Talk:Bulmer Hobson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Military work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment 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 of the article.) |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-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. | |
Contents |
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
The citation needed tags are getting a bit excessive, especially when they appear more than once in a single sentence. And Domer, I fail to see how you can say that the Rising stood little chance of military success needs to be cited when you've spent much of the past few months arguing that military success was not a goal, consideration, or even a possibility. That tag, at least, is unnecessary. I'll remove it. -R. fiend (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read our policy on WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Pleas do not remove {citation} tags, as they indicate that this information needs to be referenced. This is one of our key policies, and should not be viewed as a guidline. Thank you, --Domer48 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jesus H. Christ. We do not need citation needed tags on every single sentence. Something which is common knowledge and backed up by any source on the topic does not need to be cited. That the rising stood little chance of military success is one such fact. No one in the world has ever argued otherwise. You yourself said it was impossible several times. Why is there a tag for that but not for the fact that he was born in County Tyrone, for example? I admit there are certainly statements in the text that should have footnotes, but that is not one of them. -R. fiend (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. This is official policy on the English Wikipedia. It is a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. --Domer48 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- But no one is likely to challenge that the rising stood little chance of military success. -R. fiend (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's not what the article says. The article says Hobson believed that, so it's hardly unreasonable for a source to be provided stating that is the case. Or are we just going to attribute beliefs to people without sources now? One Night In Hackney303 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dungannon Clubs
Could this sentence be phrased better: "The suggested object of these clubs was to celebrate the constitutionalist Volunteers of 1782, though they were also an armed militia whose success could offer instructive lessons"? First of all, I've never seen anything describing the Dungannon Clubs as militia-like. The sources I've read describe them as clubs for discussion of national politics (obviously with Republican leanings), campaigning against recruitment into the British Army, producing pro-independence publications, and recruiting into the IRB. Where did they get guns to arm their members? I guess if there's a source it's okay, but it's curious that such a significant factor is ignored by other sources. Anyway, my main concern is the "whose success could offer instructive lessons" part. Success in what? Lessons in what and for whom? What success did they have that provided lessons for people? Very vague and sloppy. Can it be clarified? -R. fiend (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Expanding the Article
Almost all the unreferenced information has been removed. I will expand now on the article to include many of the activities in which Hobson was to play a leading role. It would help if we insist that all furture additions to the article are referenced. --Domer48 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
