Talk:Lissadell House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Untitled[edit]

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective comments[edit]

"This is the second occasion that the State has damaged Lissadell. In the 1950s and 1960s officials of the State thrashed[7] the woodlands by clearing the forestry and not replanting any trees. It could also be argued however that the current owners are damaging the Estate by being belligerent over the public interest entitlement in Lissadell as the Courts have found."

This section represents something of a non sequitur and an extremely subjective view on the roles of the state and owners in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.22.62 (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues Discussion[edit]

Please use this section to discuss issues with the representation of the controversies surrounding Lissadell House. Any perceived bias concerns should be flagged here first before any large scale deletions. Neutral point of view can be improved by adding other material rather than deletion. Remember, deletion of bias, is bias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanovsky (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin? The "Issues" section is the most problematic. In the first paragraph, the text isn't supported by the first reference ([23] at the time of writing). The 2009 law by definition modernised Irish land law in many ways (as explicitly noted in [23]), so why does the current text assert that it "failed to modernise" the law? Certainly it declined to change the law concerning public rights of way in directions sought by some vocal pressure groups. But this is not the same as a failure of the law or the Oireachtas. How about saying instead that "pressure groups have advocated much broader rights of way than have historically existed in Ireland, but so far they have failed to persuade the Oireachtas to make any such changes." PMcGarrigle (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "modernise" is too vague, the thinking though is that the 2009 law, by declining to address the issue of rights of way, did not provide any better clarity in such disputes. I would have thought the facts of the case, involving as it did a protracted legal battle, millions of euro in costs and two opposite judgements on the same evidence, is ample evidence of the inadequacy of the current laws and therefore can be reasonably characterised as both a failure of the law (at least the 2009 acts) and the Oireachtas to deal with these issues.

Talking about "pressure groups" particularly without naming them, I do not think is acceptable as it implies a fringe interest only, whereas I think you will find that calls for reform come from all across the political spectrum and from ordinary unaligned citizens. The article should seek to help people understand the different points of view and the historical context involved in such disputes in Ireland so it would be helpful if you included alternative views to illustrate your points. Dylanovsky (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recall seeing some commentary from the IFA, which had quite a different reaction to the decision. I'll add a link soon. Certainly there are repeated calls for "reform" (which in context seems to mean greatly expanded public access to privately owned land by right), but it's not at all clear that anything close to a majority supports this position. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a "fringe" interest, which is unnecessarily negative (having the connotation of "deservedly a minority"). PMcGarrigle (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lissadell House. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lissadell House. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lissadell House. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lissadell_House&oldid=1203089922"