Talk:Ruth Coppinger

Comment

I am aware that this article was previously nominated for deletion, but as she has just been elected as a TD I think we can now treat her as clearly notable. PatGallacher (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruth Coppinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ruthcoppinger.com/sample-page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous political affiliations

Who says that her membership of the Socialist Party is a "previous political affiliation"? Is there anything to say that is is not a continuing membership? Membership of one organisation does not preclude membership of others. IMHO, it can be reasonably asserted that she is currently a member of the Socialist Party, Solidarity (previously AAA) and Solidarity-PBP. It is, after all, a well -known tactic of Troyskyists to decant themselves into organisations with less frightening names in order to subvert them to the true aims of Trotskyism. Ms Coppinger seems to be a good practitioner of the art. It would require a high degree of naivety to say otherwise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is probably the most neutral way of wording the article, which after all is a biography of a living person. We would need a very reliable source to verify her membership of the party before we could add it here. Most of the sources I've found have referred to her as a socialist rather than as a member of the Socialist Party – there is a difference. But if you believe she is still a member of the Socialist Party and want her article to say as much, then you need to find evidence of that. This is Paul (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Laurel Lodged. Coppinger is a member of the Socialist Party, she has also joined the AAA, now Solidarity, and also Solidarity-PBP. As Laurel Lodged said, she can be a member of more than one organisation. There is no evidence that she left the Socialist Party. If she did leave it, it's up to you to provide a reliable reference stating this fact. Looking at her twitter profile: "Solidarity TD for Dublin West, Socialist Party member, Member of Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government & Committee on the 8th Amendment". Not a third party ref, I know but from the horses mouth....! Spleodrach (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately her twitter post can't be used as a reliable source, and the statement on there is ambiguous anyway. There is no doubt she was a member of the Socialist Party, but is she stating that she still is a member of that party, or is she merely acknowledging that she was in the past. The nature of political parties tends to be that there's an assumption with "membership" that, unless specified by inter-party agreement, a person cannot be a member of two parties that operate in the same area. If you believe that's different in Ruth Coppinger's case, then I'm afraid the onus is on either yourself or Laurel Lodged to prove she is still a member of the Socialist Party, at least if you wish to add that information anyway. It's not for me to prove why it shouldn't be included, and if you don't supply reliable sources to back up the statement then the information will just be removed again, either by me or someone else. Sorry if you don't like that, but this is an encyclopedia, and any statements added here need to be supported with reliable sources. This is Paul (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you. You are asserting that she has left the Socialist Party, therefore it is up to you to prove this is so. Please provide a reliable reference for your assertions. For example, Clare Daly was previously a member of the Socialist Party but left in 2012. There are plenty of reliable references for this. If, as you also claim, that Coppinger has left the SP, then it shouldn't be too hard to find references for this assertion. Spleodrach (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if I can explain this clearly. People don't usually belong to more than one political party. Joining a new party usually means that the person concerned will have left their previous party (see Crossing the floor and Party switching for example). There are some exceptions to that status quo, and if that is the case here and you wish to say as much then you need to provide evidence. That means finding sources, which you can post here. That doesn't mean making sweeping statements like "There are plenty of reliable references for this". That being the case then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find them then, should it? And it is your responsibility to do that. It's not mine. I'm not the one who wants to add the information. If you're unhappy with my thoughts on this you're welcome to seek a third opinion, or take it to WP:DRN. In fact, I highly recommend you do that, because if you continue with this silly argument, then I will seek the opinion of others. This is Paul (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul, it would be worth your while having a wee read of Entryism. The pertinent bit is "is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being "entered" is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge and subversion to hide the fact that they are an organisation in their own right.". As @Spleodrach: and I have been patiently trying to explain to you, this is what extreme socialists engage in. As you might expect, they of course deny that they engage in it. Ms Coppinger is an entrist. You will find no confession from her stating that this is her cunning strategy. As people close to the political situation here in Ireland, you can take it that Spleodrach & I know what we're talking about. So that puts the onus back on you to find a source saying that she has resigned from her multiple party organisations. Trust us - you won't find any. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Aah, nothing like the old I'm an expert argument when all else fails. Oh, and thanks for the quick lesson in Irish politics (now deleted I see). Now to the matter in hand. If you really won't find any sources discussing Ruth Coppinger's apparent subterfuge, then you can't add any allegations of it here. It's a violation of WP:BLP (which you might both want to read incidentally), and as someone with over 100,000 edits, I would have expected better from Spleodrach, but there you have it. BTW, I am of Irish descent, and have relatives living in Ireland, so I do know a little bit about Irish politics. Obviously I'm not an expert like yourselves. So that leaves me with a bit of a dilemma really, whether to; a) bow to your much greater knowledge, or b) adhere to Wikipedia policy. Alas I fear a WP:DRN request is not far away. This is Paul (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not the article itself. Where have we violated WP:BLP? Where in the article have we put forward the opinion that Ms Coppinger is an entrist with a cunning strategy? We have asserted that she was, and remains, a member of multiple parties. You have not find any sources to contradict this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I live in Dublin, and I do know people who are members of these organisations, but I don't claim that makes me an expert. User:This is Paul is the one claiming that Coppinger left the Socialist Party when she joined AAA or Solidarity. Joining another 'front' organisation, does not necessarily preclude one from staying a member of the original organisation. There is no evidence exists that Coppinger left the SP, so User:This is Paul is engaged in Original Research, and would do well to read WP:OR. If she did leave the SP, please provide a reliable reference for it, otherwise it's OR on your part. Also, I have no objection at all to WP:DRN. Spleodrach (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The socialist party states she is a member as of February 2017 - [1]. Spleodrach (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's much better. See what you can find when you look? At least now it shows she continued to belong to the Socialists after being elected to represent AAA-PBP. It's important to know this before we add it because it's not the political norm. I suspect this situation could be similar to the UK Labour Party and the Co-Operative Party, where members of the latter are elected to represent the former, and I personally would be satisfied enough to include this source, and update the article. As for the Trotskyite and cunning strategy stuff, though, I think we need to steer well clear of that. This is Paul (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it may be similar to those UK parties but I'm not familiar enough with UK politics to comment. It's not the political norm because she did not join a rival party but a "sister" (or front) organisation setup by Socialist Party members. As for the "Trotskyite and cunning strategy stuff", I will leave that to User:Laurel Lodged and you to sort out. Spleodrach (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK that sounds cool. This is Paul (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

All is sweetness and light again. Oh goody. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ruth Coppinger 70 days after election.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)