User talk:Paul Le Cont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Jock Stein, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Demiurge 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-follow

I'm sorry to see we have disagreed here, but glad to see we seem to be heading for a compromise. It's really important that articles like this are kept NPOV and verifiable. Good working with you. --Guinnog 00:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On the specific point you are reinserting, I know for a fact that RC schools accept other minorities. They are very popular with Asians for example, and with people of no particular 'allegiance' in the Scottish sectarian divide, as in some cases they are very good schools. For what it is worth, I agree with what I assume is your POV here, that the segregation of education here is overall a bad thing. But I don't think we need to discuss it in detail in this article. I invite you to revert your last edit. --Guinnog 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You invite me to revert my last edit? I accept that technically Protestants, Jews, Hindus and Muslims are free to attend Roman Catholic schools. The school however exists primarily for Roman Catholic children who account for a minority in Scotland. [1] [2]. Your last version was as incorrect as the new one so I will not revert to it. --Paul Le Cont 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I invite you to improve the current version. The schools are no more exclusive to ethnic or religious minorities nowadays than the non-denominational schools are. The repetition of the term 'Roman Catholic' is superfluous, the bit about exclusivity is plain wrong and very POV, and this level of detailed discussion of the history of Scottish education is inappropriate in an article about a football song. --Guinnog 00:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I to an extent agree. I think the problem has come from the Sectarian game that was played by a user who decided to post a link to an article that called the fanzine "Sectarian". In many ways it may improve the article to weed out some of the rubbish that was written in the Scotsman article from the wikipedia article. For example the only derogatory statement that is quoted is the "Apartheid schools", this will obviously get users from follow-follow coming in to defend this term. The Scotsman article is there to be read by all who choose to click on the link. --Paul Le Cont 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please then be bold and edit the article to make it better along the lines you and I suggest above. We shouldn't let past annoyances stand in the way of improving the article. I am standing back from it for a while, though I'll continue to watch and discuss here. --Guinnog 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why you deleted [3] without any explanation. I've restored it in the meantime. --Guinnog 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DFB

Hi - I don't doubt that some Irish republicans (or even just Celtic fans) call themselves Fenians. One problem is that the word is usually sandwiched by the adjectives "Dirty" and "Bastard".

My edit to the article was to add a "citation needed" to the bit about "some/many maintain that it does not refer to Roman Catholics in general, but to supporters of Irish nationalism or as a pejorative term for Celtic supporters". You have since added what can only be considered as a wholly unacceptable "citation" - a link to an "amateur journalism" site - in other words, just some guys personal opinion.

Whether using "some" or "many", this is a clear example of "weasel words" - how many is "many"?

I guess you live in Scotland, so you will know fine well that the word "Fenian", even without the other two adjectives, is used as a pejorative term for Catholics in general. You can kid yourself on that these nice political nuances are observed, but please don't try to kid on the rest of the world. Camillus (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some people are desperate to make the word to be a sectarian term. The truth however is not that simple, the word fenian is also often placed after the word "unrepentant". Hardly a word associated with Roman Catholicism. So please likewise do not try to kid on the rest of the world that the issue is as straightforward as you would like to tell us it is. --Paul Le Cont 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fenian article

Hi Paul, thanks very much for your contributions to the Fenian article. I've removed the sentence you reinserted, and as I don't want to get into an edit war over it, I thought I'd do you the courtesy of telling you why I removed it.

The sentence "Many supporters of Irish republicanism label themselves as "fenians"" was added to the article several months ago. When a citation for this information was sought, a few references to films (i.e. works of fiction) were inserted, and that was it. Obviously, films cannot be used to prove the factuality of something, so the ^{[citation needed]} tag was added. Normal policy would dictate that this tag be left on the page for awhile. In the case of non-disputed or non-contentious information, the tag can be left on almost indefinitely, but something like claiming Irish Republicans from NI call themselves "Fenians" would be (and has been) considered contentious. In this case the tag should be left on to give others a chance to find sources for the information, and to alert others that a source is needed. The sentence was left on the page for almost two months, during which time there were absolutely no references or sources forthcoming. Accordingly, I have removed the sentence, and will continue to do so until there is a proper source for the information. If you feel strongly that the sentence belongs in the article, I would encourage you to find a reliable source backing it up before adding it again.

You might find Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability useful.

Cheers, Martin 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)