Talk:Shell to Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Bias

This entire article is nothing more than S2S propaganda. Anything citing 'Indymedia' should be taken with a large pinch of salt anyway but there is absolutely no balance here. What about protestors smearing themselves with ketchup, illegal occupation of land etc. I might also note the not so subtle use of Michael McDowell as a hate figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaraghM (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The section current events in this article is taking a political viewpoint. An article here should not take a viewpoint and should only be descriptive. The gardai do not take sides if so evidence and citation should be provided.

Fixed.

Citation needed on the Carrowmore Lake claims.

Checking it out now, will add it as soon as I have it.
  • I've removed the POV tag, as the concerns expressed here seem to have been addressed. Lurker oi! 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

there is a sentence in this article which doesn't make sense. It says that the proof that Sinn Fein are not involved in this issue is that members of Sinn Fein ARE involved. I'm not sure what the real situation is, so I cannot edit this part of the article. maybe someone else would like to? 89.100.247.241 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


One of the Rossport Five is a Sinn Féin member, although I don't think he's very active. Sinn Féin's general election candidate for Mayo, Gerry Murray, has spoken at the protests, and Sinn Féin members are active in the Shell to Sea branches in the cities. They are involved informally, just like members of Labour, the Green Party, the Socialist Party etc.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 340 Bar pipeline

It says in the article that the gas will be at 340 bar . This is un ture the operational pressure will be 160 bar.


Where is your figure from?

Lapsed Pacifist 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indymedia - SF/IRA

I've removed the citation for Indymedia. See: WP:SPS. I've also done a little tidying up in the SF/IRA accusation section. The edit to remove bias went just as far in the other direction. --sony-youthpléigh 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


I've just learned Sinn Féin are more involved in this controversy than I thought. Sinn Féin member Paddy Ruddy, who lives a couple of miles from the refinery site, works for Shell.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to Tony O'Reilly! --sony-youthpléigh 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


I shudder to think of what the Independent would make of it.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This page laready has a tag re lacking sources, and people are still adding unsourced stuff [1].

This [2] actually has a source, which allows one to note that some important text but a significant 40 per cent said they had no opinion on the issue or were not really interested. The findings suggest that on the ground in Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims was deemed to unimportant to report. The concluding line of the edit, This is similar to national trends., doesn't appear to be supported (or meaningful; "trends" means time-varying) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few cn tags. Unless someone starts reffing this stuff properly, or explaining here why it should stay despite any sources, its going William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrib gas project has a least two national poll links. When I reach a computer that can copy and paste, I'll give you citations that can easily be found if you bothered to do even cursory research. Strong feeling on the project is not distributed evenly throughout Mayo; people in Belmullet tend to have stronger opinions than those in Ballyhaunis. Can you guess why?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good. When you find the refs, do please re-insert the material together with the refs. Until then, please leave it alone. As to guessing... no, I'd rather not. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be built on guesswork William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

There is no way that this [3] can be acceptable. The totally unsourced statement that "this is broadly similar to national trends" is re-introduced; the unwelcome news that "the findings suggest that on the ground in most of Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims" becomes only one newspapers opinion.

If you have some spare energy to work on this article, please use it to dig up refs for the all too many unrefd statements William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently [4], one should look at Corrib gas project for some evidence. I'm puzzled as to how the casual reader of the intro to this article can be expected to guess that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 / 8

Having asked repeatedly for citations for this stuff, and received none, I've finally removed the uncited material. Please don't restore it unless you can find reliable citations, or can present here some reason why it should be allowed to violate the std rules William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broadly similar to

LP said that the Mayo poll produced results "broadly similar to national trends", and produced [5] in support. I read that to say Fifty-five per cent wanted the gas to be processed offshore with a lowpressure pipeline connected to the gas terminal at Bellanaboy. One-third of those surveyed wanted the project to continue in its current format and 55%:33% is not broadly similar to 3:1, its notably less. This does rather demonstrate the virtue of sourcing statements William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This [6] is nonsense. If you want to repeat it, please address the problem I've raised just above William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Priestly fun

Incidentally, this [7] is fun. It was cited elsewhere, but oddly enough the line "we believe most people are not opposed to the gas coming ashore" wasn't quoted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Practically no-one in the area is opposed to the gas coming ashore. They just want it done safely, like it is in Cork. What's odd about that? Do you often have fun with priests, William?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 2 Pictures and Blog

I am puzzled by the removal of 2 pictures showing various protests taking place .Is this supposed to indicate those protests didn't take place because nobody has a citation from a newspaper etc that says they did.

Also the removal of a ciation from journalist Colm Rapple blog .Apart from being a fairly well respected journalist his blog contents appear to be a reprint of his newspaper columns in one handy location .Garda40 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have got carried away, sorry. To me the blog just looked like a blog, and blogs aren't usually WP:RS though there are exceptions. This might be one. But it would be better to link to the original article. The pics: got hacked when I cut a lot of unsourced stuff from 2007 I think. They could go back if you like (but perhaps not so big?) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
After doing a quick search on the newspaper site Daily Mail there doesn't seem to be an Irish section or links to the articles themselves which may be the reason he has a blog .Garda40 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


The only way I can find of referencing Rapple's articles is through the blog.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "disagree" seems to be a bit of an understatement for the first picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.176.1 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

One editor says there are not enough citations in this article. Now another says there are too many external links. I think both of you need to talk to each other.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The two are not contradictory. Text within the article needs more sourcing. There may be too many links bunged in under ext lins, I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


It would be more accurate to say that the two are not necessarily contradictory, but please don't rule out the possibility. Don't let me stop you doing any sourcing you care to do.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing speculation (no matter how convenient for some)

LP reverted [8] with the comment Removing speculation (no matter how convenient for some). But... its a direct quote from the newspaper cited. So... I'm having a hard time understanding how that revert is justified, other than don't-like-wot-it-sez. Do please explain William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful in any contentious article to use words like nonsense in the edit summary even if the claim is justified .Garda40 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which it isn't. What national media have claimed the issue is divisive throughout the whole of Mayo, William? Like I told you before, the issue is not the hot potato in Ballyhaunis that it is in Belmullet, for reasons of simple geography. The article isn't linked because of its intrinsic worth, it's because it contains details of a relevant poll. One might as well try to say that Kosovan independence is a divisive issue in Europe. It isn't really (I don't know anyone who's fallen out over it in my corner of Europe, for example), apart from one particular corner of Europe, where it is extremely divisive. The language of this journalist you like quoting so much is careless. I could easily quote from other linked articles to give a completely different (and more accurate) viewpoint. I haven't, because the introduction to the article is not the place for journalistic speculation. Especially of the quality you favour.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a direct quote from the paper: Just 15 per cent of those surveyed supported Shell, but a significant 40 per cent said they had no opinion on the issue or were not really interested. The findings suggest that on the ground in Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims. They also show that some of the political parties could be out-of-tune with the views of their supporters on the Corrib Gas row. I'm presuming that you consider that to be a reliable source, since it was you that added it [9]. Or does it become unreliable when it says things you don't like? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Read and address what I wrote above.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, you don't get to give me orders. Unless you've recently joined the board of csr, that is. What can I say that I haven't already? The journalist I'm quoting was introduced by *you* not me. You liked he article well enough when you thought it said what you wanted it to. Sadly, it doesn't, but you don't then get to dismiss it. You don't seem to understand wp's policy. We report what sources say. That you personally happen to know that the journalist is wrong is of no interest whatsoever William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again William, I'm going to refer you to my first paragraph in this section. Take your time.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your failure to answer my points becomes rather obvious. The paper is an RS, but you're removing the bits that disagree with your POV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Another complete inversion of the truth. You're outdoing yourself, William. Not alone have you not answered the questions I asked you above, but when I ask you to you tell me "you don't get to give me orders. " I don't know what an RS is, but you're unusually insistent that incredibly sloppy journalism be quoted when the article that contains it is already linked to. Linked to only because it contains details of a poll. A poll link you requested. My POV doesn't even come into it. Once again, what (as your favoured journalist seems to think) national media claim that the issue is divisve throughout Mayo? If you can't find any, why do you insist on adding the claim to the article?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I fear you *don't* know what a WP:RS is. I'm not required to trawl through the national media to find a sense of their collective opnion, nor indeed would it be at all approriate to do so - that would be WP:OR. What Wiki wants are RS's for the information. You seem to be asserting that the paper is an RS for some bits of info you like - the poll - but not for other things. Thats hard to sustain. The only evidence you have in favour of this idea is your own personal knowledge that the paper is "wrong". That, of course, is irrelevant for wiki, though you're free to write it into your own blog William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have reached the simply-reverting-not-talking stage. So I've listed this at Wikipedia:Third opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


"I'm not required to trawl through the national media to find a sense of their collective opnion"

I reckon you are if you want to use a quote that specifies that opinion. You asked for a poll link, I gave you one. "The only evidence..." I reckon I need is the knowledge (and I'm a keen student of the subject) that media in Ireland don't generally claim that the Corrib gas issue is divisive throughout the whole of Mayo. You're keen to promote the opposite view, William, yet reluctant to back it up in any way.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You have fundamentally misunderstood wiki's standards of evidence. Trawling through the media and synthesising the result is *wrong* (WP:SYN). Finding a quote from a paper that says it is *correct*. Your own personal knowledge isn't a permissible source William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding the suggested entry into the article, and as far as I'm concerned, the reference given is considered a reliable source under WP:RS#News organizations. I would recommend to the both of you to quit your edit warring and work out a compromise before editing that section of the article again. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, jolly good. Could you suggest a compromise between including it and not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I can not see any reason why the material should not be added. I would, however, suggest providing the date of the publication with the in-text attribution. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
How about simply reporting the results of the poll (X for, Y against, Z don't care) and omit the journalist's personal opinion as to its significance. We should leave it to the readers to decide on its significance. --Red King (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's a viable compromise. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be, I've tried it. I've also removed "(this is close to national trends [10] [11])." which is also part of the dispute; the reasonning is outlined above: 45:15 is not close to 55:33. Oh, and the second link obviously isn't any good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Is there any basis in fact for the claim "thereby making it safer to transport" in the first para? I am aware that taking smaller fractions out of "live" crude makes it safer but when I was a safety engineer I never saw any risk differential between raw and processed natural gas (except when it has a toxic impurity in it)? Perhaps this new science is since I stopped admittedly a while back ; there is a lot more pipeline to base it on. However you might think the higher fractions would reduce the line pressure a little and if anything help? Also what is the pressure of this "high pressure" pipeline? Is there any pipe line of this size and lower pressure or is it just emotive wording from local press we have picked up without thought? --BozMo talk 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


See here.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok so this is a partisan submission by people protesting against the development which asserts that there is a higher corrosion risk from wet gas. But I cannot see any overall risk assessment even in this supporting "thereby making it safer to transport" --BozMo talk 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Wrong, it's an independent report. Refined gas is safer because, like you wrote above, the impurities are removed.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)