Talk:Mick Wallace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0609/breaking7.html http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=75019&locID=1.2&pagename=news. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal conviction?[edit]

Where is it written that Mick has a Criminal conviction? Bankruptcy is not a crime. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC) he has a criminal conviction for the Shannon protestAerchasúr (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mick Wallace. 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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mick Wallace. 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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==Views on China=- Mick Wallace's unusual views on China and downplaying genocide should be included in the bio.

Lead summary[edit]

The lead summary serves as an introduction to the article summarising the topic, in this case Mick Wallace. Many people have forgotten why Mick Wallace was notable in the first place. Refer back to the creation of the article in the first place and Mick Wallace's role as a larger than life property developer and football club chairman. Financefactz (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The specific facts relating to the Italian Quarter properties are not important, in fact its only mentioned once throughout the article. StairySky (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reccent addition[edit]

User:CeltBrowne A lead is supposed to summarize what a person is famous for, it is not a collation of facts and opinions intended to make intended to make the subject of the article look bad. You've very selectively picked out everything that you think is negative while ignoring everything else. That's tendentious editing. StairySky (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m currently away from home for a few days and I’m typing this on mobile so for forgive me if this is more basic than my usual replies

StairySky, you’re half right. The lead paragraph is supposed to cover what the subject is most known for, but must also accurately reflect the contents of the article itself and not introduce things which are not picked back up in the body of the article. I actually initially wanted to include a reference to Wallace’s (and Daly’s) work on Gardai whistleblowing. However, as I was doing it I realised there’s very little in the body of the article about that. Hence I added a bit more, but that section needs to be expanded so it can be included in the lead.

You suggested that that the lead should reflect what the subject is most known for; if we were to ignore what I just said, if that were the case the current version of the lead would be more or less completely in line with that idea. Whether covered favourable in eastern media, or negatively in western media, the vast, vast, vast majority of coverage about Wallace has come since 2019 from his foreign policy views. If we were to look at 100 articles on Google news about Wallace, 89 of them would be about his views on international affairs, 5 about his tax affairs and the remainder would be about Wexford FC and his political projects pre 2019. When researching for the lead I actually saw more articles about Wallace’s attire than anything he did in the Dáil.

So, as I say, if the lead is only meant to discuss what he’s “famous” for, it works as is.

However, even I am not fully happy with it. I do myself want to include a line about Garda whistleblowing but my issue was I couldn’t find an overall summary or timeline covering that whole topic. Without an article giving an overview, an editor would have to through dozens of articles spanning over several years to come up with their own summary. Of course the issue there is doing that summary might actually fall afoul of your own definition of original research.

So to summarise; as it stands the lead /is/ what he’s known for. Wallace’s tax issues have not only been extensively covered in the media, but we’re also the catalyst for the breakup of the United Left Alliance and the break from Daly from the Socialist Party into an alliance with Wallace, which proved to be a longstanding development. Wallace’s foreign policy views and the reactions to them have accounted for the vast amount of coverage he has received in his career and no lead could not address that. And finally, the lead should include a mention of his work on Garda Whistleblowing, however this is difficult to do because it has to be built up in the body of the article first.

Sin é CeltBrowne (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: per BRD guidelines, what I’ve done is made a bold edit, which is encouraged. BRD makes clear that if you object to the bold edit, the onus then shifts on you to *refine* the bold edit, as Ser did. Using the revert button to roadblock the entire edit is not how editing works. Reverting would only be correct if it was impossible to improve upon my bold edit. The correct process is for my bold edit to be restored and for you to make the amendments that you feel it requires, as I already explicitly spelt out in an edit summary. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above. StairySky, I also take great issue with you dubbing this edit as "tendentious" and trying to cast aspersions on another editor regarding specifically trying to "make the subject of the article look bad". This is a ridiculous allegation to throw at a regular editor and given your own attempts to sanitise every edit that has been made to this page or Clare Daly over the last few months, dare I say a case of projection? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 06:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is the place to discuss such refinements, hence why I started this discussion! StairySky (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with saying something like "In recent years Wallace has gained attention for his foreign policy views" in the lead, the problems occurs when the lead is turned into an inflated mess with some serious pov tone issues, which is exactly what you turned it into. I'm completely open to these things being mentioned in the lead, so long as it done in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.StairySky (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely open to these things being mentioned in the lead, so long as it done in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.
Then the procedure, as I've already stated twice previously, is that you make new edits to the lead until it conforms to what you think is correct. What I would like to avoid here on the talk page is me making a dozen proposals to you for what the wording should be, and you turning them all down until we get to wording that is solely to your liking. I've had editors try and do this to me in the past, and I don't care to repeat that, as it amounted to little more than road-blocking or "filibustering". We can get into "proposed wordings" if there are two radically different versions of the lead created, but not before.
Secondly, I'll make clear that going forward, if you do make those changes, that the lead should not become a compromise mishmash that represents a halfway point between the two of us. If I say the wall is white, you say the wall is black, the solution is not to state the wall is medium-grey. Both the lead and the body of the article must reflect the sources they are drawn from. Everything I've included in this article, particularly in relation to his views on world affairs, is supported by the accompanying sources. The lead right now is not my opinion of Wallace, it's a reflection of the sources. Any assertions or alterations you would like to introduce should be supported by your own additional sources. If you going to make alterations but still use the sources I've introduced, they should actually reflect what is said in those sources. For example, simply stating In recent years Wallace has gained attention for his foreign policy views, a bland and vacuous statement which makes no mention of what kind of attention he has received, would NOT reflect my sources, because my sources make clear that, domestically, the response to Wallace's views have been overwhelmingly critical. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:ONUS states - "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". You're edit warring now and I'd ask you to refrain from that as it is not exactly constructive. Your addition was completely unsalvageable and would have had to have been written from scratch, given this it evidently made the most sense to come to the talk page and discuss with others what it should look like instead of just going solo and considering only my opinion. This is called collaborative editing!
"the lead should not become a compromise mishmash that represents a halfway point between the two of us". I'm not saying it should be but that wouldn't at all be bad, after all that's what coming to a consensus consists of.
"a bland and vacuous statement which makes no mention of what kind of attention he has received" Well ok, what about "In recent years Wallace has gained attention for his foreign policy views which have sparked controversy"? StairySky (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition was completely unsalvageable
This is clearly not the case, as Ser was already making amendments to it until you reverted it again. I'm happy to engage in collaborative editing, and had no problems with Ser making amendments to the bold edit, and I've invited you numerous times now to make your own amendments.
In recent years Wallace has gained attention for his foreign policy views which have sparked controversy
This is fine...but is more or less what I've already written, but with the context of why he's been criticised removed. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"this is clearly not the case, as Ser was already making amendments" Well I'm not Ser now am I?
The lead version that you want goes into excessive detail to the point where its almost like its trying to beat you over your head with a point, it needs to be made less verbose because it looks bloated. StairySky (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is not the actual content, but simply the wording, then edit it so that it sounds less verbose. There's a world of difference between something being "bloated" and being "unsalvageable". CeltBrowne (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean take the line "the former property developer Wallace promptly established a reputation for anti-establishment and populist rhetoric", you've got to be mad to think this is neutral wording. StairySky (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StairySky

Please explain how

In the aftermath, many left-wing Irish politicians distanced themselves from Wallace, but in solidarity, Daly resigned from the Socialist Party and remained closely linked with Wallace breaks NPOV or otherwise warrants removal. If your reasoning is that the lead is "bloated"; please look at other properly written lead sections such as Rishi Sunak or Jeremy Corbyn which are several paragraphs long.

Also, when I said In recent years Wallace has gained attention for his foreign policy views which have sparked controversy was "fine, but", the most important word there was the but. I suppose I should have "except for the fact that" or something. Anyway, as I already made the point that what I had written was better because it gave context as to why things happen. Your version is not an improvement, and in fact, is worse. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Wallace, not the political partnership between Daly and Wallace, its not pertinent to the lead. Corbyn and Sunak are very different cases because they are worlds away in terms of notoriety when compared to Wallace. StairySky (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corbyn and Sunak are very different cases because they are worlds away in terms of notoriety when compared to Wallace
You're right, because in some parts of the world Wallace is probably 10 times more well known than Sunak currently is.
The article is about Wallace, not the political partnership between Daly and Wallace, its not pertinent to the lead.
To suggest Daly, who has been working side-by-side with Wallace for over 10 years, isn't pertinent to Wallace's lead would be as ridiculous as suggesting Barack Obama isn't pertinent to Joe Biden's lead. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CeltBrowne you're still trying to force your own version into the article, please see WP:OWNERSHIP and refrain from edit warring. I have tried to compromise but you seem to have zero intent on doing so.
"to suggest Daly, who has been working side-by-side with Wallace for over 10 years, isn't pertinent to Wallace's lead". I never said this, as you can see I didn't remove the duo's partnership from the lead. StairySky (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wallace a far-left tax resister?[edit]

One of our editors thinks that Wallace has been described in his wiki-bio as a far-left tax resister. I can't find anything supporting this claim. Can anyone else? Burrobert (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tax resister bit makes sense given his opposition to the household charge, which the Irish tax resister category appears to be full of. Not sure about any sources describing him about far-left, however. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there reliable sources that call him a 'tax resister'? If not then it shouldn't be in the article. Edit If you search 'Mick Wallace tax resister' it gets zero results. StairySky (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace did oppose the household charge, but it is unclear whether opposing one particular tax makes someone a tax resister. It would be best to look to reliable sources rather than using editorial judgement to make a determination. The term "tax resister" does not appear in the article and no reliable source has been provided which describes Wallace as such. In the absence of a RS we should remove the category. The "Far-left" category should likewise be removed. Burrobert (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Wallace from the category. Bin charges aren't a tax, they're a charge for having your rubbish taken away. (If you argue that they're double taxation, because local authority rates were incorporated into income tax and local services used to include bin removal, then we're into POV and possibly OR territory; and more importantly, there are no sources describing Wallace as a tax resistor.) It has been pointed out to me that the correct course of action should have been to nominate the category itself for deletion, which may well be more appropriate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mick_Wallace&oldid=1214540900"