Talk:Eamon Ryan

Shell to Sea

Currently, there is no information on what is to-date Ryan's most impressive volte-face, his ditching of the Shell to Sea campaign. To end up overseeing a project one had so vehemently opposed is definitely unusual, even by the standards of Irish politics, and certainly notable.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a section on this. Only, this time try adding a balanced piece on the policy u-turn, with reliable sources (Indymedia doesn't count) Snappy (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A few sentences, yes. A section, no. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A few sentences or a paragraph or a section. Whatever. Snappy (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it a section is a paragraph (or a few sentences without line spacing between them) with a heading? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I've rewording the paragraph per the source ("pressure", not "criticism"), removed An Phoblacht (not reliable as it's a newspaper for a competing political party) and removed the description of the pipeline etc (if users want to learn about it, they can go to the article itself). Thanks! Fin©™ 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What would be a non-competing political party? Do you have a precedent for your removal of the AP article? Many papers back certain parties in general elections, both in Ireland and abroad. Should Wikipedia refuse to use articles from any of them? The AP article specifially uses the word "criticism", from Mark Garavan, most definitely not a member of Sinn Féin. You ought to be more careful, 9x5; your blanking of a link to Shell's website might lead some to believe you're biased against them! I, of course, don't think that of you. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've looked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations; I can't find any reference to a blanket ban on political magazines or newspapers. In fact, it says: "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces", exactly what I've been saying to you elsewhere. Where are you getting your "not reliable" from? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A number of issues here, 1) An Phoblacht is a reliable source, yes it is a pro-Sinn Fein newspaper but it is also a credible newspaper, should we ban the Irish Independent for being pro-Fianna Fail? 2) User Falcon9x5 seems to have become a self-appointed arbitrator on what LP can or can't add to wikipedia. Now I know in the past LP has added uncited POV but when he adds reliably referenced balanced facts and Falcon9x5 still objects, I have to wonder? Snappy (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't An Phoblacht the party newspaper of Sinn Féin though? Like, not that its pro-Sinn Féin but is actually aligned to/published by it? That's what I always thought it was, which is why I don't think it's a reliable source (Sinn Féin are pro-Shell to Sea) - I left the Irish Times as a source so I didn't actually remove any facts, I just removed the source I felt was unreliable. Fin©™ 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look around, it is the official newspaper of Sinn Féin - I'm not quite sure how that can be considered a reliable source for something related to another political party/the Corrib gas controversy, but if it can please correct me! Fin©™ 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic unbiased assessment called for

The article as written violates several of the basic guidelines on biographies of living persons. It includes very little information about the noteworthy events of Eamon Ryan's political career, almost one fifth of the article and one entire picture are devoted to one issue only. Several of the citations are dubious. This article contains only either narrow focused criticism or barely referenced minutiae, and nothing substantive, so as to be clearly editorialising. I'm changing the article to better reflect the subject and so that it reads from a neutral point of view.Eoinwilson (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with nearly all your edits, but I've added back in the Shell to Sea image. Snappy (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a prime example of the editorialising I was getting at. The article in itself is not a tome covering every aspect of the subject's life, it's a brief, objective summary, as is warranted for a minor politician who spent a brief time in office. The issue in question is more than adequately covered in the 'criticisms' section as I had written it, with links to several sources from where the reader can locate that picture and inform themselves if they so choose. Unless we are expanding this article to cover the debates over every decision taken or not taken by Eamon Ryan, which would require volumes - the picture is elevating one issue to take on a greater importance to the uninformed observer, which is neither a fair nor accurate assessment, and which I suspect is your intent.Eoinwilson (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

He is a politician and is best known for his tenure as Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Prior to his appointment, he opposed the Corrib Gas project, and when he was Minister he did not oppose it. Are you suggesting that it is ok to mention this in the text but not ok to have an image illustrating it? That seems to be a strange double standard. I don't know why you are questioning my intent, I am neutral on party politics, I am not questioning your intent to remove it, even though it seems like something a party supporter would want done. This image has been on the article for several years, so the current WP:Consensus is for it to remain. It should not be removed unless the consensus changes. Snappy (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as a prime example of how consensus can change. A discussion. I think the article would be remiss if it didn't mention the S2S material, which is, as Snappy says, relevant to Ryan's work. That said, the picture doesn't really add any extra information, context, or (and this is more subjective) interest. It just seems to have been put there to make a point. If that's the case, then I think it's a point which has been given undue priority. Mpidge (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, now that I look at it, it's just not a great picture, especially considering that there seems to be a decent portrait shot which fulfills all the licensing requirements. A fairly distant, angled shot with other unknown people in it seems a bit unnecessary for the purpose of a photo in this article, which is to, well, show you what the chap looks like. Mpidge (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, no - my objection to the image is based on its prominence, not its content. As I said for an article of this length I think the issue of the Corrib Gas Project is more than adequately covered; it includes a link to the primary article, a detailed and fair summary of the substance of the issue, and properly sourced citations. The picture adds to the issue's prominence within the article so as to exaggerate its relevance, risking the appearance that the article was written form a biased point of view, would you not agree?Eoinwilson (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect I am talking to Green Party supporters but anyway Ryan is holding a placard saying Support the Rossport Five, a position he reversed on when in government. Can you give a good reason why you wish to censor this image, but think its ok to mention the issue in text. Snappy (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Already outlined why I don't think it's warranted, but if you think that the article as it is reads from a neutral point of view then fair enough. I disagree but I'll leave it to other contributors to add their thoughts. I'm just going to slightly rearrange the part on the 2011 election as it's not really congruous with the criticisms section.Eoinwilson (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying its ok to mention his u-turn in text but not have an image of it becuase this will draw attention to the fact. How bizzare! As you are a new editor, you should read more about the five pillars of wikipedia, and WP:BLP and remember that this article isn't supposed to be a hatchet job or a hagiography but somewhere in between. Snappy (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely the tone I'm attempting to strike in arguing for the picture's removal.Eoinwilson (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that the article should - as Snappy says - contain criticisms, but that the placement of an image simply adds undue weight to a specific criticism, without contributing anything particularly useful. AFAIK, the picture was originally there to illustrate what Ryan looks like, a purpose it no longer fulfills. I don't exactly think that it's a massive issue, since the article's restructuring has improved it (I had a crack at it a while ago, but to no avail). *shrugs* Mpidge (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The falling asleep thing

Is it really worth mentioning the falling asleep incident in the article? I feel like it'll be forgotten in a month's time and it's not really a noteworthy enough event to warrant inclusion in the article. For comparison, the "Votegate" incident of 2019 is not mentioned on either Dara Calleary's or Lisa Chambers' articles despite the fact that story ran for a week and forced apologises out of a few people (I'm not complaining about this, merely noting it for contrast). It seems like in most publications reporting on it treated it as just something humourous that happened and not something to be taken seriously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree I have removed it per WP:RECENTISM, as you said, it will be forgotten about in a week. Spleodrach (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Will be forgotten about in a week" isn't a valid reason for removing content from an article, otherwise half the articles on this wiki would be entirely threadbare or just not exist. Re votegate not being included on the duo's pages, that argument basically falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. ser! (let's discuss it). 11:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus not to include this. Spleodrach (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll refer you to WP:CONLEVEL. Two users versus one user does not make a 'consensus' even at local consensus level. ser! (let's discuss it). 23:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:RECENTISM, oh look, something happened last week, let's put it in the article. It's WP:Trivia, oh look, a man dozed off a work, let's put that piece of trivia in the article. Let's not bother to add anything about the party policies that he is implementing. Finally, no consensus to add it. Spleodrach (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask you to stop putting words in my mouth and have a little bit of decorum. You can't throw WP:RECENTISM at someone for any edit they make about something that happens, to just discount it because it happened recently. It's been included because it was covered by multiple news sources including actually broadsheet newspapers, and is relevant to the article, not because of WP:RECENTISM or WP:TRIVIA. Finally, the consensus to not include it you keep talking about clearly isn't there. ser! (let's discuss it). 12:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright everyone, let's try and be civil here. There's no need for an edit war over this. I didn't think when I started the thread it'd cause this much tension, I was just opening it up for open discussion rather than making it a hill to die on. I guess what I would say now is that I thought that it didn't seem like that noteworthy an event but I can see that not everyone agrees. I suppose we won't really know if this was noteworthy until a few weeks from now. If Ryan retains the leadership of the Greens, I would suggest that this will be considered a non-event in hindsight. If Ryan does not retain leadership, I can see some people trying to make the case this was another flub that undermined his credibility. So perhaps going forward, maybe we should say we'll remove it if he retains and if he doesn't, it can be condensed into the same paragraph as the N-Word incident as a paragraph indicating that he was/is prone to gaffs and this was a factor in the leadership decision. That way the inclusion of the gaffs has a narrative purpose, in that it would give context to the result of the leadership race. So that would be my suggestion for the long term.

As for the short term, ie whether it should be included from now until the leadership race; I'll have to turn that back towards ser! and Spleodrach. Do you two think that you two could come to a gentlemen's agreement on what to do in the shortterm? CeltBrowne (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

My rationale for including it was that it has been shown to be notable by the amount of significant, relevant coverage it has received since it happened - if it was a small gaffe only mentioned vaguely in the society column of the local paper I could've understood the whole 'not relevant' argument but there has been actual significant relevant coverage in actual sources, with whole articles dedicated to it. I wasn't aware of any policies on Wikipedia about whether "content that the general public will forget about at some stage" is removable, because really there's no way of determining that, but I'd be happy to stand corrected if there is.

I would have suggested that it stays in the article as part of some sort of 'Controversies' section, along with the n-word incident, regardless of outcome of the Green leadership campaign, but I'm happy to discuss this. I just feel it's not right that my content has been reverted repeatedly with things being cited for which there is no factual basis, i.e WP policies that don't exist. It feels like an attempt at WP:OWNing the content, so to speak. Still, I'm happy to reach some sort of agreement on this on what to do. All the best. ser! (let's discuss it). 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Pension, testing positive for covid, salad and wolves

Relating to my recently reverted edit, I've removed the details of his pension from his first time in government, because he's about to retire and the value of his pension will be different than a decade ago. There was some minor stories around him testing positive, negative and positive again for covid, and whether he should have gone to COP at all, but I consider that trivial at best now. The article would be better off focusing on his efforts to set up a loss and damage fund at COP. I removed that one too.

Other gaffes that have undue weight in my opinion are the thing about him growing salad in window boxes and his stance on reintroducing wolves, but I don't have the energy at this time of night to tackle that. 31.187.2.147 (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)