Talk:Conor D. McGuinness

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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

delete, October 24, 2024, see discussion.
delete, January 28, 2020, see discussion.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

BLPSOURCES

Hi. In a recent series of edits, an editor (whose contributions, it is hard to ignore, all relate to the subject of this article) removed text sourced to this Extra.ie article. With a note that the text was "irrelevant" and "the only sourcing is tabloid journalism". In terms of:

Relevance, while the source states that the subject had never met (and was unaware of any relationship to and [obviously] has no control over the actions of) a purported relative, the adding editor seemingly felt a mention was relevant/proportional. While I'd question how much text had been afforded to this aspect, if appropriately sourced, I wonder if a short mention would be appropriate.
Reliability, while Extra.ie is a DMG Media property (and the online text seems to originate from The Irish Mail on Sunday), I don't know enough about the Irish and British Daily Mail entities to know whether WP:RSP/WP:DAILYMAIL applies. If it does, then - absent other sources - I'm inclined to agree that additional/"better" sources are warranted.

Guliolopez (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing the above (it took me a few minutes to get my thoughts together and investigate the source) another editor restored the text. Per my note above (and whether we need lots of bio information on a person who isn't the subject of this article and covered instead in a separate article), I've summarised the text somewhat. As above, and ever conscious of how these things can sometimes go, if there is a specific sourcing concern (and consensus that it should be removed entirely) I'm happy to discuss here. Having read/reviewed the removing editor's full argument (not fully conveyed with the first removal), I'm kinda neutral on it myself. (Maybe just a "see also" link suffices? - I dunno... ) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a page about a politician that has recently run for office it is noted that the article is at increased risk of biased editing. That half of the entire article was text afforded to a poorly sourced assertion made in one tabloid article suggests potential biased editing on the part of the adding editor.

With regard to relevance, given that the subject is a politician that has recently run for office if the claim made in the tabloid article were of relevance once could reasonably expect to find more than one source?

The article in question is from The Irish Mail on Sunday and is written by a journalist from that newspaper. Extra.ie serves as an online publishing arm of the DMG Media group of tabloid newspapers. The original article from The Irish Mail on Sunday is published verbatim on Extra.ie. Essentially there is one article, published on two sister platforms - one print, the other online. There is no other source for the claim. WestWaterfordBrigade (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WestWaterfordBrigade. With thanks for contributing here, as noted at User talk:WestWaterfordBrigade, at least part of your comment above falls within WP:AGF. (There's nothing to indicate that CeltBrowne's reliance on the Extra.ie source is suggestive of "potential biased editing". And nothing to indicate that they were acting in anything other than good faith). Please avoid suggesting, without evidence, that other editors have "harmful motives" or are here for anything other than building/improving an encyclopedia. I'd also recommend self-reverting, to restore the text under discussion. At least until there's consensus agreement on the reliability of that source. Guliolopez (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems per WP:DAILYMAIL the Irish version is also blacklisted, but Extra.ie itself nor the DMG Group as a publisher are. I’m on the fence about source reliability, but should a better source come on stream this information should be included - “biased information” doesn’t cut it as an argument against. I also share the concerns about WP:SPA, looking at the past two AfDs… ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If other users feel the text was too long or poorly sourced, I'm happy for other tenured editors to alter or remove it. I came across the information while researching McGuinness and added it alongside all the other information I added to the article, such as the fact they are a trade unionist, they're a youth health worker, they're a Gaeilgeoir etc.. The information was placed there in good faith.

I also share the concerns about WP:SPA, looking at the past two AfDs…

WestWaterfordBrigade is the same user who uploaded File:Conor D. McGuinness.png. On the file, they stated they were the owner of the copyright of the file. They also stated the author of the file was Conor D. McGuinness. Thus, the user must be Conor D. McGuinness or they did not have the legal right to upload File:Conor D. McGuinness.png. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]