Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the claim that Anderson was convicted in relation to this, because she wasn't. It's confusing because although all five people arrested in Glasgow were tried at the same time, only Magee was charged over the Brighton bombing but he was also charged in the conspiracy case involving the other four as well. See this Guardian article for more information. One Night In Hackney 303 10:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it an apprpriate use of the template to list her office as "Director of Unionist Engagement"? This is her job in Sinn Fein, not an official (ie government) post. beano 13:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A revert has been made without any new edit summary. What has been added is a extended quote that repeats much of the background earlier in the para. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Traditional unionist ( talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
TU you added "Employment monitoring by the Equality Commission records solely religion, and not political affiliation." I have attempted to now put it into context, though as a footnote it would work equally as well. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The editor who first introduced this section intended it to be negative propaganda, with the addition of text not contained in the sources. I simply placed the context of the remarks in their true light and based on the sources provided. It was not me for example who titled this tread "Racism," which was also the context that was implyed on the article itself. -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What that user intended is not irrelevent. I put what she said (qouted) in context, with no POV at all. -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your an editor, change it. Just make sure the substance and context remains, and not this racism spin. -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with concensus, I have suggested you change the text. In place of a quote, insert text which reflects what she said, and avoide the rasism spin which was placed on it. Simple! -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have re-insted the encyclopedic content of the original edit, and have provided a reference to justify the "controvercy" word, it is a published piece by an elected representitive, this is a primary example of a controvercy prompted by Ms Anderson's words. My edit is free from any agenda, and conforms to all wikipedia policy and has good encyclopedic value, extended quotes, which can themselves be found in the references DO NOT. Case closed. Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
At the most, the letter-to-the-editor only proves that a Unionist politician wrote a letter complaining about Anderson's comments. That hardly indicates a larger controversy. All-in-all, Mr. Vanguard, you have failed utterly to prove your point or back up your POV. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mr Jacobite, or may I call you Republican, I have now supplied a full article and reworded my edit to read "attracted criticism" rather than "caused controvercy". In the words of Margaret Richie; "no surrender".... Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have undone some recent edits, the revision to my edit were not encyclopedic - if you want to includes all that then write a new page about it. Also, describing them as "migrant workers" is not correct, as they are perminantly resident in the UK and have no intention whatever of returning to their country of origin, if in fact they are not already "second generation" as it were Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Try the latest edit for size Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 08:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this unreferenced information per WP:BLP. -- Domer48 ( talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has recently come under POV attack with WP:BLP violations being repeatedly added.
In addition there has been constant removal of what Anderson actually said, claiming it is not a soapbox for her. Well neither is it a soapbox for Loyalist councillors to criticise her without giving her the right of reply and being quoted properly as the secondary sources do. NPOV demands both or neither are included. BigDunc ( talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
TU is that really the best you can do?-- Domer48 ( talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please can all participants in this dispute calm down and if necessary take a break from the subject.
I have protected the page to bring an end to the edit war, because the discussion on this talk page seems unlikely to lead to any agreement soon unless there is a marked change of tone, with an assumption of good faith on all sides. (And yes, I probably have protected The Wrong Version).
So far, I see multiple accusations that people have been libelled, and too many editors who seem to be excessively quick to take offence as provocative political labels are exchanged.
This does not appear to be a particularly complex issue: a politician made some remarks and got criticised. Both sides perspectives should be reported fairly, using reliable sources, and with care taken about how much prominence is due to the different perspectives.
I want to remind all the editors working on this page that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors can be applied to this article and to the editors involved in this dispute. Please take care to assume good faith and to ensure that any comments made on this talk page are designed in tone and in substance to help to reach a consensus, not to score points off opponents.
Thanks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly the mentality of division still exists in that region of the world and it is very difficult for people there to post without POVing. As soon as I started reading the actual article I guessed there would be a heated discussion in the talk page. Sure enough I found this mess and was less than surprised and definitely left unimpressed by the squabbling on this page.
Bottom line, don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to the poltics of division, especially in Northern Ireland related issues. There are too many people who have ulterior motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsiem ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Martina Anderson is a Member of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom. The European Parliament lists her as representing the United Kingdom. Anderson has previously been convicted of a number of criminal offences. She was sentenced to life imprisonment. She had been placed in the category Category:British politicians convicted of crimes some months ago, which serves as a navigational tool of politicians from the UK convicted of crimes. However, another editor has removed her from the category and placed her in the Category:Irish politicians convicted of crimes. Which category should she be placed in? AusLondonder ( talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
QS, Snappy makes a good point at Talk: Eamon de Valera that politicians included in similar categories by nationality have to be politicians when they commit their crimes. Gob Lofa ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes only includes politicians whose crimes were committed while in office; why have a different standard for Irish politicians? Gob Lofa ( talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Good. Gob Lofa ( talk) 16:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Anything to add, QS? Gob Lofa ( talk) 17:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk · contribs)? Gob Lofa ( talk) 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The nationality question has already been addressed. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not politicians ought to have been politicans at the time of their crime in order to be included in this category, but I strongly oppose having a double standard on the issue. Gob Lofa ( talk) 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I've put the question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Politicians_convicted_of_crimes Gob Lofa ( talk) 18:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martina Anderson. 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.patrika.tv/uk/convicted-ira-bomber-cancels-brussels-easter-uprising-event/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) 11:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the claim that Anderson was convicted in relation to this, because she wasn't. It's confusing because although all five people arrested in Glasgow were tried at the same time, only Magee was charged over the Brighton bombing but he was also charged in the conspiracy case involving the other four as well. See this Guardian article for more information. One Night In Hackney 303 10:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it an apprpriate use of the template to list her office as "Director of Unionist Engagement"? This is her job in Sinn Fein, not an official (ie government) post. beano 13:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A revert has been made without any new edit summary. What has been added is a extended quote that repeats much of the background earlier in the para. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Traditional unionist ( talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
TU you added "Employment monitoring by the Equality Commission records solely religion, and not political affiliation." I have attempted to now put it into context, though as a footnote it would work equally as well. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The editor who first introduced this section intended it to be negative propaganda, with the addition of text not contained in the sources. I simply placed the context of the remarks in their true light and based on the sources provided. It was not me for example who titled this tread "Racism," which was also the context that was implyed on the article itself. -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What that user intended is not irrelevent. I put what she said (qouted) in context, with no POV at all. -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your an editor, change it. Just make sure the substance and context remains, and not this racism spin. -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with concensus, I have suggested you change the text. In place of a quote, insert text which reflects what she said, and avoide the rasism spin which was placed on it. Simple! -- Domer48 ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have re-insted the encyclopedic content of the original edit, and have provided a reference to justify the "controvercy" word, it is a published piece by an elected representitive, this is a primary example of a controvercy prompted by Ms Anderson's words. My edit is free from any agenda, and conforms to all wikipedia policy and has good encyclopedic value, extended quotes, which can themselves be found in the references DO NOT. Case closed. Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
At the most, the letter-to-the-editor only proves that a Unionist politician wrote a letter complaining about Anderson's comments. That hardly indicates a larger controversy. All-in-all, Mr. Vanguard, you have failed utterly to prove your point or back up your POV. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mr Jacobite, or may I call you Republican, I have now supplied a full article and reworded my edit to read "attracted criticism" rather than "caused controvercy". In the words of Margaret Richie; "no surrender".... Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have undone some recent edits, the revision to my edit were not encyclopedic - if you want to includes all that then write a new page about it. Also, describing them as "migrant workers" is not correct, as they are perminantly resident in the UK and have no intention whatever of returning to their country of origin, if in fact they are not already "second generation" as it were Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Try the latest edit for size Ulster_Vanguard ( talk) 08:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this unreferenced information per WP:BLP. -- Domer48 ( talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has recently come under POV attack with WP:BLP violations being repeatedly added.
In addition there has been constant removal of what Anderson actually said, claiming it is not a soapbox for her. Well neither is it a soapbox for Loyalist councillors to criticise her without giving her the right of reply and being quoted properly as the secondary sources do. NPOV demands both or neither are included. BigDunc ( talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
TU is that really the best you can do?-- Domer48 ( talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please can all participants in this dispute calm down and if necessary take a break from the subject.
I have protected the page to bring an end to the edit war, because the discussion on this talk page seems unlikely to lead to any agreement soon unless there is a marked change of tone, with an assumption of good faith on all sides. (And yes, I probably have protected The Wrong Version).
So far, I see multiple accusations that people have been libelled, and too many editors who seem to be excessively quick to take offence as provocative political labels are exchanged.
This does not appear to be a particularly complex issue: a politician made some remarks and got criticised. Both sides perspectives should be reported fairly, using reliable sources, and with care taken about how much prominence is due to the different perspectives.
I want to remind all the editors working on this page that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors can be applied to this article and to the editors involved in this dispute. Please take care to assume good faith and to ensure that any comments made on this talk page are designed in tone and in substance to help to reach a consensus, not to score points off opponents.
Thanks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly the mentality of division still exists in that region of the world and it is very difficult for people there to post without POVing. As soon as I started reading the actual article I guessed there would be a heated discussion in the talk page. Sure enough I found this mess and was less than surprised and definitely left unimpressed by the squabbling on this page.
Bottom line, don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to the poltics of division, especially in Northern Ireland related issues. There are too many people who have ulterior motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsiem ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Martina Anderson is a Member of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom. The European Parliament lists her as representing the United Kingdom. Anderson has previously been convicted of a number of criminal offences. She was sentenced to life imprisonment. She had been placed in the category Category:British politicians convicted of crimes some months ago, which serves as a navigational tool of politicians from the UK convicted of crimes. However, another editor has removed her from the category and placed her in the Category:Irish politicians convicted of crimes. Which category should she be placed in? AusLondonder ( talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
QS, Snappy makes a good point at Talk: Eamon de Valera that politicians included in similar categories by nationality have to be politicians when they commit their crimes. Gob Lofa ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes only includes politicians whose crimes were committed while in office; why have a different standard for Irish politicians? Gob Lofa ( talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Good. Gob Lofa ( talk) 16:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Anything to add, QS? Gob Lofa ( talk) 17:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk · contribs)? Gob Lofa ( talk) 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The nationality question has already been addressed. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not politicians ought to have been politicans at the time of their crime in order to be included in this category, but I strongly oppose having a double standard on the issue. Gob Lofa ( talk) 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I've put the question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Politicians_convicted_of_crimes Gob Lofa ( talk) 18:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martina Anderson. 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.patrika.tv/uk/convicted-ira-bomber-cancels-brussels-easter-uprising-event/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) 11:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)