Talk:Brian Lenihan, Snr
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I think that this article, though interesting and informative, is seriously flawed.
The flaw is that it presents journalism as history.
Where, for example, would one find in a serious historical work such impossible-to-prove assertions as "all of whom are generally regarded as the major parliamentary intellectuals in modern Irish political history" ?
The use of the passive tense, as well as the word "generally" makes the phrase worse than useless in the context of an attempt at historical accuracy. Regarded by whom ? The "generals" ( and privates ?) of the media ? The people ? If there was a definitive opinion poll, it should be quoted.
There seems to be an "edit war " going on here
'''* (cur) (last) 17:58, 12 September 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs) m (rv-inappropriate "ref" usage) * (cur) (last) 09:24, 12 September 2006 126.96.36.199 (Talk) (rv to wiki style) * (cur) (last) 07:36, 12 September 2006 188.8.131.52 (Talk) (?Presidential candidate -
* (cur) (last) 07:33, 12 September 2006 184.108.40.206 (Talk) (?Liver transplant - Wiki styl not tabloid) * (cur) (last) 06:45, 12 September 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs) m (rv-inappropriate "ref" usage)Bold text'''''''
The reversions by Djegan serve to render the article as tabloid story telling journalism, rather than the mandatory wiki neutral factual style. Accordingly to improve on tabloid presentation we must revert. Tayana 22:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Djegan is correct to revert; the style on Wikipedia is to use <ref> tags to insert properly formatted citations, not link to incidential information. See WP:FOOT. I'm not sure what you mean by "tabloid style". Demiurge 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You are selectively reading and incorrectly interpreting WP:FOOTwhich states ;
'A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document that comments on, and may cite a reference for, a part of the main text. The connection between the relevant text and its footnote is often indicated with a number or symbol which is used both after the text fragment and before the footnote.Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Footnotes are also often used to cite references which are relevant to a text. Citation of sources is important in supporting Verifiability, a key aspect of Wikipedia.
Tabloid presentation is partisan populist prose, designed to deceive rather than educate and has no place in wiki.. Neither Demiurge nor Djegan make any editorial contribution except to bluntly revert my edits. This is unacceptable. Tayana 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Could the description of Charles Haughey as a "radical republican" party leader candidate not be described as inaccurate or, at least, unenlightening? Certainly, Haughey cultivated "republican" credentials but radical republican is hardly an impartial or informed phrase in this context.
Father and son
- The following comment is copied from User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#The_Brian_Lenihans, where it was posted in this edit
Hi BHG, I am puzzled why you moved both Brian Lenihan articled without having a discussion on it. The last time they were moved there was a discussion on Brian Lenihan's (Father) talk page. While Brian Lenihan (Father) may be sometimes referred to as Brian Lenihan, Snr. There is no evidence for the current Irish Minister for Finance being referred to as Brian Lenihan, Jnr. The media refers to him as simply Brian Lenihan. His oireachtas entry says Brian Joseph Lenihan . Brian Lenihan, Jnr is a wikipedia invention. They have to be disambiguated but this is not the correct way. Snappy (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry -- I missed the discussion. Substantive reply to follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- OK, here goes! This is how me sees it:
- We have two senior politicians of the same name, from the same family, in the same party. They need some form of disambiguation.
- Neither of the two is a clear primary topic. The father had a longer career, and rose a little higher (Tanaiste, presidential candidate) ... but the son is finance minister at a time of grave economic crisis, and readers interested in current affairs will be looking for him. So both have a claim to be primary topic, depending on whether we give priority to history or current events, but I don't think we should make that choice: both are equally valid perspectives for a reader, and we should facilitate both.
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, both father and son should be known as "Brian Lenihan", with a disambiguator added as necessary. This is where I think we differ, but WP:COMMONNAME says "Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article". In both cases, that's plain old "Brian Lenihan". Searching the Irish Times, I find zero hits for "Brian Joseph Lenihan", compared with 3,977 for "Brian Lenihan", of which 1,790 are in the last year (and so will be overwhelmingly about the son).
- Since both have the same common name, and neither is the primary topic, we need to add a disambiguator. None of the usual dabs by occupation work (because the occupations are the same), so it seems to me that we are left with a choice between a) years of birth and death or b) snr/jnr. Other suggestions welcome, but that's all I can see so far.
- Unfortunately, both those options are deprecated. WP:QUALIFIER says "Years of birth and death should not be used in a page title to distinguish between people of the same name (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Senior_and_junior says that this "is only used when this is the usual way for differentiating a person from another with the same name". It seems to me that we half a partial match under that guideline, in that the father is sometimes known as "senior".
- So given a choice between two deprecated solutions, isn't it better to take the one that's less deprecated?
- Anyway, I know you'll have thought carefully about this, so I'll look fwd to reading your thoughts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, here goes! This is how me sees it:
FYI, a few more search results:
- rte.ie: zero hits for "Brian Joseph Lenihan" 10,500 hits for "Brian Lenihan"
- independent.ie: zero hits for "Brian Joseph Lenihan" 3,290 hits for "Brian Lenihan"
- examiner.ie: zero hits for "Brian Joseph Lenihan" 278 hits for "Brian Lenihan"
- Thanks for your response. You make a good case, as usual! (Btw, good to see you back on Wikipedia) I was going to suggest to use birth and death years instead of Snr / Jnr (and Brian Joseph Lenihan), but I didn't know that usage was deprecated. In that case, I would (a bit reluctantly) agree to the use of Snr / Jnr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 September 2009
- Thanks for the welcome, tho in a few days I'll be gone again for a while.
- Anyway, I rather share your reluctance, but it seems that neither of us can see a better solution. We can always revisit this if and when a better solution presents itself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Article has hardly any citations
This article needs citations if it is to be taken seriously. Right now, it has footnotes, but these are not citations. As it stands, the footnotes are merely uncorroborated statements in smaller writing than in the main article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Minister for forgein affairs. (third time)
There is no mention of Lenihans third term as Minister for forgein affairs. (1987-1989)