Talk:Greystones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greystones article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

There is no doubt there were over 6000 objections but over half of these were from outside Greystones/Delgany. This is a fact that can be verified if one wants to trawl through the 1000's of photocopied objection sheets signed by places as far away as Cuba!. There is a huge amount of scaremongering going on, most by those who do not want any change in the town. For those of us who love the harbour, the sea and living by it, the harbour is classified as an abandoned harbour and is a disgrace and the future will be better for the whole town - both young and new with this revised plan. Ten years from now when the plaza at the harbour is full of bussling happy folk, Greystones will be the envy of the countryGrainne Mc Loughlin 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Marina, Overpopulation and other complaints 2 POV on Father Ted 3 Famous People 4 Citation checking 5 Regular vandalism

[edit] Marina, Overpopulation and other complaints

Could residents who have objections to changes in the town please not try and write with such ridiculous POV in this article. Here's some text I just had to edit out:

...the council and developers are fools if they think the decent people of Greystones are in favour of it...:

...which threatens to turn the area into some sort of cheaper version of Benidorm, with an excessive number of high-rise apartments, etc...:

Its really annoying to see Wikipedia in such a dreadful state, and I'd request for people to maintain objectivity. Cheers

--- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.14.67 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the person (or persons) who keeps inserting this sentence:

Both Greystones and Blackrock are seen as desirable places to live, but wits insist that the former is but a pale shadow of the latter.

would like to create an account at Uncyclopedia. That would be a better place for this "joke". And please don't assert, as has been done by email, that I don't get it. It's irrelevant whether any contributer or reader gets the joke; the point is that this isn't the place for jokes, particularly when the statement, taken literally, is so clearly in violation of the NPOV policy.

If someone cares enough to find a way to insert this piece back into the article without being so apparently POV then it might well add character to the article. But please don't put it back unless you can find such a way. —Rory ☺ 18:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

These sentences I deleted are either tendentious or outright false. The number of submissions from outside Greystones is currently unknown. The Department of Marine says the marina will do nothing to stop coastal erosion. I'm a resident and I'd prefer the harbor reverted to natural beach than any development of this kind happened. (You may or may not agree with me, but my opinion disproves the statement that "all residents" want some kind of development). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.53.223 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, it was a bit of a stupid revert on my part... I saw the anon IP and just made assumptions. :) Jhonan ^talk 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as its equal in its point of view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.214.43 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV on Father Ted

I have repeatedly edited this section to remove somebody's point of view of Father Ted as 'The Greatest Comedy of all time' and the person keeps replacing it. It's not appropriate and shouldn't be included! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.153.50 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Obviously no sense of humour mate, why do you care so much.. Father Ted is the 'Greatest Comedy of all time'!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.214.43 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous People

Why have Joe Sweeney, Gordon, Mrs. Mooney, etc. been removed from the "Famous Residents" section? They are certainly very well-known within the community. Does the fact that they are unknown outside of Greystones disqualify them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.162.201 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

here here, bring back our famous residents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.185.46 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How are they famous? Well known yes, but famous NO. Josie from Supervalue, come on will ya. 83.141.80.130 (Talk)

Before you add people you consider famous to Wikipedia, I suggest you first read this Wikipedia guide page on notability to see if your people pass the basic test of notability. Unfortunately, these Greystones additions are not famous people though they may be local characters and known locally. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and these people will likely never be regarded as famous enough for any encyclopaedia. If you wish to contribute, Wikipedia will be happy to see constructive work so that others can benefit from greater encyclopaedic knowledge about Greystones or other articles that you have verifiable information about. ww2censor 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed Juan Cullen, as I could not find any reference as to why they were Internationaly popular, googling for "Juan Cullen" +greystones returned zero hits. Regards, MartinRe 23:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation checking

As the current debate seems to be centered over one paragraph, I've copied it here as there does still seem to be problems with uncited claims:

• "Currently the most topical issue ..." - looks okay enough, possibly better not to say "most topical", why not "A major topical issue"?
• "some 6000+ submissions, with over half coming from outside the Greystones Delgany area" - are there sources for a) the 6000 submission figure, and b) that half are outside the area? If not, better to remove unverified claims.
• "Those in favour look forward ..." - citation? "those in favour" sound worringly like weasal words
• "The coastal erosion will also be much reduced by the plan" - citation? According to whom/what study?
• "All inhabitants are in favour.." citation? "All inhabitants" needs a WP:RS to avoid being another weasal word

Regards, MartinRe 11:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice job Martin on revision of the topical issue and the external links. Let's hope the vandals stay off it, otherwise we shall have to protect it for registered users only as the same people keep adding the same non-notables over and over again. ww2censor 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, nice to be noticed :) I don't think protection will be necessary, as relatively speaking, this is getting very few edits, well within the limit of being reverted by other editors. It would be nice to have a source for the 6,000 submissions, though. I felt it was reasonable to leave in for the moment as from the searches I did several blogs came up with similar figures, but as blogs aren't reliable sources I didn't list them as a source, but it did give me enough confidence that a source could be found, so left it in, but uncited for the moment. Regards, MartinRe 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

6,000 does seem like the number and this Irish Independent citation [1] (you might need to register {free} to view it) seems like a reasonable one as does this one [2]. Hope that helps clarify the number of submissions. ww2censor 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. (You can see the figure without registering by going to http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?issue_id=13862 which shows the headlines, from which I got the publication date and verified the figure. I had found the second link myself, but as it described itself as a blog, I was wary of putting it in as the only source. Regards, MartinRe 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice one! - Thanks for finally sorting out that piece. Jhonan ^talk 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regular vandalism

As I mentioned here, and on the Irish Wikipedian's page, I think this page really needs some protection from anonymous users. Some of you have been reverting repeated vandalism here as i have too. I would do it but am not sure how, so maybe you guys know better. Don't you think it is about time we make this vandalism more difficult? ww2censor 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is necessary at this stage. The recent edits have been easily reverted by several editors, and are infrequent enough that the benefits are outweighed by the downside of stopping all new/anon editors contributing. Plus, this has been ongoing over several weeks, and as protection is only applied for a limited time, it would only hide the problem for a day or two. If you want to apply for page protection, you can request it at WP:RPP but I would be surprised if it was done, for the above reasons. The alternatives to protection (other editors reverting) seem to be working well enough, and the additions are only done once a day, so not a big issue, in the scheme of things. Regards, MartinRe 08:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding anti-development (of ANY kind) POV being inserted into articles about Greystones; the same happened to Blackrock, which started to read like some absolutist preservationist tract. Ditto Dún Laoghaire, and numerous roads articles. It would appear some people regard promoting a POV as the primary function of Wiki! (Sarah777 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC))