hugely controversial group. There is no mention about, say, their use of research by Child Trends and Child Trends' response. Or the recent events surrounding Miss Panti and RTE. Are such items simply not being added?
P. Paul Moloney ( talk) 13:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
While there have recently been a lot of pixels exuded over this event, in the scope of the topic of this article, it is really a relatively small matter. There was some moneys paid, and people who didnt like Iona Institute before still dont like them.
If this leads to actual action by the senate and not just words, perhaps calling it out in its own subsection might be appropriate, but as of now the real world consequences and impact are just about nil and reflecting them as more than that particularly by calling them out in a stand alone section is inappropriate.
Framing via "Reception and impact" is almost always going to provide a better framework for an encyclopedia article than " WP:Controversy sections"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"No offence Red, but if you were in Ireland witnessing the ongoing controversy, you would not describe it as "just words"" - obviously this refers solely to the state as I have not seen it in any Northern Ireland news or press or even in the few Irish News editions I've gotten this week unless I somehow missed it. Mabuska (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does this keep getting deleted?
The Iona Institute is the trading name of Lolek Ltd, a private limited company set up in 2006. Controversy has arisen in relation to the use of the word "Institute" as the heading for a privately owned Catholic lobby. It has been noted that whilst there are no laws in Ireland as to the use of the word "Institute", in Britain for example, the company would not be permitted use of the term in compliance with the guidelines of the Companies House which states that the use of the term Institute "is normally given only to fully functioning organisations that are established in the field but operate under a different name" and that among other things "the range of activities may vary but institutes are organisations that typically undertake research at the highest level or are professional bodies of the highest standing" and "whether the institute provides training or activities that support qualifications provided by other bodies such as universities or colleges". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnySideUp101 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the term "conservative" from the introductory sentence. While many may find catholic teaching conservative, the term conservative catholic is a specific subset of catholicism see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Catholics. The Iona institue is simply a catholic think tank, not a conservative catholic think tank. User:GeneralBelly reverted my edit. I tried to explain the position on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GeneralBelly#Iona_Institute_2 but there was no response, so I reverted User GeneralBelly's edit and wrote this up explaing my revert. I hope this helps clarify the reverts-- 92.251.255.13 ( talk) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Just regarding describing Iona as a 'conservative Catholic lobby group', it's worth noting that neither of the two sources I deleted gave any reasons why Iona is a specifically Catholic organisation - and considering that its own website it makes no mention of being such; and that in thisinterview with one of its patrons on the state broadcaster RTE, the patron (Breda O'Brien) specifically says it is not a Catholic lobby group...
Well, I should think it would be reasonable not to describe it as a Catholic group, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.37.127 ( talk) 16:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I have, and it strikes me that unless one of the secondary sources I deleted provides some example of Iona promoting Catholicism specifically rather than Christianity or the place of religionhttp://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/rory-oneill-irish-homophobia/ generally, the primary sources of
their own website (see "about the Iona Institute) and the interview I linked ought to be trusted. In addition, the Index on Censorship source I deleted was not appropriate for that section - it was fine to link to it in the course of discussing the homophobia controversy, but as a source for describing the nature of the organisation it fails
WP:NPV. As for the Times artice - again, some example of promoting Catholicism rather than religion generally needs to be found in order to invalidate Iona's self-description.
As for 'Conservative', ' socially conservative' might be more precise if "pro-marriage, pro-religion' is too weighted. Iona are not economically conservative or right-wing. (Editing from a different computer, will get an account soon). 89.126.117.223 ( talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
' The religious faith of the patrons is irrelevant, as is their location, unless you can demonstrate that only Catholic groups can have offices in that building. The newspapers' account contradicts Iona's self-description [1] . In other cases where this occurs, we require our reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the falsity of an organisation's self-description, not merely assert that they are something which they claim not to be. In addition, "advocacy group" is preferable to "lobby group" as that is the actual name of the relevant Wikipedia article. In addition, you have provided no reason for the reversion of 'socially conservative' to 'conservative', when I have argued that the former is more precise. 86.45.42.216 ( talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Ben Conroy here, of Iona. I'd like to request that 'Conservative Catholic' be changed to 'socially conservative Christian', for the reasons mentioned in the discussion above. This Irish Times piece about Church of Ireland Bishop Ken Clarke becoming a patron of ours should hopefully put this whole business to rest. The earlier secondary sources cited by Second Quantization are simply mistaken - we are not and have never been a Catholic organisation.
"Socially conservative" is more accurate than "conservative" as we do not have a defined position on the proper amount of redistribution or the size of government. Some of our patrons and members - including myself - are quite economically left-wing. Would appreciate this being sorted out as quickly as possible. Any queries can be sent to bconroy@ionainstitute.ie BConroyIona ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
"Lobby group" throughout the article was changed to "organisation". On reflection, I'm changing it back. There is no way to join this "organisation" except by invitation, it would appear. It is, therefore, simply a self-appointed pressure group. The article should reflect that. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Hello all.
My name is Ben Conroy, I work as a researcher and spokesperson for the Iona Institute, and I'm here to request some edits. I'm doing it all at once to avoid creating multiple new sections: I couldn't find if that was the best way to go about it or not - I can split them up into different sections if need be.
I've tried to brush up on NPOV and COI in preparation for this, but if I end up violating any community standards I welcome correction. Thank you all in advance.
To begin with: that “Status” section violates NPOV in a number of places:
Quotes from Graham Norton and David Norris simply do not belong there: articles about other advocacy groups do not have their opponents provide running commentary on their descriptions.
See NARAL, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties page, the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network page (which actually contains several laudatory quotes), and Atheist Ireland (especially relevant as they are probably the closest thing to a 'mirror image' organisation of ours in Ireland – we usually, though not always, advocate for diametrically opposed goals on most issues) – I could go on, and will if requested, but the violation of NPOV should be clear.
The presence of quotes from Graham Norton, an entertainer and a man who is quite determinedly opposed to our organisation and its goals, is particularly inappropriate, and David Norris's quote also is about as far away from being NPOV as it gets. I request the deletion of both quotes.
This dispute over the name clearly does not belong on the page, as it is completely irrelevant information. Wikipedia's own page on “ Insitute” defines the term thus:
"An institute is an organisational body created for a certain purpose."
The rest of the information on that page uses words like “often” and “in some countries” - it sets down no absolute standard other that the one quoted – except for the strict rules employed in the UK.
To be blunt: Ireland is an independent Republic, and has been for quite some time. The United Kingdom's rules do not apply here, any more than they do to the countless international organisations who call themselves “Institutes” without permission from the relevant UK Secretary of State. I request deletion of all material relating to the use of the word “Institute” in our name as irrelevant, and violating NPOV through creating an unwarranted impression that we're somehow deceiving people.
As to the “Catholic” description: there is a more recent article from a reliable source than any of those you cite describing us as a “Christian” group.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/iona-institute-says-ida-call-for-yes-vote-on-marriage-completely-unacceptable-1.2196801 [2]
The sources that refer to us as a Catholic organisation are just factually wrong. I know that's not enough to change the description – but given that there is a dispute among reliable sources as to whether we are “Catholic” or “Christian”, I would like to know what evidence has ever been marshalled by any of these sources for the fact that we are specifically Catholic?
I have no desire to speculate about the motives of some of the sources in continuing to refer to us as a Catholic group rather than a Christian one, but it's just inaccurate, and we have a more recent source referring to us as Christian. I therefore request deletion of the “claim” by John Murray, and replacement of “Catholic” with “Christian” throughout.
Wikipedia practice seems to be to use it interchangeably with “advocacy group” - yet it's a more loaded, negative term than “advocacy group”, and is not used on Wikipedia about some organisations who differ from us ideologically.
Again, see NARAL, GLEN, Atheist Ireland, all of whom are “pressure groups” in the same sense that we are, and none of whom are described as such. Atheist Ireland is on the Wikipedia list of Irish pressure groups, but is not described as such in the article.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties is not described as a pressure group, despite being referred to as such by Politico and Magill (very old source - page now indicates malware on Chrome so not linking, but perhaps Google and look at the cached version?)., and by the ICCL themselves - see the end of pg 11 here (downloads a PDF):
With regard to the sources for "pressure group": Matt Cooper is an opinion columnist who does not agree with our policy goals, and is using “pressure group” in a derogatory sense.
Pink News are a biased source when discussing us: that article you cite is not a neutral piece of reporting, as it says we “admit” to “promoting the place of marriage and religion in society”. The use of the word “admit” should clue us in that they're using “pressure group” in a derogatory sense.
The CIA (who'd have thunk it?) are not using “pressure group” in a derogatory mannger, but they also describe us as a “think-tank”, which Wikipedia does not. In addition, they describe a number of other groups as “pressure groups” who are not described as such on their wikipedia pages, such as the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA), and Keep Ireland Open.
The use of “pressure group” is redundant, and its only affect on the page is to create a negative impression about Iona. “Advocacy group” alone is briefer, and it's it's more neutral language. For what it's worth we're also referred to as an “Advocacy Group” here:
Finally, I request deletion of the David Norris quote about our charitable status. Irrelevant to the description, violates NPOV, and plenty of other Irish advocacy groups have charitable status. “Advancement of religion” is not some kind of suspect grounds for being granted charitable status under Irish law, and it'd be good if the facts could be stated without the input from the Senator, who is a very proud social liberal and does not like the aims of our organisation.
That's all for the moment with regard to the “status” section. Very happy to discuss this with all editors, and to accept criticism of my proposals. I have very openly declared my conflict of interest, and I look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Ben Conroy Iona ( talk) 11:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
eh no Church of Ireland Bishops are not Catholic. Aerchasúr ( talk) 18:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iona Institute. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/comic-norton-shows-support-for-panti-in-rte-payout-row-29976200.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Iona Institute. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This section on Iona's legal status mentions 'David Norris referred to "the so-called Iona Institute" as "an unelected, unrepresentative group of reactionary, right-wing, religiously motivated people".[18]'. This is not inl ine with WP:NPOV Aerchasúr ( talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Charity status is a regulated legal status that exists in Ireland. It has nothing to do with being left or right wing, reactionary or progressive. Religion is relevant to charity status as its one of the explicit reasons that can justify charity status. David Norris quote has no bearing on Iona's legal status or charity status in general. It is just a crude bias in the article that must be removed. Aerchasúr ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I edited it in the first line to emphasise that it is a Christian group (rather than specifically "Roman Catholic"). As pointed out above a Church of Ireland Bishop is a patron implying it is not a specifically "Roman" Catholic group and emphasising that its values are broader Conservative/Christian values. I also added minor edits to the "status" section. I felt it lacked some context as to why the quotes were there. I didn't remove them since that did not seem to be the consensus.
I have since reverted an edit describing it as a "radical" group. I don't think that is an appropriate descriptor. Social conservatism was the norm and is still relatively mainstream (the Catholic Church is still an important/influential institution which is not usually referred to as "radical") and is the most accurate descriptor of their focus. The "purpose" could be simplified, their purpose is to promote and defend social conservative values but it is probably not necessary to copy/paste their "about us" section here. -- Spaircí ( talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I dont believe this article should be deleted due to notability concerns. The Iona Institute is a new organisation, established circa 8 Jan 2007. I have included a link to an RTE interview on the institute and I am sure over time it will be the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent". -- Trounce 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a story on the Institute here from The Irish Times (registration required) -- Trounce 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that Ireland is a small country, many organisations that are small may be significant may be notable. Personally, I'm an inclusionist anyway, so I'd keep an article on a small organisation anyway. Autarch ( talk) 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the above to the article in question. Autarch ( talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things need clarification:
The phrase "religious segregation" is more derogatory than the term "denominational education", breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OPED. Autarch ( talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:RS: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable - this affects this article as one of the resources is a blog. To fit with WP:RS a resource from a RS would be needed - say, a newspaper of record. Autarch ( talk) 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
To keep the current page focused on its' topic, there is now a page on denominational education. Autarch ( talk) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Also removed MOS:OPED from mention of denominational education. Autarch ( talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
In practice, the difference between the above can be so small as to be negligible. Autarch ( talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Ben Conroy from Iona here. We think the term "advocacy group" is a more appropriate and accurate one than "lobby group" - after all, the page that "lobby group" links to is actually called " Advocacy Group" - and Iona's activities are considerably broader than those described in Lobbying. Thanks. BConroyIona ( talk) 11:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The article currently says In 2008, the Institute organised a conference in support of denominational education, a system in which children are segregated according to the religion of their parents and which is used in over 95% of Irish schools. - this seems to be phrased to take a stance rather than reporting what sources say. The article on Denominational education mentions criticism of the system, but it is sourced. As this article stands, it seems to be a case of WP:SOAPBOX. Perhaps In 2008, the Institute organised a conference in support of denominational education, which has been criticised in recent years (with sources for criticism) would be the best phrasing. Autarch ( talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to explain why I am removing the last sentence of the "Criticism" paragraph. It fails WP:NOR and WP:SELFPUBLISH. The line is referenced to the Wikipedia editor's ( Jaimehy) own Blog "Aggressive Secularist by Jamie Hyland" and was added by him-- 92.251.255.12 ( talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to have a single-purpose account "looking after" it and adding lots of non-notable material. Perhaps a conflict of interest?
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
There was a murder in Clondalkin on 12th January 2014 of someone involved with the Iona Institute: Man expected in court over chess killing (Irish Times), Victim of 'gruesome' killing after chess match a 'quiet and devout' man (Irish Independent), Man held in Dublin over 'ritualistic chess killing' (The Guardian).
My own instinct is not to mention the murder given WP:NOTNEWS. However, he is described in some of the above news items as a researcher for the Iona Institute and David Quinn is quoted expressing "shock and sorrow" concerning his murder, so he may have been a significant member, which might merit a passing mention. Autarch ( talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone with no knowledge reading this article, would not get the impression Iona are a hugely controversial group. There is no mention about, say, their use of research by Child Trends and Child Trends' response. Or the recent events surrounding Miss Panti and RTE. Are such items simply not being added?
P. Paul Moloney ( talk) 13:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
While there have recently been a lot of pixels exuded over this event, in the scope of the topic of this article, it is really a relatively small matter. There was some moneys paid, and people who didnt like Iona Institute before still dont like them.
If this leads to actual action by the senate and not just words, perhaps calling it out in its own subsection might be appropriate, but as of now the real world consequences and impact are just about nil and reflecting them as more than that particularly by calling them out in a stand alone section is inappropriate.
Framing via "Reception and impact" is almost always going to provide a better framework for an encyclopedia article than " WP:Controversy sections"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"No offence Red, but if you were in Ireland witnessing the ongoing controversy, you would not describe it as "just words"" - obviously this refers solely to the state as I have not seen it in any Northern Ireland news or press or even in the few Irish News editions I've gotten this week unless I somehow missed it. Mabuska (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does this keep getting deleted?
The Iona Institute is the trading name of Lolek Ltd, a private limited company set up in 2006. Controversy has arisen in relation to the use of the word "Institute" as the heading for a privately owned Catholic lobby. It has been noted that whilst there are no laws in Ireland as to the use of the word "Institute", in Britain for example, the company would not be permitted use of the term in compliance with the guidelines of the Companies House which states that the use of the term Institute "is normally given only to fully functioning organisations that are established in the field but operate under a different name" and that among other things "the range of activities may vary but institutes are organisations that typically undertake research at the highest level or are professional bodies of the highest standing" and "whether the institute provides training or activities that support qualifications provided by other bodies such as universities or colleges". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnySideUp101 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the term "conservative" from the introductory sentence. While many may find catholic teaching conservative, the term conservative catholic is a specific subset of catholicism see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Catholics. The Iona institue is simply a catholic think tank, not a conservative catholic think tank. User:GeneralBelly reverted my edit. I tried to explain the position on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GeneralBelly#Iona_Institute_2 but there was no response, so I reverted User GeneralBelly's edit and wrote this up explaing my revert. I hope this helps clarify the reverts-- 92.251.255.13 ( talk) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Just regarding describing Iona as a 'conservative Catholic lobby group', it's worth noting that neither of the two sources I deleted gave any reasons why Iona is a specifically Catholic organisation - and considering that its own website it makes no mention of being such; and that in thisinterview with one of its patrons on the state broadcaster RTE, the patron (Breda O'Brien) specifically says it is not a Catholic lobby group...
Well, I should think it would be reasonable not to describe it as a Catholic group, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.37.127 ( talk) 16:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I have, and it strikes me that unless one of the secondary sources I deleted provides some example of Iona promoting Catholicism specifically rather than Christianity or the place of religionhttp://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/rory-oneill-irish-homophobia/ generally, the primary sources of
their own website (see "about the Iona Institute) and the interview I linked ought to be trusted. In addition, the Index on Censorship source I deleted was not appropriate for that section - it was fine to link to it in the course of discussing the homophobia controversy, but as a source for describing the nature of the organisation it fails
WP:NPV. As for the Times artice - again, some example of promoting Catholicism rather than religion generally needs to be found in order to invalidate Iona's self-description.
As for 'Conservative', ' socially conservative' might be more precise if "pro-marriage, pro-religion' is too weighted. Iona are not economically conservative or right-wing. (Editing from a different computer, will get an account soon). 89.126.117.223 ( talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
' The religious faith of the patrons is irrelevant, as is their location, unless you can demonstrate that only Catholic groups can have offices in that building. The newspapers' account contradicts Iona's self-description [1] . In other cases where this occurs, we require our reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the falsity of an organisation's self-description, not merely assert that they are something which they claim not to be. In addition, "advocacy group" is preferable to "lobby group" as that is the actual name of the relevant Wikipedia article. In addition, you have provided no reason for the reversion of 'socially conservative' to 'conservative', when I have argued that the former is more precise. 86.45.42.216 ( talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Ben Conroy here, of Iona. I'd like to request that 'Conservative Catholic' be changed to 'socially conservative Christian', for the reasons mentioned in the discussion above. This Irish Times piece about Church of Ireland Bishop Ken Clarke becoming a patron of ours should hopefully put this whole business to rest. The earlier secondary sources cited by Second Quantization are simply mistaken - we are not and have never been a Catholic organisation.
"Socially conservative" is more accurate than "conservative" as we do not have a defined position on the proper amount of redistribution or the size of government. Some of our patrons and members - including myself - are quite economically left-wing. Would appreciate this being sorted out as quickly as possible. Any queries can be sent to bconroy@ionainstitute.ie BConroyIona ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
"Lobby group" throughout the article was changed to "organisation". On reflection, I'm changing it back. There is no way to join this "organisation" except by invitation, it would appear. It is, therefore, simply a self-appointed pressure group. The article should reflect that. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Hello all.
My name is Ben Conroy, I work as a researcher and spokesperson for the Iona Institute, and I'm here to request some edits. I'm doing it all at once to avoid creating multiple new sections: I couldn't find if that was the best way to go about it or not - I can split them up into different sections if need be.
I've tried to brush up on NPOV and COI in preparation for this, but if I end up violating any community standards I welcome correction. Thank you all in advance.
To begin with: that “Status” section violates NPOV in a number of places:
Quotes from Graham Norton and David Norris simply do not belong there: articles about other advocacy groups do not have their opponents provide running commentary on their descriptions.
See NARAL, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties page, the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network page (which actually contains several laudatory quotes), and Atheist Ireland (especially relevant as they are probably the closest thing to a 'mirror image' organisation of ours in Ireland – we usually, though not always, advocate for diametrically opposed goals on most issues) – I could go on, and will if requested, but the violation of NPOV should be clear.
The presence of quotes from Graham Norton, an entertainer and a man who is quite determinedly opposed to our organisation and its goals, is particularly inappropriate, and David Norris's quote also is about as far away from being NPOV as it gets. I request the deletion of both quotes.
This dispute over the name clearly does not belong on the page, as it is completely irrelevant information. Wikipedia's own page on “ Insitute” defines the term thus:
"An institute is an organisational body created for a certain purpose."
The rest of the information on that page uses words like “often” and “in some countries” - it sets down no absolute standard other that the one quoted – except for the strict rules employed in the UK.
To be blunt: Ireland is an independent Republic, and has been for quite some time. The United Kingdom's rules do not apply here, any more than they do to the countless international organisations who call themselves “Institutes” without permission from the relevant UK Secretary of State. I request deletion of all material relating to the use of the word “Institute” in our name as irrelevant, and violating NPOV through creating an unwarranted impression that we're somehow deceiving people.
As to the “Catholic” description: there is a more recent article from a reliable source than any of those you cite describing us as a “Christian” group.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/iona-institute-says-ida-call-for-yes-vote-on-marriage-completely-unacceptable-1.2196801 [2]
The sources that refer to us as a Catholic organisation are just factually wrong. I know that's not enough to change the description – but given that there is a dispute among reliable sources as to whether we are “Catholic” or “Christian”, I would like to know what evidence has ever been marshalled by any of these sources for the fact that we are specifically Catholic?
I have no desire to speculate about the motives of some of the sources in continuing to refer to us as a Catholic group rather than a Christian one, but it's just inaccurate, and we have a more recent source referring to us as Christian. I therefore request deletion of the “claim” by John Murray, and replacement of “Catholic” with “Christian” throughout.
Wikipedia practice seems to be to use it interchangeably with “advocacy group” - yet it's a more loaded, negative term than “advocacy group”, and is not used on Wikipedia about some organisations who differ from us ideologically.
Again, see NARAL, GLEN, Atheist Ireland, all of whom are “pressure groups” in the same sense that we are, and none of whom are described as such. Atheist Ireland is on the Wikipedia list of Irish pressure groups, but is not described as such in the article.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties is not described as a pressure group, despite being referred to as such by Politico and Magill (very old source - page now indicates malware on Chrome so not linking, but perhaps Google and look at the cached version?)., and by the ICCL themselves - see the end of pg 11 here (downloads a PDF):
With regard to the sources for "pressure group": Matt Cooper is an opinion columnist who does not agree with our policy goals, and is using “pressure group” in a derogatory sense.
Pink News are a biased source when discussing us: that article you cite is not a neutral piece of reporting, as it says we “admit” to “promoting the place of marriage and religion in society”. The use of the word “admit” should clue us in that they're using “pressure group” in a derogatory sense.
The CIA (who'd have thunk it?) are not using “pressure group” in a derogatory mannger, but they also describe us as a “think-tank”, which Wikipedia does not. In addition, they describe a number of other groups as “pressure groups” who are not described as such on their wikipedia pages, such as the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA), and Keep Ireland Open.
The use of “pressure group” is redundant, and its only affect on the page is to create a negative impression about Iona. “Advocacy group” alone is briefer, and it's it's more neutral language. For what it's worth we're also referred to as an “Advocacy Group” here:
Finally, I request deletion of the David Norris quote about our charitable status. Irrelevant to the description, violates NPOV, and plenty of other Irish advocacy groups have charitable status. “Advancement of religion” is not some kind of suspect grounds for being granted charitable status under Irish law, and it'd be good if the facts could be stated without the input from the Senator, who is a very proud social liberal and does not like the aims of our organisation.
That's all for the moment with regard to the “status” section. Very happy to discuss this with all editors, and to accept criticism of my proposals. I have very openly declared my conflict of interest, and I look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Ben Conroy Iona ( talk) 11:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
eh no Church of Ireland Bishops are not Catholic. Aerchasúr ( talk) 18:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iona Institute. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/comic-norton-shows-support-for-panti-in-rte-payout-row-29976200.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Iona Institute. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This section on Iona's legal status mentions 'David Norris referred to "the so-called Iona Institute" as "an unelected, unrepresentative group of reactionary, right-wing, religiously motivated people".[18]'. This is not inl ine with WP:NPOV Aerchasúr ( talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Charity status is a regulated legal status that exists in Ireland. It has nothing to do with being left or right wing, reactionary or progressive. Religion is relevant to charity status as its one of the explicit reasons that can justify charity status. David Norris quote has no bearing on Iona's legal status or charity status in general. It is just a crude bias in the article that must be removed. Aerchasúr ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I edited it in the first line to emphasise that it is a Christian group (rather than specifically "Roman Catholic"). As pointed out above a Church of Ireland Bishop is a patron implying it is not a specifically "Roman" Catholic group and emphasising that its values are broader Conservative/Christian values. I also added minor edits to the "status" section. I felt it lacked some context as to why the quotes were there. I didn't remove them since that did not seem to be the consensus.
I have since reverted an edit describing it as a "radical" group. I don't think that is an appropriate descriptor. Social conservatism was the norm and is still relatively mainstream (the Catholic Church is still an important/influential institution which is not usually referred to as "radical") and is the most accurate descriptor of their focus. The "purpose" could be simplified, their purpose is to promote and defend social conservative values but it is probably not necessary to copy/paste their "about us" section here. -- Spaircí ( talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)