Talk:The Irish Famine (book)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
 |
An entry from The Irish Famine (book) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 March 2007. |
 |
[edit] PoV?
I'm amazed that an article started less than a week ago and which has had substantial contributions from only one editor should be included on the front page. See - food exports during the Irish famine Rjm at sleepers 08:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not only embrassing but its shows that an editor could be using his weight again. This book is not particularly significant or notable either - is there an argument for its deletion?--Vintagekits 12:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have put this book into the additional reading list, and can not understand why it is being placed at the top of an article. I agree with both contributors above, and feel it should not be placed in such a position on this article. Regards--Domer48 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, I'm not sure how I could be using any presupposed "weight"... in any case, as the title of the book is "The Irish Famine", it makes sense that when people search for "The Irish Famine", they are provided with a link to the book. As I understand that when people search for "The Irish Famine", they are looking for the event and not the book, which is why I haven't created a disambiguation page gaillimhConas tá tú? 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have put this book into the additional reading list, and can not understand why it is being placed at the top of an article. I agree with both contributors above, and feel it should not be placed in such a position on this article. Regards--Domer48 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The inclusion of a book review as a header to the article on the Irish Famine is extremely inappropriate. This becomes especially erroneous, when the book in question itself is heavily biased. To illustrate this point I would refer editors to a letter written by Colm Toibin, in the London Review Of Books, Vol. 23, No.23, 21.11.01. Responding to Oxford academic Mary Beard (LRB, 4.10.01) who had asked in response to the events of 11th September for a more “nuanced” response, Toibin wrote, “Over the past twenty five years in Ireland I have made a point of asking anyone who went to school with members of the IRA, the INLA, the UDA and the UVF what these people were like at the age of ten. All have agreed that each child displayed a nasty early sign of terrorism long before he had a “cause”. One of them spoke for many others when he described his schoolmate, the embryonic terrorist, as “a resentful little cunt”. Had a cause not come their way, these people would have beaten their dogs or their wives and children, attacked one another at hurling matches or taken out their resentment on a long back garden.” And this the work of an unbiased writer of Irish history, I hardly think so! This book should be placed in the additional reading list, and not be given any more prominence then the rest of the book written on the subject. --Domer48 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It would be my opinion, that books relating to an article should be included in the Reading List, or Additional Reading List. This I might add, is regardless of the POV of the author. To place a book, with a clearly illustrated bias as a header, is a form of POV which, should it go unchecked could well leave Articles being relegated behind the reviews. For example, I could do reviews on books which I found interesting, and regardless of the bias or otherwise of the author, I could then place it at the top of any article relevant to the subject. I could push and peddle any bias I wished under the guise of a review. Is this the road we wish to go down? I do not believe it is. The Article has primacy on the page, and the discussion page is the forum to discuss and debate the contents.--Domer48 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The issue isn't with labelling Toibín and Ferriter's book as the definitive, or best book on the Famine. Far from it, actually. It is a simple formatting issue. You see, The Irish Famine redirects here, to Irish Potato Famine. As the book is called The Irish Famine, there should be a header at the top of the article (as is seen in thousands of other articles) specifying that this is the article about the famine, and if you want to view the article about the book, see [here]. The wording could be tweaked to better illustrate this, i.e. The Irish Famine redirects here. For the book of the same name, please see The Irish Famine (book). gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please continue talk on Talk:Irish Potato Famine which is the article it is relevant to. Tyrenius 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The issue isn't with labelling Toibín and Ferriter's book as the definitive, or best book on the Famine. Far from it, actually. It is a simple formatting issue. You see, The Irish Famine redirects here, to Irish Potato Famine. As the book is called The Irish Famine, there should be a header at the top of the article (as is seen in thousands of other articles) specifying that this is the article about the famine, and if you want to view the article about the book, see [here]. The wording could be tweaked to better illustrate this, i.e. The Irish Famine redirects here. For the book of the same name, please see The Irish Famine (book). gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would be my opinion, that books relating to an article should be included in the Reading List, or Additional Reading List. This I might add, is regardless of the POV of the author. To place a book, with a clearly illustrated bias as a header, is a form of POV which, should it go unchecked could well leave Articles being relegated behind the reviews. For example, I could do reviews on books which I found interesting, and regardless of the bias or otherwise of the author, I could then place it at the top of any article relevant to the subject. I could push and peddle any bias I wished under the guise of a review. Is this the road we wish to go down? I do not believe it is. The Article has primacy on the page, and the discussion page is the forum to discuss and debate the contents.--Domer48 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I consider the use of this header to be an exceptional matter, to what would currently be the norm. I hope I have illustrated this with my previous contribution. I consider there to be ample scope to facilitate the inclusion of this book within the article. For example in the disambiguation link contained in the headed tilted “For other uses”. It can also be included in the additional reading list, complete with the link which I have already attempted to provide. It could obviously be used as a reference, with the link attached to the book title. I would hope editors would accept and assume good faith on my part in this matter. I am not aware of any precedent on an issue such as this, but I am conscious that since this matter has been highlighted, I have also suggested how this could be abused. I wish to make this article as comprehensive as possible, covering all views and positions, but believe strongly that the inclusion of this book in the header would be viewed and considered a POV, and given prominence which other books would not enjoy. Regards --Domer48 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Irish Famine book cover.jpg
Image:The Irish Famine book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
