Talk:Irish National War Memorial Gardens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Public Art (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Ratings[edit]

Present ratings are disputed Osioni (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now uprated to C-class. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

forked[edit]

Irish participation in World War I should be forked into its own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.231.231 (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

World War 2 Memorial as well?[edit]

The article never makes reference to the fact, but the image of the Great Cross of Sacrifice shows the dates of both World Wars (or, I guess in this context, the Emergency). Should there be something in the article about this? I'm obviously not the most knowledgeable person on the subject so I can't say what would be appropriate. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits regarding speculated De Velera view[edit]

Changing this "de Valera's government still recognised the motives of the Memorial and made valuable state contributions to" to "Éamon de Valera, and his government still recognised the motives " in a section is given it as a personal opinion of De Velera's. As this section is unsourced this is not allowed. Also adding it continually is disruptive. Murry1975 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the edit I keep trying to make and you keep reverting [1]. Maybe I'm missing something, but perhaps you can explain how this relates to your apparent understanding of what's being edited, as shown above? If you read it carefully you'll see I'm just doing some minor grammar correction.Neil Edgar (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? Do you not read what you edit? Do you need me to show you again? Its pretty clear from my post above. There is a difference in meaning between "de Valera's government" and replacing it with "de Valera, and his government" in the sentence. If you would like to do something constructive, find sources instead of adding this "apparent" recognition by De Valera. Murry1975 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, selective extraction of the text. Here's some more. the Taoiseach, de Valera's government still recognised the motives of .... Now that IS bad use of punctuation at the very least, and for you to claim that de Valera's government endorsed something that de Valera himself didn't is preposterous. You are hair splitting in the extreme and using this to make a point. Of course de Valera recognised it. And for you to mention obtaining sources is verging on piss taking. There are no sources in the original version that you keep reverting to! So I might as well request YOU get sources. Finally, if you're so concerned about this, why didn't you just amend the specific part of my edit rather than a wholesale revert? You could, for instance, have tidied the punctuation to something like the government of Taoiseach de Valera, or put a comma in after 'government', but no, you had to take out some other basic copy editing as well. Says it all really. If there's no further comments on this matter after a day or two I'm putting it back. Neil Edgar (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Bad news for you, anything that gives information directly on a person has to be sourced, not as you put it "Valera's government endorsed something that de Valera himself didn't is preposterous". Stop with the uncivil comments and purely disruptive edits. Murry1975 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments attributed to a person without RS are removed as per guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Murry, are you sure you're not talking about information on a living person? I'm not aware of any guideline specifically dealing with the views of a dead person. Scolaire (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Scolaire we cant attribute veiws or beleifs from any living or dead person with a source that it was thiers. We cant enter any unsourced information on any article to do with a living person. Murry1975 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:V says we should not include any content that isn't attributable to a reliable source. Most of the content in this article is unsourced, which is why it is tagged. But what is the guideline that specifically says content about the views of a dead person cannot be stated without sources or that it must be removed? It is important to be clear about what the policies and guidelines do and do not say. Scolaire (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)