Talk:J. F. X. O'Brien

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Misrepresentation of sources

If the article is sourced as alleged, could someone explain why he was MP in two different constituencies for a ten year period? Obviously that isn't sourced.....It seems certain editors would be better off sourcing unreferenced information to begin with, and not using unreliable sources they hypocritically reject when it suits them.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: a simple typo. Human error yes, but certainly not "misrepresentation". It's really sad to see people waste so much time over something as small as this.--Damac (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You claimed it was common knowledge he was MP in those years (and you really should read that essay you linked to). Then, when you added sources you didn't correct what was obviously a mistake, so were you actually checking the information against what the source said? Doubtful. The moral of the story is put your own house in order first, don't start bleating about unreliable sources and unsourced information in other people's articles when yours are in a policy-ignoring state. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look a the referencing formatt they are using? Were they not the ones who pulled me up on this type of formatt? I suppose its hypocritically reject when it suits them. --Domer48 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about, Domer48? Who are "they"? I'm actually one person. I'm male, so you can refer to me as a "he".

Please point to where I made an issue of you using this "formatt". If I recall correctly, I and others may have questioned your over-peppering articles with the subjective opinions (as opposed to factual information) of particular authors.

One Night In Hackney has jumped on a clear case of human error (the dates for the years he spent as MP in the two constituencies were correct in the succession boxes) to make a point. He demanded sources; I provided them. I'll expect a similar response next time I remove unreferenced renderings of people's names from Wikipedia.--Damac (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is Damac, you hypocritically reject when it suits. Now I have adopted the format suggested, are you now saying they way I was doing it was right after all? --Domer48 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is misrepresentation. In that specific case, you failed to provide exact page numbers from Sean O'Mahony's book. You asked and were provided with a link on how to reference.[1]. We are supposed to provide provide page numbers for our sources, which you have failed to do in this specific case. Perhaps One Night In Hackney might take this up with you.

The references I have provided on this article are perfectly in order; one is an online sources with no page numbers (ODNB) and the other from the same page of the one book (Gifford/Seidman).--Damac (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I like thanks, I don't take direction from the likes of you. You make the mistake of assuming I could really care less about Irish names, and it that you're wrong as I'm English through and through. What I object to is people who apply arbitrary standards in a clearly biased way, and I suggest you put your own house in order first, otherwise I'll be more than glad to do it for you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you don't really care about the Irish names, any more at least. When I first stated tagging this unreferenced bits of information, I came under vicious attack from you and your friends (see User_talk:Damac#Francis_Hughes).

There are other ways of letting off pent-up anger, you know.--Damac (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading what I said: "people who apply arbitrary standards in a clearly biased way". And I don't see any vicious attacks, just the logical and fair outcome you face for such biased actions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it. Concocting the claim that someone is an RSF member because he requested sources for unreferenced material is "logical and fair"? Of course, there was nothing arbitrary about that, nothing biased about it, and not vicious in any way.

I'm afraid I just can't take your seriously. What are you on?--Damac (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other matters

I'd like to take a shot at some polishing here, turning some of these independent sentences into cohesive paragraphs, but it would help if I could fill in a few gaps. Anyone have any idea when he went to the USA? Ulysses Annotated doesn't say. (I was hoping there'd be something about him in a biography of William Walker I have, but it has no index, so it's hard to tell.) -R. fiend (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for birth date

Could the reference be cited for his birth date. It is not the one I have? How can I check the source being used? --Domer48 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC) The year he joined the Fenians is different also? --Domer48 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC) The date of his death is different also? Will I just go and change this, or wait till I see the sources cited in the reference? --Domer48 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could enrol at university, as all university libraries (and many public libraries) would have this source online.

I noticed the discrepancy in the date of birth, yet the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a "a standard work of reference on notable figures", is a) the only source which includes an exact DOB (including date and year of birth as opposed to the 1831 in other accounts), b) the most detailed biographical account I've read on the subject, and c) is based on scholarly sources.

I would advise you not to change the DOB, as it is referenced information. (That should sound familiar).--Damac (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a referenced date of birth, with page number. --Domer48 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My source says different.--Damac (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“J. F. X. O’Brien was born on the 13th October, 1828…” Fenian Memories, Dr. Mark F. Ryan, M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd, Dublin, 1945. Pg. 34. I'm therefore placing a citation tag. --Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, mate. The article I provides relies on the following published sources:

"P. Nolan, ‘J. F. X. O'Brien, M.P. (1828–1905)’, MA diss., University College, Cork, 1971 · J. O'Leary, Recollections of Fenians and Fenianism (1896) · private information (1912)"

and the following unpublished papers and archives:

O'Brien's corresp. and papers, incl. draft autobiography
William O'Brien MSS
Harrington MSS
corresp. with John Dillon
William O'Brien MSS

What is Ryan's source? His book was published in 1945, so it's likely that he used the DNB[2] and got it wrong.--Damac (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think so? Why not look up Dr. Mark F. Ryan first? --Domer48 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's a possibility. I don't have Ryan's book. I've given details about my sources. Perhaps you might do the same.--Damac (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source gives no details because your need to register to access it. Such references should be avoided as outlined in No.7. If you read it "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." Now since you have suggested alternative sources, use them. If you could address the issue of references which should be avoided it would be very helpful --Domer48 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of "Links normally to be avoided" includes the crucial qualification "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article". The link is to a page in a renowned source that is available to every university student and visitor to the NLI and others. The link I provided also contained a link to earlier version of the same source, which includes the DOB that I've inserted.--Damac (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not verifiable to the non university going editor.BigDunc (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the same apply for books that are kept in university libraries? I've no access to the Mark Ryan book, yet was not childish enough to remove the reference.

I've changed the ODNB to the DNB link that is freely available on the internet. It contains the same information.

What are you going to through at me now? The behaviour of three people on this page today has been despicable, and its depressing that you're allowed to get away with it. I just hope your proud of yourselves at your failed attempts to keep the inclusion of scholarly information out of what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Bravo!--Damac (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reverting back to the ODNB version, as this source is used extensively in Wikipedia: 385 times, according to this search.[3] If you think its wrong to include, take the issue up elsewhere, see if the community agrees and get back to me.--Damac (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reference Format

So I take it this type of format you are using is ok after all]. Just a yes or no should do. --Domer48 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already dealt with this above.[4] I've been using that format for ages, long before I ever had the misfortune of encountering you on Wikipedia. My point was and is that you used a book as a source but have failed to state exactly, by means of page numbers, where your references come from. Is it really that difficult to understand?--Damac (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a yes then. As for the other BS your peddling, not intrested. You juvenile petty little foot stomping always become evident when you are reduced to personalising your comments. We now frown on such antics and I will limit any interaction with you so as not to be tainted with such puerile behaviour. --Domer48 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy. Domer48 (who now uses the royal we) asks a question, I answer it, he asks it again, and then gets upset with the answer. Yes, I did get personal, but my patience wears thin when I'm asked questions that I've already answered.--Damac (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...the pot calling the refrigerator black... -R. fiend (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]