Talk:2009 Bank of Ireland robbery

Context?

I disagree that the circumstances described in the Context section is relevant. Just as important would be the day's football results. I have cut and paste the section here:

Main article: 2008–2009 Irish banking crisis

Further information: [[:Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy]]

The robbery followed a crisis of confidence in Ireland public finance sector. The country's third largest bank, Anglo Irish Bank, is subject to an ongoing controversy over hidden loans carried out by Sean FitzPatrick and had to be nationalised in January 2009. Allied Irish Bank and the Bank of Ireland itself have also been subject to recent recapitalisations of €3.5 billion each. These incidents have led to a number of resignations within the financial sector and government approval ratings have dropped to record levels, as industrial action was seen for the first time in two decades the day before this record robbery.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like WP:SYNTH to me. The sources make no mention of the bank robbery, as it hadn't taken place yet. We can't just make the connection ourselves. Grsz¹¹ 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not so much a connection as informing the reader that the country has gone down the tubes rather rapidly... there is no sentence which states "this robbery might have happened because..." --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Robbery section

The text is verbose, confused and in some cases irrelevant. Do we really need to know that the boy was collected because his parents were enroute to a holiday in Spain?! In addition it is extremely hard to read and make sense of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.202.122 (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... it would be why he was involved yes. He wouldn't have been there if they hadn't been leaving the country... so it's hardly a trivial matter... --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor assessment

An assessment must stand on its own. That an assessor has a good reputation is of no import. If you assess you must say how the article can be improved. Do not remove the assessment of the assessment. If that goes then so must the assessment itself. Please just say what must be done to improve the article. Thanks. Then the assessment of the assessment as being of poor quality can be removed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which project assessment are you complaining about? Concerning the Ireland WikiProject template, I placed that template and made the assessments. The article is better than a stub or a start class and a C-class, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Quality scale is defined as: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup and that seems to sum up the current state of the article. Regarding the importance class I rated it as a "low" because it is notable, as are all wiki article by their very nature, but it has yet to attain any long term standing due to it being a contemporary story. BTW, there is no need to say how or what must be done to improve it unless the assessor wishes to add to his assessment. Improvements are up to the page editors though I am happy to give a personal opinion if asked AND if I have sufficient knowledge of the topic in question. Tagging articles is essentially a project housekeeping task to try and track articles within its domain and the assessments themselves are totally subjective though some projects do assign assessments by consensus. If we were to do that we would never get anything constructive done. Many articles are tagged with project templates without any assessment being made. ww2censor (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get something constructive done, do something constructive. Who does anyone think they are to "assess" an article by just giving it a star rating? and to do so practically anonymously? without offering reasons for the assessment? It is artist vs critic but here the critic cannot even be bothered to offer a critique. I think that behaviour is ugly. Who set you up in judgement? Who are you to say I cannot assess your assessment? You can dish it up but you cannot take it. Go edit an article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I removed your initial attempt at undermining ww2censor, whose assessment credentials I do not doubt – we tend to operate in unison, due to our paths crossing on a regular basis. I am a frequent editor of articles and actually created this one. I found it somewhat ironic that you removed a section of this article based upon your opinion but then removed ww2censor's assessment because it was too opinionated. Can you please clarify this as I'm a little confused? I realise you had a issue and placed the removed content on the talk page but would it not have been more appropriate to point it out first rather than remove it? Also a C is not that bad at all – it can hardly go much further unless it is nominated for GA. I wouldn't classify it as a stub either... so what do you think it should be? P.S. Thank you for standing up for me – the artist ;)--Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel tempted to patronise and explain how WP works. All I have done is operate how an editor (i.e. a creator of the encyclopedia, not a critic) is supposed to behave. I have acted boldly, I have explained what I have done, and I have even copied the deleted section to the Talk page as one of the WP guidelines suggests. What I have not done is "undermine ww2censor". I have nothing against him, or you, personally. In my view many of the assessments being handed out are against well established WP practise. And they are certainly happening in contravention of the advice contained in the very templates being inserted willy-nilly into the articles as supposed assessments. I care not one jot about the good reputation of he or you but of the quality of the articles. There are artists and critics. You and he, when acting as critics, do not even have the good grace to pass on any critique. It's simply Caeser's thumb, up or down. No reasoning is recorded anywhere. You are not contributing, at best you are meta-contributing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I cannot recall an article which I have rated or assessed in any way that you describe. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And you do this again now. You say you do not like what I am doing in my edits to the article but you decline to say what it is I am doing which is counterproductive or which is against the guidelines. No, you don't like it and that is good enough. No, it isn't. Put up or shut up. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And it seems some assessors can dish it out but can't take it. We're supposed to stand idly by while some punks graffiti the talk pages with their unreasoned, unjustified (or at least UNDOCUMENTED) unthinking value judgements of our hard work. Then, when I say I think the assessments are themselves poor they squeal like stuck pigs. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to other articles

The links to the articles on the Volkswagen Golf and Toyota Celica seem a bit out of place. Any thoughts? Mattbondy (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the entire point of Wikipedia, to have links that point everywhere. Grsz¹¹ 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are probably many who are unfamilar with these names. I, for one, am not a car fanatic. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Such is the ways of Wikipedia. The Squicks (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to call attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links which was the basis for my comment. Mattbondy (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

High Court

Update needed. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)