Talk:Iona Institute

Notability

I dont believe this article should be deleted due to notability concerns. The Iona Institute is a new organisation, established circa 8 Jan 2007. I have included a link to an RTE interview on the institute and I am sure over time it will be the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent". --Trounce 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a story on the Institute here from The Irish Times (registration required) --Trounce 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that Ireland is a small country, many organisations that are small may be significant may be notable. Personally, I'm an inclusionist anyway, so I'd keep an article on a small organisation anyway. Autarch (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and citations

I've added the above to the article in question. Autarch (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Childrens referendum and adoption

A couple of things need clarification:

• It is opposed to the surrender of children for adoption by married couples under the proposed children's rights referendum except where those parents have failed in their duty to their children - does anybody have a source for this claim about the referendum? Admittedly I haven't been following it, but a claim like this needs to be verified, surely?
• As present the children of married parents cannot be legally adopted in Ireland even if they have been fostered for years and have no contact with their birth families - a reference for this would be good too.Autarch (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OPED and WP:POV

The phrase "religious segregation" is more derogatory than the term "denominational education", breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OPED.Autarch (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and WP:RS

According to WP:RS: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable - this affects this article as one of the resources is a blog. To fit with WP:RS a resource from a RS would be needed - say, a newspaper of record.Autarch (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Separate page for denominational education

To keep the current page focused on its' topic, there is now a page on denominational education.Autarch (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Also removed MOS:OPED from mention of denominational education.Autarch (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Think Tank vs. lobbying group

In practice, the difference between the above can be so small as to be negligible.Autarch (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Conroy from Iona here. We think the term "advocacy group" is a more appropriate and accurate one than "lobby group" - after all, the page that "lobby group" links to is actually called "Advocacy Group" - and Iona's activities are considerably broader than those described in Lobbying. Thanks. BConroyIona (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Denominational education

The article currently says In 2008, the Institute organised a conference in support of denominational education, a system in which children are segregated according to the religion of their parents and which is used in over 95% of Irish schools. - this seems to be phrased to take a stance rather than reporting what sources say. The article on Denominational education mentions criticism of the system, but it is sourced. As this article stands, it seems to be a case of WP:SOAPBOX. Perhaps In 2008, the Institute organised a conference in support of denominational education, which has been criticised in recent years (with sources for criticism) would be the best phrasing.Autarch (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism: accused of disingenuously misinterpreting data

I want to explain why I am removing the last sentence of the "Criticism" paragraph. It fails WP:NOR and WP:SELFPUBLISH. The line is referenced to the Wikipedia editor's (Jaimehy) own Blog "Aggressive Secularist by Jamie Hyland" and was added by him--92.251.255.12 (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is more appropriate to remove the source and replace it with citation needed than remove all the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked the article a little, adding some citations and working any criticisms into the article itself as appropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to have a single-purpose account "looking after" it and adding lots of non-notable material. Perhaps a conflict of interest?

• Criticism of Iona has been removed.
• Iona's statements/assertions are presented as fact rather than as opinion/statement/assertion.
• Reliance on primary sources.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Clondalkin murder

There was a murder in Clondalkin on 12th January 2014 of someone involved with the Iona Institute: Man expected in court over chess killing (Irish Times), Victim of 'gruesome' killing after chess match a 'quiet and devout' man (Irish Independent), Man held in Dublin over 'ritualistic chess killing' (The Guardian).

My own instinct is not to mention the murder given WP:NOTNEWS. However, he is described in some of the above news items as a researcher for the Iona Institute and David Quinn is quoted expressing "shock and sorrow" concerning his murder, so he may have been a significant member, which might merit a passing mention.Autarch (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd vote to leave it out as it's not directly related to the Iona Institute or his work with them. --GeneralBelly (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today I noticed that his name appears at the end of the list of key people - presumably best would be to remove his name and make no nother change.Autarch (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is Criticism?

Someone with no knowledge reading this article, would not get the impression Iona are a hugely controversial group. There is no mention about, say, their use of research by Child Trends and Child Trends' response. Or the recent events surrounding Miss Panti and RTE. Are such items simply not being added?

P. Paul Moloney (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and make the changes you think should be made, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I note that criticism is being removed _and_ the "neutral" tag was removed by anonymous IP users. I will revert these changes. Paul Moloney (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the neutrality tag as I think it is unnecessary and non-specific. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this page. As another user highlighted above, certain accounts have been editing this page to present a non-NPOV. O lockers (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

All, a controversy section has to stay, as it's completely relevant. The IONA institute has made global news this month as a result of what's happened with the whole homophobia accusations. If you feel the changes are wrong then update them accordingly, but don't just remove the whole section please. Michael Ryan (talk) 21:22, 6th Februaru 2014 (UTC)

coverage of the incident probably should be included in some form, but both policy WP:STRUCTURE and guidance WP:Controversy sections say that "Controversy section" is probably NOT the way to go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pantigate "controversy"

While there have recently been a lot of pixels exuded over this event, in the scope of the topic of this article, it is really a relatively small matter. There was some moneys paid, and people who didnt like Iona Institute before still dont like them.

If this leads to actual action by the senate and not just words, perhaps calling it out in its own subsection might be appropriate, but as of now the real world consequences and impact are just about nil and reflecting them as more than that particularly by calling them out in a stand alone section is inappropriate.

Framing via "Reception and impact" is almost always going to provide a better framework for an encyclopedia article than "WP:Controversy sections"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This controversy is perhaps the institutes greatest claim to notability at present. No offence Red, but if you were in Ireland witnessing the ongoing controversy, you would not describe it as "just words"; this is dominating the news, newspapers, and talk shows at present. Skim through the recent sources: [1] of which there are many. This has been ongoing for about 3 weeks now, with new revelations still ongoing, with every new aspect being covered by multiple sources: [2][3][4][5] every day. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

show anything that has actually happened other than "just words". Yes there are actual things that "might" happen, but WP:CRYSTAL we need to wait till they actually materialize. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Just words" - a specious argument. Anything can be reduced to "just words". Currently the self-censorship of Ireland's national broadcaster due to the group's threat has been covered by the BBC and Channel 4 in the UK, and has been mentioned in the European Parliament and Irish Parliament. A special session of the latter had the Minister for Communications saying he would be revisiting the Broadcasting Act 2009 in order to change it so that RTE is not liable for merely causing offense. All this is of far more importance than interminable descriptions of policy documents issued by the group, which TheRedPenOfDoom has no problem with. Paul Moloney (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That is illogical Pen. The topic has received massive amounts of coverage in every aspect of it and for a sustained period. Whatever happens next, that is true. Calling it "just words" is profoundly ignorant of the events that have been occurring. Google this shit and read the sources.

A full article could easily be created on this controversy and it would easily pass GNG by a wide mile. If you want to set your own arbitrary requirements outside of WP:DUE weight and decide that "just words" (whatever that means) don't matter, do so elsewhere, but its not compatible with policy. Deciding that a large controversy isn't really that important isn't a call for you to make. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That content they may be appropriate for a stand alone article does not in any way indicated that it is fully appropriate to be a fully called out section in a different article about a different topic. You positions appear to be solely based on your view of the primary sources. Find a third party analyst who says "This is the BIGGEST THING EVAH for Iona Institute" and you can have your call out section. But otherwise you have failed to provide any evidence that it is not in contravention of the policies and guidelines I have shown above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources? These are newspaper reports. What are you talking about? I have not linked to a single primary source. On, "This is the BIGGEST THING EVAH for Iona Institute", you are making up rather bizarre arbitrary requirements and being silly. The level of coverage for every other aspect of this article beyond the controversy is pitiful in comparison with almost no in depth analysis of anything. Do you seriously deny that the weight of sources is for a significant amount of coverage of this incident with respect to the Iona Institute? Pen, I doubt you had even heard of the Iona Institute before yesterday, so I'm genuinely curious how you have decided where the due weight should lie. Inform me. After all, I've only been editing this article since 2010. Have you been secretly following this controversy since it unfolded a couple of weeks ago?

There are literally hundreds of sources on this topic as it pertains to the Iona Institute. Hundreds. How in any way could you argue that the due weight isn't there? Policy is that we look at the level and depth of sourcing, deciding yourself "ah sure it's not really that important anyway is it?" contravenes policy strongly; you are inventing arbitrary requirements so that you can not include the material. Let me highlight something from NPOV: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." IRWolfie- (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are primary sources - they are merely reporting the events that have happened, not making any analysis or interpretations of the impact. Wkipedia is NOT THE NEWS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources would be the transcripts from Dáil Éireann. These Newspaper reports about an event aren't primary sources since they have decided which aspects to highlight from the actual primary sources and which further questions to ask (and they do, read the sources). They highlight what is important, and we pick up from there. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Primary source" may be the transcripts. But,

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources "... "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. ... They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6]"

In this instance, the news paper reports of the events are functioning as primary sources, they contain no "author's own thinking", no "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas " - merely repetitions of the events.

What is needed is "a review article that analyzes research [news] papers" and makes the conclusions and connections - not Wikipedia editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A review article? Like, say the one already used in the article [6]? To be honest, I have no idea what you are looking for, but the sources in use clearly synthesise the events, indicative of a secondary source. If you disagree, ask in WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"No offence Red, but if you were in Ireland witnessing the ongoing controversy, you would not describe it as "just words"" - obviously this refers solely to the state as I have not seen it in any Northern Ireland news or press or even in the few Irish News editions I've gotten this week unless I somehow missed it. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a distinctly RoI controversy related to the marriage equality referendum so it would not feature heavily in northern media. Have a glance at some southern papers. It has also featured on RTE 1, TV3 etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's now mentioned in the Washington Post via the Associated Press: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/drag-queens-speech-fuels-irish-gay-rights-debate/2014/02/11/f53175be-9318-11e3-b3f7-f5107432ca45_story.html Hopefully this does something to persuade those who are insular outside Ireland that it's a big story. Paul Moloney (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fox News - Alison ^❤ 20:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Americans generally aren't satisfied something has due weight until American newspapers cover it :P IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sunny edit

Why does this keep getting deleted?

The Iona Institute is the trading name of Lolek Ltd, a private limited company set up in 2006. Controversy has arisen in relation to the use of the word "Institute" as the heading for a privately owned Catholic lobby. It has been noted that whilst there are no laws in Ireland as to the use of the word "Institute", in Britain for example, the company would not be permitted use of the term in compliance with the guidelines of the Companies House which states that the use of the term Institute "is normally given only to fully functioning organisations that are established in the field but operate under a different name" and that among other things "the range of activities may vary but institutes are organisations that typically undertake research at the highest level or are professional bodies of the highest standing" and "whether the institute provides training or activities that support qualifications provided by other bodies such as universities or colleges". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnySideUp101 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The material contains original research as well as blogs which are unsuitable for establishing weight, and of unknown reliability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've found a reliable source for the incorporation info and the founding date of Lolek Ltd. This is definitely relevant, encyclopedic data - Alison ^❤ 19:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no skin off my teeth if you want it. I had checked it up myself last year previously but couldn't deduce any meaning so didn't consider it worthy of much attention. Is there any relevant category for the infobox? As far as I can tell, the part about UK laws etc is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Conservative Catholic

I have removed the term "conservative" from the introductory sentence. While many may find catholic teaching conservative, the term conservative catholic is a specific subset of catholicism see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Conservative_Catholics. The Iona institue is simply a catholic think tank, not a conservative catholic think tank. User:GeneralBelly reverted my edit. I tried to explain the position on the talk page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:GeneralBelly#Iona_Institute_2 but there was no response, so I reverted User GeneralBelly's edit and wrote this up explaing my revert. I hope this helps clarify the reverts--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to be clear, I did in fact respond 26 minutes after you left the message. I don't think that is an unreasonable delay. I have clarified the issue as follows: conservative, Catholic think tank describes a Catholic think thank, which is conservative in the sense of conservatism. This is not a subjective or pejorative observation. GeneralBelly (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry GeneralBelly, I saw what you wrote on your talk page and I accept your point. I just wrote this up mainly to clarify my revert of your revert. I didn't want anyone blocking my IP address etc. --92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that it's good to clarify it. I think adding the comma and the link will make it clear for the vast majority of readers. Thanks for the comments. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just regarding describing Iona as a 'conservative Catholic lobby group', it's worth noting that neither of the two sources I deleted gave any reasons why Iona is a specifically Catholic organisation - and considering that its own website it makes no mention of being such; and that in thisinterview with one of its patrons on the state broadcaster RTE, the patron (Breda O'Brien) specifically says it is not a Catholic lobby group...

Well, I should think it would be reasonable not to describe it as a Catholic group, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.37.127 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:V. — goethean 16:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have, and it strikes me that unless one of the secondary sources I deleted provides some example of Iona promoting Catholicism specifically rather than Christianity or the place of religionhttp://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/rory-oneill-irish-homophobia/ generally, the primary sources of their own website (see "about the Iona Institute) and the interview I linked ought to be trusted. In addition, the Index on Censorship source I deleted was not appropriate for that section - it was fine to link to it in the course of discussing the homophobia controversy, but as a source for describing the nature of the organisation it fails WP:NPV. As for the Times artice - again, some example of promoting Catholicism rather than religion generally needs to be found in order to invalidate Iona's self-description.

As for 'Conservative', 'socially conservative' might be more precise if "pro-marriage, pro-religion' is too weighted. Iona are not economically conservative or right-wing. (Editing from a different computer, will get an account soon). 89.126.117.223 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to sources to provide the justifications you demand. They are reliable sources for those characterisations, so the Iona institute is so characterised here. There is no shortage of newspapers which identify it as a catholic group. I have not seen any which dispute that characterisation. BTW, the patrons and directors are all Catholic and contains one patron who is a priest, and one who is on the board of directors. They also are located in a building with other catholic groups such as Pure in heart and St. Joseph's Young Priests Society, Second Quantization (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

' The religious faith of the patrons is irrelevant, as is their location, unless you can demonstrate that only Catholic groups can have offices in that building. The newspapers' account contradicts Iona's self-description . In other cases where this occurs, we require our reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the falsity of an organisation's self-description, not merely assert that they are something which they claim not to be. In addition, "advocacy group" is preferable to "lobby group" as that is the actual name of the relevant Wikipedia article. In addition, you have provided no reason for the reversion of 'socially conservative' to 'conservative', when I have argued that the former is more precise. 86.45.42.216 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Many independent secondary sources call it a catholic org. This is consistent with policy, thus there is nothing further to discuss. Second Quantization (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ben Conroy here, of Iona. I'd like to request that 'Conservative Catholic' be changed to 'socially conservative Christian', for the reasons mentioned in the discussion above. This Irish Times piece about Church of Ireland Bishop Ken Clarke becoming a patron of ours should hopefully put this whole business to rest. The earlier secondary sources cited by Second Quantization are simply mistaken - we are not and have never been a Catholic organisation.

"Socially conservative" is more accurate than "conservative" as we do not have a defined position on the proper amount of redistribution or the size of government. Some of our patrons and members - including myself - are quite economically left-wing. Would appreciate this being sorted out as quickly as possible. Any queries can be sent to bconroy@ionainstitute.ie BConroyIona (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ben,

 Done

I've edited the article as requested.

While you're here, though, you might be able to help us, perhaps by pointing to some sources so the article template can be fully completed? It's missing information on the following:

president =

chairman =

faculty =

adjunct_faculty =

staff =

budget =

endowment =

debt =

num_members =

subsidiaries =

owner =

Incidentally, how does one become a member? I can't see anything on the website about joining. Are the other organisations in 23 Merrion Square subsidiaries, or independent organisations? Is the Iona Institute an Institute, using the protected term, or just an organisation that's styling itself 'Institute' but could just as easily be called 'Association' or 'Club'? Would appreciate a reply as quickly as possible. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone with a COI contradicts the majority of the sources and you just apply the edit? Second Quantization (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is the whole thing of them appointing/recruiting/initiating/(whatever it is they do for members) a retired CoI bishop, which by definition makes them not an exclusively Roman Catholic entity? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask again, do you think that merely because they have a single protestant on their team lets you contradict/dismiss secondary sources? Here is a recent source: [7]. They are still calling it a catholic org. Second Quantization (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Murphy hadn't read the Irish Times article? Catholic works, though, in any case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Organisation" vs "lobby group"

"Lobby group" throughout the article was changed to "organisation". On reflection, I'm changing it back. There is no way to join this "organisation" except by invitation, it would appear. It is, therefore, simply a self-appointed pressure group. The article should reflect that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Requests

Hello all.

My name is Ben Conroy, I work as a researcher and spokesperson for the Iona Institute, and I'm here to request some edits. I'm doing it all at once to avoid creating multiple new sections: I couldn't find if that was the best way to go about it or not - I can split them up into different sections if need be.

I've tried to brush up on NPOV and COI in preparation for this, but if I end up violating any community standards I welcome correction. Thank you all in advance.

To begin with: that “Status” section violates NPOV in a number of places:

One-sided commentary

Quotes from Graham Norton and David Norris simply do not belong there: articles about other advocacy groups do not have their opponents provide running commentary on their descriptions.

See NARAL, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties page, the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network page (which actually contains several laudatory quotes), and Atheist Ireland (especially relevant as they are probably the closest thing to a 'mirror image' organisation of ours in Ireland – we usually, though not always, advocate for diametrically opposed goals on most issues) – I could go on, and will if requested, but the violation of NPOV should be clear.

The presence of quotes from Graham Norton, an entertainer and a man who is quite determinedly opposed to our organisation and its goals, is particularly inappropriate, and David Norris's quote also is about as far away from being NPOV as it gets. I request the deletion of both quotes.

Institute

This dispute over the name clearly does not belong on the page, as it is completely irrelevant information. Wikipedia's own page on “Insitute” defines the term thus:

"An institute is an organisational body created for a certain purpose."

The rest of the information on that page uses words like “often” and “in some countries” - it sets down no absolute standard other that the one quoted – except for the strict rules employed in the UK.

To be blunt: Ireland is an independent Republic, and has been for quite some time. The United Kingdom's rules do not apply here, any more than they do to the countless international organisations who call themselves “Institutes” without permission from the relevant UK Secretary of State. I request deletion of all material relating to the use of the word “Institute” in our name as irrelevant, and violating NPOV through creating an unwarranted impression that we're somehow deceiving people.

Catholic/Christian

As to the “Catholic” description: there is a more recent article from a reliable source than any of those you cite describing us as a “Christian” group.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/iona-institute-says-ida-call-for-yes-vote-on-marriage-completely-unacceptable-1.2196801

The sources that refer to us as a Catholic organisation are just factually wrong. I know that's not enough to change the description – but given that there is a dispute among reliable sources as to whether we are “Catholic” or “Christian”, I would like to know what evidence has ever been marshalled by any of these sources for the fact that we are specifically Catholic?

• We have a Church of Ireland Bishop as a patron.

• We have never released any material advocating that people practise Catholicism specifically.

• We describe ourselves as a non-denominational Christian group on our website and elsewhere.

• We have done literally nothing to suggest we're a specifically Catholic group.

I have no desire to speculate about the motives of some of the sources in continuing to refer to us as a Catholic group rather than a Christian one, but it's just inaccurate, and we have a more recent source referring to us as Christian. I therefore request deletion of the “claim” by John Murray, and replacement of “Catholic” with “Christian” throughout.

Pressure Group

Wikipedia practice seems to be to use it interchangeably with “advocacy group” - yet it's a more loaded, negative term than “advocacy group”, and is not used on Wikipedia about some organisations who differ from us ideologically.

Again, see NARAL, GLEN, Atheist Ireland, all of whom are “pressure groups” in the same sense that we are, and none of whom are described as such. Atheist Ireland is on the Wikipedia list of Irish pressure groups, but is not described as such in the article.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties is not described as a pressure group, despite being referred to as such by Politico and Magill (very old source - page now indicates malware on Chrome so not linking, but perhaps Google and look at the cached version?)., and by the ICCL themselves - see the end of pg 11 here (downloads a PDF):

http://www.iccl.ie/attachments/download/4/Protecting%20Civil%20Liberties%20Promoting%20Human%20Rights%2030%20Years%20of%20the%20ICCL%20May%202006.pdf

With regard to the sources for "pressure group": Matt Cooper is an opinion columnist who does not agree with our policy goals, and is using “pressure group” in a derogatory sense.

Pink News are a biased source when discussing us: that article you cite is not a neutral piece of reporting, as it says we “admit” to “promoting the place of marriage and religion in society”. The use of the word “admit” should clue us in that they're using “pressure group” in a derogatory sense.

The CIA (who'd have thunk it?) are not using “pressure group” in a derogatory mannger, but they also describe us as a “think-tank”, which Wikipedia does not. In addition, they describe a number of other groups as “pressure groups” who are not described as such on their wikipedia pages, such as the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA), and Keep Ireland Open.

The use of “pressure group” is redundant, and its only affect on the page is to create a negative impression about Iona. “Advocacy group” alone is briefer, and it's it's more neutral language. For what it's worth we're also referred to as an “Advocacy Group” here:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/marriage-not-just-a-social-construction-martin-31214297.html

Charitable Status

Finally, I request deletion of the David Norris quote about our charitable status. Irrelevant to the description, violates NPOV, and plenty of other Irish advocacy groups have charitable status. “Advancement of religion” is not some kind of suspect grounds for being granted charitable status under Irish law, and it'd be good if the facts could be stated without the input from the Senator, who is a very proud social liberal and does not like the aims of our organisation.

That's all for the moment with regard to the “status” section. Very happy to discuss this with all editors, and to accept criticism of my proposals. I have very openly declared my conflict of interest, and I look forward to working with you. Thank you.

Ben Conroy Iona (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ben. Are you the same Ben Conroy who previously edited under the name BConroyIona? If so, I asked you some questions, two sections above, which you might answer. One of these would be of use around Iona's status - how does one join the Iona Institute, or is this not possible (invitation only)? Anyone can join GLEN, Atheist Ireland, or the ICCL - which would make them seem, to me at least, more like advocacy groups and less like a "private club" pressure group. Pressed for time at the moment, and will respond more fully later, but I would suggest that in creating a neutral article, you can't censor quotes/references about Iona from people you don't like in favour of quotes and references from Iona members/"patrons"/your mother. Also, CoI bishops are Catholic - just not Roman Catholic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bastun, my apologies for not answering you back then. One thing and another, you know? Here we go: Iona does not have members: we have mailing lists that people can sign up to. One cannot join GLEN either - they have staff, as we do, they have spokespeople, as we do, and they have supporters and donors, as do we. Your distinction between "advocacy groups" that have open membership and "pressure groups" that do not, is not supported anywhere on Wikipedia, or indeed in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or reference book that I have handy, nor have I been able to find reference to it easily via a Google search. I have never proposed removing all negative quotes. Just that the quotes from Norton and Norris in the "Status" violate NPOV and should be removed, and that the second Norris quote in that section is actively misleading. One could find similarly incendiary opinions from pro-life activists about Planned Parenthood or Naral, but we would not expect to find them in the first paragraph of a "status" section that is supposed to be neutral. I have made no mention about inserting any quotes from patrons, never mind my mother. I'd really appreciate it if you'd address requests on their own merits and don't strawman or assume bad faith. As to your question about our structure: David Quinn is the director, we also have a board of directors (membership on the website), and then there are the patrons and spokespeople. The UK meaning of Institute has no relevance here: we are an institute in the sense that Wikipedia defines the term. The other groups in our building in Merrion Square are entirely independent from us. Finally, the point about the CoI bishop being "Catholic" in a broad sense. The "Catholic" in the description links to Catholic Church, and unless Wikipedia practice is now to refer to all Christians as "Catholic", the objection is irrelevant. Thank you - I look forward to further engagement. Ben Conroy Iona (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's any chance of engagement or progress on this? Thanks a million. 86.42.120.1 (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just getting back one more time on the page here. I have no desire to "push" over the objections of editors, but I'm not quite sure what the procedure is when editors just choose to ignore the substance of one's edit request, or don't respond to clarifying questions. What's the next step to take? Ben Conroy Iona (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ben Conroy Iona One reason for the delay is that responding to your request is far removed from the usual Wikipedia workflow. The easiest way to get a response in Wikipedia is to make a tiny request that can be resolved with one "yes or no" judgement. You are making multiple requests and almost all of them are seeking editorial opinions and a labor investment. If you want a quick response, here is my advice -

1. Break your request into independent small ideas
2. For any given idea (like for example, "Delete this one sentence"), actually execute the action yourself and create a WP:DIFF
3. After you have made the edit, immediately revert your edit, undoing what you did
4. Now come here to the talk page and say, "I propose to do this. The reason is..." You already have reasons. My view of the cause of hesitation is that it is not obvious what kind of response would satisfy your concern in these cases. If you demonstrated what you wanted by creating a record of the action, then that makes it easy for anyone to say yes or no, and to directly say why not if the answer is no.

You complain about quotes from critics, for example, and this might be a problem but I am not sure. The problem is not obvious to me. When there is expert criticism from reliable sources we keep that, but it needs to be presented in a fair way, and I am not sure if you are objecting to criticism or if you are just saying that this particular criticism is unfair.

There are other options, but I think more clarity on what you want (the actual labor and action) would be useful, and that if you presented your editorial judgement for the action you wanted then that would speed the conversation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ben can't edit the article, Bluerasberry, as it'd be a conflict of interest. His mother is a member of the organisation (they call them "patrons") and he is an intern there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

eh no Church of Ireland Bishops are not Catholic.Aerchasúr (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iona Institute. 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://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6888989.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926015138/http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/epl_primary_school_list_2010_2011.xls to http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/epl_primary_school_list_2010_2011.xls
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/comic-norton-shows-support-for-panti-in-rte-payout-row-29976200.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iona Institute. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118175519/http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/civilunionweb.pdf to http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/civilunionweb.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525161137/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418150/GP1_Incorporation_names_v5_4-ver0.29-4.pdf to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418150/GP1_Incorporation_names_v5_4-ver0.29-4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924002338/http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/SUB002/bkmnext206.pdf to http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/SUB002/bkmnext206.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815224447/http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/NI_religion_poll.pdf to http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/NI_religion_poll.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118175744/http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/Iona_Religious_knowledge_pollApr07.pdf to http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/Iona_Religious_knowledge_pollApr07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Alteration of Status

This section on Iona's legal status mentions 'David Norris referred to "the so-called Iona Institute" as "an unelected, unrepresentative group of reactionary, right-wing, religiously motivated people".[18]'. This is not inl ine with WP:NPOVAerchasúr (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

New talk page sections go at the bottom of the page. I am very familiar with WP:NPOV and it doesn't say what you think it says. Please also have a read of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Your edit history over the last couple of days would suggest you might be here for the latter, removing referenced content that you don't like. Can you please stop? The status of the Iona Institute, its access to the media, and its charitable status are topics that have been covered by other notable people, and coverage - that is referenced - is most certainly WP:DUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Charity status is a regulated legal status that exists in Ireland. It has nothing to do with being left or right wing, reactionary or progressive. Religion is relevant to charity status as its one of the explicit reasons that can justify charity status. David Norris quote has no bearing on Iona's legal status or charity status in general. It is just a crude bias in the article that must be removed. Aerchasúr (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I edited it in the first line to emphasise that it is a Christian group (rather than specifically "Roman Catholic"). As pointed out above a Church of Ireland Bishop is a patron implying it is not a specifically "Roman" Catholic group and emphasising that its values are broader Conservative/Christian values. I also added minor edits to the "status" section. I felt it lacked some context as to why the quotes were there. I didn't remove them since that did not seem to be the consensus.

I have since reverted an edit describing it as a "radical" group. I don't think that is an appropriate descriptor. Social conservatism was the norm and is still relatively mainstream (the Catholic Church is still an important/influential institution which is not usually referred to as "radical") and is the most accurate descriptor of their focus. The "purpose" could be simplified, their purpose is to promote and defend social conservative values but it is probably not necessary to copy/paste their "about us" section here. --Spaircí (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Being funded clandestinely by Russian oligarchs in order to pursue and promote a particular agenda that infringes on human rights might accurately be described as "radical", but yes, it would require a reference to be included. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)