Talk:Martin Shanahan

Notes

Suggestions: don't talk in terms of "sensation"— this smacks of WP:peacock language. Also, words like "spearheaded" fall in this category. Don't use them. More thoughts forthcoming... KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Every single one of your references is formatted incorrectly. See WP:CITE for how to cite web pages and other sources. Also see the template {{cite web}} for more on that business. Every single one of these needs to be fixed...

Serious suspicion of a wp:coi. Am tagging accordingly. KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

cleaned up this article to resolve WP:COI

this article was rightly tagged for WP:COI, however, have re-written it so hopefully, it is more appropriate. It is an important and prominent role in the Irish economy and his position in the LGBT community makes him doubly notable. Britishfinance (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

annoys me that I cannot find his exact age ??? Britishfinance (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

have already had some anonymous edits that are WP:PROM and WP:COI attempt to delete the acknowledged failure of the IDA to win any substantial BREXIT business from good quality sources and replace with lesser quality data (e.g. JPM asset management bought a building in the IFSC but may not even use it - they moved their main business to Frankfurt/Paris). Always need to be careful of IDA jobs figures and new IDA firms that really only sourced from the IDA, or citations that are really press/PR articles from the IDA - these are not suitable for Wikipedia. The IDA is very prone to spin and marketing. Like the earlier issues noted by the administrator above, clearly this Wiki page is very prone to WP:PROM and WP:COI issues. Britishfinance (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

another attempt to edit this article with WP:PROM and WP:COI issues again today from an author whose only contribution is this article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes there was definitely clean up needed here, but there is a great deal of WP:OFFTOPIC content and WP:SYN here - where sources do not mention Shanahan but are used to support content about him. I am fixing that. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Intervention by paid editors from IDA Ireland

We do not believe that your changes to Martin Shanahan's page represent a fair and balanced account of his work, or the work of the IDA. You have presented an overly negative interpretation of Ireland's business case for investors and undone multiple sourced edits contradicting your view, especially on Brexit. IDAComms (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Are you another of the Corecontent / 88.128.80.69 identities acting on behalf of the IDA (your username implies this and you use “we”)? Corecontent created the original article that was very biased and tagged as WP:COI by an admin after complaints by editors. However, despite being tagged, the article was left abandoned in its "brochure" state. I overhauled the article in its entirety to ensure that it focused on the facts of Martin's career, the issues Martin faces, and what he did/said. Jytdog has pulled me up for getting into to areas that are separate to Martin (offtopic) or were not sufficiently precise in their link to Martin's actions/comments (syn). It is acknowledged that BREXIT has not been a success so far for Martin. This is the view of the Irish Times (who has written a few articles on this), Bloomberg (who maintain a BREXIT jobs league table on financials) and now appears in the EU FDI league tables (as referenced by the leading Irish papers). You deleted these BREXIT references and replaced with an alternative set of facts designed to obscure this (the JPM building purchase is a misleading fact). This is not the purpose of WP. Your original article, and your edits on my material, show a bias that is not in my view yet compatible with WP. Jytdog made some very good points today around the type of facts that are suitable for Martin's page (which I agree with). It is important that Martin's page factually represents his events - BREXIT has been a disappointment so far (which Martin himself is on record as saying), US TCJA is becoming real concern (which again, Martin himself, having dismissed at first, is now signaling caution on), and Ireland's non-tax competitiveness is also a concern, particularly in light of TCJA (which again, Martin has noted publically, and which there are the key GCI scores). Very happy to discuss if you think something is unrepresentative but would be sad to have this article fall back into a "brochure". Am going to re-post this to the Talk page of Martin's article which is the suitable place for this discussion.Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC) I have no problems letting you know that I am Kevin Sammon, and I am representing IDA Ireland. You are presenting a completely biased and negative view of our CEO/IDA’s work and creating various non-sequiturs on what should be a biographical page, as pointed out by jytdog. My only interest here is in balance. Given your interest in this topic and refusal to accept anything but a negative slant on IDA’s Brexit work, I can only conclude that you have some agenda in doing down both Martin and IDA Ireland’s interests. Your handle, and the topics you have taken an interest of late, would appear to point towards you having a wider agenda against Ireland’s foreign investment community. Martin and the IDA are entitled to a balanced and fair representation of the facts surrounding Brexit, taxation, and all other topics relating to investment in Ireland. Your creation of a “Green Jersey Agenda” page on June 1st and consistent editing of the Corporate Haven site to include a picture of Ireland would seem only add to my suspicions on your motivations. I have declared my interests here, what are yours? On Brexit, there are a variety of sources noting the significant amount of investments that have come to Ireland since the referendum. The Irish Times has reported on many of the individual announcements including that of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, S&P and others. The Guardian noting Ireland’s popularity with UK-based FS entities in their article “Dublin is Streets Ahead of EU Rivals as City Firms Plan for Brexit Relocation.” You have refused to engage with these sources, choosing instead to pursue a purely negative narrative of Martin and IDA’s work in this area. Your characterisation of Brexit as “something which has not been a success for Martin” represents a personalisation of an issue that affects almost every business in Ireland. It is widely understood and reported that Brexit was not the desired outcome of the Irish Government or any of its Agencies. There is no such thing as a “successful” Brexit for Martin, or the IDA. Winning investment is a competitive business, and IDA will continue to fight to win jobs for Ireland throughout any political changes in other countries. On TCJA, your portrayal of Martin’s comments as “relaxed” are, once again, without context and point towards a bias and a personal agenda. To use your own phrase, this is not what WP is about. Martin and IDA Ireland are never complacent or “relaxed” about investment. Ireland has enjoyed considerable success in winning foreign investment in recent years owing to a combination of factors including talent, taxation, track record and a stable policy environment. This is a recorded, readily available fact that is worthy of inclusion in any future edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDAComms (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC) If you are Kevin Sammon then you are the PR person for the IDA and Martin Shanahan is your boss. Many of the facts you discuss above are from the IDA's press department that are sometimes reprinted in the wider media but are not suitable as facts for WP; or they are not relevant to Brexit - one of the main events. Your desire to delete independent non-IDA sourced facts (e.g. Bloomberg article on actual Brexit job movements, EU FDI league tables etc.) is not consistent with WP. Your original article on Martin implies your objectives are not compatible with WP. The personalised comments against me are at a minimum, not suitable for talk pages, which should be on the article and relevant facts in question.Britishfinance (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I am a spokesman for IDA Ireland, this is what I am employed to do. I have been up front about who I am representing and I make no apologies for seeking a balanced view of both Martin and IDA’s actions online. You are unwilling to accept any balance here, with only “facts” that are deemed appropriate by you being suitable for inclusion. I’m sure the “wider media” that you refer to would take issue with your questioning of their sources, as would the many companies that have announced their intention to move to Ireland since Brexit. Perhaps @jytdog could give a more impartial view on this and inform the thread as to what constitutes proper Wiki use? I am also puzzled by how my comments can be construed as being “personalised” when you continue to post under an anonymous handle. Perhaps if you revealed your own name and your own employer then the viewers of the pages that you are creating and editing could get a better sense of your own agenda. You might also share with us why so many of these pages would seem to follow a particular agenda against Ireland. --IDAComms (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Controversy

Can users please refrain from removing relevant and cited information. If the information is deemed relevant enough to have specific articles on the topic in at least 2 national newspapers then it I think one or two sentences on it here is appropriate. If there is a specific reason why you do not think it should be included then please explain why here and we can get some input from others Financefactz (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)