Talk:Brendan O'Neill (columnist)

Update bibliography?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Heretics-Manifesto-Essays-Unsayable/dp/1913019861 T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the section here on 'Sexual Abuse' helped or not by his article on Owen Jones' Hamas Massacre film video

The section had contained only 1 thing - something he said in 2012. Since O'Neill he wrote on the relevant theme here of sexual violence in his article about Jones, I added O'Neill's article.

Like the 2012 mention, the source was an article by O'Neill himself.

Vladimir.copic -reverted it. Please can you expand here why you think the 2012 content is worth keeping but you deleted the 2023 new content. Will readers not want to see more details of O'Neill views on sexual abuse?

Vladimir.copic - please will you please withdraw your formal Wiki complaint against me: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement until this issue has been discussed here and other editors views shared.

I oppose the addition of this material. (1) It is about Owen Jones, who is not the subject of this article and (2) There is no indication that B O’Neill’s views on Owen Jones are noteworthy, since there is no reporting of them in independent sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit warring from LadybugStardust

This is regarding this block of edits, which LadybugStardust has been edit warring to restore with slight modifications.

Opinions about how "staunch", "steadfast", and "adamant" this person is would need to be attributed to a reliable source. Further, cherry-picked quotes do not demonstrate that any particular opinion is worth mentioning, which makes it a form of editorializing. Even without these words, this would be arbitrary and artificially promotional. Our goal is not to promote him or his views, it is to provide context via reliable, independent sources. Since you do not have consensus for this content, stop edit warring and discuss here.

Grayfell (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider any of the language that I used to be un-WP:NPOV. I didn't say that O'Neill was "a stalwart defender of a woman's right to choose". I said that he was "adamantly pro-choice", which is a statement of fact. Regardless, how about this: "Brendan O'Neill considers himself to be pro-choice and is in favor of abortion rights"?--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That language is subjective, unfalsifiable, and loaded. There is no objective test to determine how 'staunch' someone is, so this is an opinion, and would need to be attributed. Since it appears to be your opinion, using this term in Wikipedia's voice is WP:EDITORIALIZING.

As I said, even without these terms, our goal isn't to promote him via cherry-picked quotes.

To be blunt, I don't accept that those are useful sources for this article. O'Neill is a pundit, which means his opinions are his commercial product. We are not a platform for helping him sell his wares. Further, as the student newspaper you've added multiple times notes, he has a 'hot take' on just about everything. We should be using stronger sources (independent sources) to decide which positions are important and likewise we are not obligated to include an opinion just because he has shared it. Interviews are poor for this, as they are WP:PRIMARY. Opinions are poor for various reasons, and Newsweek is, well, WP:NEWSWEEK.

Specifically regarding the Independent source from 2020, here's the full paragraph: With his contrarianism and pseudo-radicalism, as if a global pandemic was nothing but another opportunity to exploit, Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked!, condemned the closing of pubs and called for “Dissent in a time of Covid”, criticising the “chilling” and “dangerous” “witch-hunting of those who criticise the response to coronavirus”. This led to a backlash from mainstream commentators and even his fellow travellers.[1] Your curated quotes from that article misrepresent the intent of that source. It was not passing these along as a bland description of his opinions, it was contextualizing them as O'Neill "exploiting" the pandemic. Including this source at all is debatable, but any claims from it would have to be attributed as the opinion of the author, Aurelian Mondon, and would have to include context. Grayfell (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. We're here to summarize what reliable, secondary, independent sources say about the subject, and that typically means at a high level. What the subject says isn't important, except when it's covered by secondary sources—their coverage is what makes it important. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added the thing about the Coronavirus. As for the rest, you are simply nitpicking semantics. Freedom of speech is O'Neill's biggest thing - it's what he talks about more than anything else, by far. Of course he is a staunch free speech absolutist - absolutely nobody would question that. As for primary sources, they were only used in reference to O'Neill's personal views, so they are perfectly acceptable in that context.--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Saying "of course" is not persuasive, nor does answer my concerns. If you have a reliable, independent source source for it being his biggest thing, please present it for discussion, and from that we can figure out how to summarize it neutrally. The source you have used is too flimsy and your proposed wording isn't appropriate.

You did not add the Independent source, but you did restore it. Regardless, continuing to edit war to restore your preferred version of the article is a very bad idea. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One doesn't exactly have to look very hard to find countless sources on freedom of speech being his biggest thing: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Nor does one have to look very hard to find countless sources for his stance on abortion (particularly the canceled Oxford debate, which was the topic of significant punditry): [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Staunch free speech absolutist? You bet. Adamant pro-choicer? Absolutely. These are not things that are even in debate regarding O'Neill and, at this point, you are simply being difficult for no reason other than to be difficult.--LadybugStardust (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Do not insert your comments into other people's comments, per WP:TPG, WP:INTERPOLATE etc. It makes it almost impossible for other people to keep track of signatures.

I admit I didn't read all of those source, but every one I did look at was poor for this point. A bunch of opinion columns and other examples of "contrarianism and pseudo-radicalism" (to borrow a phrase from the Independent source) are not proportionate, especially not since some of those are fringe outlets which are not reliable. Further, you need to summarize what reliable sources are actually saying, not just the bits which you assume will support your own assumptions.

Most importantly, your inability to understand why I am being "difficult" is not an excuse to edit war. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

First off, "Do not insert your comments into other people's comments?" What are you even talking about? I did not and would not insert my comments into other people's comments. Second, while not all of those sources are reliable, some of them are. The Vox source is the one that I had used in the article for the abortion debate being shut down.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is the edit where inserted your comments into Grayfell's comments. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I thought that those were two separate comments. I guess I didn't notice that one of them didn't have a signature on it. Regardless, it's ultimately irrelevant; everything else that I said still stands.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The Vox source says nothing about how "adamant" O'Neill is. It also doesn't call the debate cancellation "highly" controversial, nor does it describe "widespread" accusations of censorship. It cites the two people who would've debated and one of the people who lead the protest against the debate. Based on this source, the significance of this tempest-in-a-teapot to O'Neill seems minimal. The main thrust of the protests is that neither O'Neill nor the other guy deserved a prestigious platform from the school to debate abortion. The Wikipedia article doesn't indicate that he has any expertise in this area, so I'm not sure why mentioning this non-event would help readers understand Brendan O'Neil as an encyclopedia topic. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

O'Neill's own words - which were used to cite his POV - make it pretty clear how "adamant" he is. Regardless, I don't think anyone could possibly object to this rephrased sentence: "Brendan O'Neill describes himself as pro-choice. In 2014, O'Neill was slated to argue in favor of abortion rights in a debate at the University of Oxford, but the debate was canceled after student protests, leading to accusations of censorship from O'Neill and others."--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's approach this from a different direction: Why, according to reliable, independent sources, is his position on abortion any more or less significant than any other opinion he's shared? He has, as I'm sure we're all aware, shared countless opinions over his career. It isn't up to us as editors to decide which opinions are important and which are not, it is up to sources. This isn't a new standard and it isn't unique to this article, this is the norm across the project.

Citing a source which merely mentions an opinion is not enough, because he has produced thousands of such sources for hundreds of his own opinions. We need to be able to explain to readers why this opinion is important enough to single-out. So from that, you did not address my concerns. Why was this cancellation important enough to mention at all? Why include his self-aggrandizing accusations of "censorship" without also including the context, or the equally-weighted opinions of those who dispute that it was censorship? If you start from the assumption that his view on abortion belongs in the article and then write backwards from that assumption, the article will always have problems like this. So instead, what do reliable, independent sources say are O'Neill's most important opinions? Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

His position on abortion is worth at least a mention in the article primarily because of the canceled debate that provoked debate in and of itself. His position on freedom of speech is worth mentioning in the article because, again, that is by far his biggest thing. Is having two sentences in the article about his stance on abortion (backed up with sources) really going to be to the detriment of the article? No, of course not. It's not like I'm devoting multiple paragraphs to it.--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Like Grayfell said, "his biggest thing" has to be based on an examination of independent sources about O'Neill, regardless of which aspect they focus on, not your personal opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Quality > quantity. If you can't pick two or three really solid sources, then it doesn't matter how much you can dredge up. (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech and Abortion revert

Here's a breakdown of my revert. Freedom of Speech section:

1. Sky News Australia doesn't make the claim (that Brendan O'Neill takes an absolutist position on freedom of speech). In addition, this is probably one of those unreliable "news" articles mentioned in WP:RSP. It's certainly not news, just repeating some things that O'Neill said.
2. Christian Post doesn't make the claim.
3. The Australian doesn't make the claim in their own words, only in a quote from O'Neill. If we kept the cite, we'd need to attribute it as a quotation. That being said, an entire section based on one quote is very likely UNDUE without widespread coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

Abortion section:

1. Spiked is O'Neill's paper, so essentially a primary source. If that Spikes source gets covered by reliable, secondary sources, then we can discuss mentioning it somehow.
2. Vox doesn't make any claim about accusations of censorship from O'Neill, and it very clearly said the reason was "safety concerns" per "University administrators". This phrasing implies that "student protests" alone caused the cancellation. This section is also likely UNDUE without widespread coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:Headlines should not be used as sources. Please stop edit warring LadybugStardust. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Australian reports on Brendan O'Neill's free speech absolutism by quoting him saying that free speech is absolute. The other two sources are also WP:RS reporting on O'Neill's free speech absolutism. The Spiked source was used to cite O'Neill's POV regarding abortion before using the Vox source to cite how his views on abortion were notable. Again, it is obvious at this point that, no matter what, you are dead-set on removing any revisions that I make, no matter how much I back them up with reliable sources.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither Sky News Australia nor Christian Post say anything about free speech absolutism. The Australian quotes O'Neill, but your edit makes it sound like it's The Australian saying it. You can't do that. Quotations absolutely need to be attributed. This section is undue without several sources actually supporting the content.

Vox doesn't say anything about accusations of censorship from O'Neill. The only use of "censor" or "censorship" that I could see are in a quote from Oxford/Christ Church officials and a summary of a statement from McIntrye. In addition, the statement the debate was canceled after student protests is vague and implies that the students/protestors had some more direct effect when the reason given was "safety concerns". This section is also undue without several sources actually supporting the content. Woodroar (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The claim being made was "Brendan O'Neill takes an absolutist position on freedom of speech." All three sources - but especially the one from The Australian that uses O'Neill's own words - make that explicitly clear. For the abortion one, I was trying to only use a non-opinion piece, but there are numerous opinion pieces regarding it, e.g. this Daily Telegraph piece by Tim Stanley, this Aleteia piece by Greg Daly, this Spiked piece by Tim Black, and several pieces by O'Neill himself decrying the cancellation of the planned debate as censorship, such as this one. It would be entirely accpetable to cite these op-eds as testament to the fact that O'Neill and others cried censorship over the debate's cancellation.--LadybugStardust (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the sources support the claim you want to make, and it's clear that other editors disagree as well.

I also disagree that more opinion pieces (from connected sources like Spiked and the other debater, no less) make this issue (or the subject's views) any more worthy of coverage. Woodroar (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• The raw quantity of sources is not the issue. This doesn't justify edit warring. You should revert until consensus is changed on this talk page, and you should not restore this content again until then. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and your behavior has become disruptive. You have already been warned of this multiple times by multiple editors. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Vox source establishes the notability of the event. The op-eds establish that multiple people (including O'Neill himself) cried censorship over it, which you complained that the Vox source didn't go into detail about.--LadybugStardust (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is not an excuse to edit war. Wikipedia has policies in place over edit warring, and you have violated those policies multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)