Talk:Brian Lenihan, Snr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale. | |
 |
An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
[edit] Comment
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 194.46.247.56 (Talk) (rv to wiki style) * (cur) (last) 07:36, 12 September 2006 194.46.165.122 (Talk) (?Presidential candidate -
Wiki style)
* (cur) (last) 07:33, 12 September 2006 194.46.165.122 (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.
User:MichaelTurley
