Talk:Brian Deegan (lawyer)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Euryalus in topic Article name
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Article name
editI don't think it's correct to call Brian Deegan a politician. Would a better name for the article be Brian Deegan (political activist) (a bit clumsy), or Brian Deegan (magistrate) (accurate, but not his claim to notability). Thoughts? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point. There are other people who've never been elected to anything but are referred to on WP as politician. But they're usually people who keep on trying, and failing, and/or are otherwise involved in party politics. Deegan only stood the one time (so far), and he's never been a party man afaik (he couldn't have been and maintain his judicial impartiality). I suspect he's made the point he wanted to make because he's been pretty quiet since then, again afaik. It can be a fine line, but I tend to think that political activist would be a better description in his case. If he ever stands again, we could revisit it then. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest simply Brian Deegan (activist), which would be a reasonable catch-all qualifer for people who agitate for political change without actually becoming politicians. We're already defining Activism as intentional action to bring about social or political change. while Politicians more directly relates to people in decision-making roles and those who seek such positions. Deegan did run for Parliament but that appears almost a footnote on his activist activities. Euryalus (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Political activist sounds better. After all he was campaigning for his own political agenda (and I mean that in the politest way). Ozdaren (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest simply Brian Deegan (activist), which would be a reasonable catch-all qualifer for people who agitate for political change without actually becoming politicians. We're already defining Activism as intentional action to bring about social or political change. while Politicians more directly relates to people in decision-making roles and those who seek such positions. Deegan did run for Parliament but that appears almost a footnote on his activist activities. Euryalus (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty of Wikipedia precedent for using "(activist)" as a dab description. But unlike most of them, Deegan is not continually an activist. Recent news articles call him a barrister or lawyer (he is no longer a magistrate), and I'm sure that's how Deegan would describe himself, rather than as an activist. So I'm thinking we should call him a lawyer or barrister. I'd prefer "Lawyer" - isn't that a generic term for all sorts of people in the legal profession (except judges/magistrates)? Peter Ballard (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support this change. Given that he didn't run in the Mayo by-election [1], I'd say he's back to being a lawyer. haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Thanks for doing the move. Euryalus (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)