Talk:Rathfarnham: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

 

Line 62: Line 62:

What are other’s thoughts? [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 20:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What are other’s thoughts? [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 20:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:Agreed. These nonsense edits should be stomped on. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:Agreed. These nonsense edits should be stomped on. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

== Problem (text taken from Healy without reference or attribution) ==

Hi. While seeking to address some of the <code><nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{or}}</nowiki></code> tags in the article, I went searching for sources that could support the text (or were possibly relied upon for the text – but accidentally omitted in an oversight by the editor who added them).

What I have noted is that, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rathfarnham&diff=21076478&oldid=20859336 a series of edits in Aug 2005] (granted when Wikipedia was a different animal and granted where the editor does appear to list Patrick Healy as a reference), an editor appears to have copy/pasted large tracts of Healy’s book. Effectively [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=21076478&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.askaboutireland.ie%2Faai-files%2Fassets%2Flibraries%2Fsouth-dublin-county-library%2Freading-room%2FDigital%2520Books%2FRathfarnham%2520Roads.pdf verbatim]. Whole chapters/paragraphs/tracts. Just taken from [https://www.askaboutireland.ie/aai-files/assets/libraries/south-dublin-county-library/reading-room/Digital%20Books/Rathfarnham%20Roads.pdf the apparent source]. Where Healy’s text (and his opinions/comments) are presented without attribution or inline reference.

While I have absolutely no doubt that the editor did this in good faith and in a genuine attempt to improve/expand the article, it is far from ideal.

While Patrick Healy is deceased (and his works published, by South Dublin Libraries, posthumously in 2005), it is not good that (until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rathfarnham&diff=prev&oldid=1337438889 added it as a reference today]), there was absolutely no indication that this Wikipedia article relied on his work.

Even now, and while I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rathfarnham&diff=1337444716&oldid=1337441096 attempted to frame some of the tracts as quoted text (with attribution)], the current revision of the article [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1337444716&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.askaboutireland.ie%2Faai-files%2Fassets%2Flibraries%2Fsouth-dublin-county-library%2Freading-room%2FDigital%2520Books%2FRathfarnham%2520Roads.pdf still indicates a fairly significant issue with COPYVIO/copy/pasted text]. (Taken from Healy without attribution or reference).

I would be interested to see what thoughts others might have. And while I’m slow to completely gut the article, absent other thoughts, I don’t see how we can leave Healy’s work here. Without attribution. Absent other thoughts, I’m inclined to remove some chunks of the text, reframe others (with attribution) as quotes from Healy, and perhaps paraphrase some bits. Without this exercise (or some kind of “[[WP:DCP|donation of copyrighted material]]” (in respect of Healy’s work), I don’t see how it can remain as is…. [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale.

South Dublin Libraries and Paddy Healy gave me authorisation to use Archeology, Early Christain Remains and Local Histories, Chapter 10, by Patrick Healy for my Rathfarnham article. Jorgenpfhartogs 11:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The recent batch of changes to the pubs inserts an awful lot of WP:POV and strange statements like “local pub full of local people” (presumably a League of Gentlemen joke, and inappropriate in an encyclopedia). It also inserts numerous self-links to this same article, which results in a bunch of bolded words that look ugly. So I’ve removed them. Also, a lot of the info that has been reinserted is very repetitive and mentioned elsewhere in the article, or would be better mentioned elsewhere. –Splash 16:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole section on pubs rather unencyclopeadic. It looks as if it would be more appropriate in a travel guide like Wikitravel than in Wikipedia. I can see that references to individual pubs may ocassionally be appropriate for Wikipedia, for example where the pub is of particular historic or architectural significance, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. I suggest that we remove this section altogether. — Chris j wood 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is at least in part because someone keeps on putting in things that just don’t belong like mentions of plasma screen tvs and the like. When I originally merged them here from separate articles I kept it very brief but that hasn’t stuck. Personally, I wouldn’t object to the removal of the whole section as you say. It belongs better in Wikitravel. –Splash 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole section could do with being deleted. However, I wrote the original article on the Yellow House which currently redirects here. I believe that the Yellow House Pub (unlike the others listed) is a notable landmark in its own right with enough history that its original article should be reinstated if the pub section is removed from here. AndrewH 09:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some sort of balance would be sensible. Perhaps a merciless editing of that section rather than its removal? Generally speaking, my personal opinion is that articles on very local features benefit from being merged as they get much better context that way. –Splash 16:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, move the lot to Wikitravel. I was very surprised to come across it here. — Blorg 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why the Merry Ploughboy Pub in Rockbrook is excluded from this section? previously it was Sean Doherty’s and before that Leslie Allens. Always been a landmark along the Edmonstown/Cruagh road?Banjoman70 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This otherwise excellent article is crying out for some photosSuckindiesel

I have proposed merging Woodside, Rathfarnham into this article. It’s only an estate of about 100 houses, with no assertion of notability, and needs at most a brief mention in the article on Rathfarnham, not a standalone article. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. SeoR (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sarah777 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. In the end, I just redirected it, because there didn’t seem to be anything worth merging. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another good decision! You get the odd one right 🙂 Sarah777 (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind if I removed the redlinks in this article? They are waiting a long time for articles, eg Taylor’s Grange. Sarah777 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many moons ago this was a “B” class article. What does it need to get that rating again? Sarah777 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’d say referencing, and following that, some tweaking of tone, and redaction or re-statement of stuff like “The statistics indicate that Rathfarnham is aging,[citation needed] with young couples that moved into the area in the 1960s entering retirement.[original research?] Due to the suggestion that there weren’t many suitable sites in the area for apartment building, analysts[who?] for the Rathfarnham Community Website, predicted that Census 2010 would show further decreases.[citation needed]” Then a proper lede. The redoubtable Guliolopez has had a good look, and they were right. There is much written about the area, and it’s a large and historic one, and most of the facts stated are valid, so it’s just a pity it was not better put together. SeoR (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff in here about finding Robert Emmets grave a bit discussy? Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources I have consulted say that Major Richard Doyne, who owned the Hermitage between 1859 and 1866 (his son taking over possession till 1898), was a veteran of the Crimean War, not Waterloo. The popular tradition (which I have not been able to confirm) that he built an obelisk over the grave of his warhorse may, then, be true. But the horse carried him in the Crimea, not at Waterloo.
Eroica (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit and edit summary an editor has stated of Rathfarnham that “It is not a suburb of Dublin“. This, to my mind, is inconsistent with my understanding of the subject, of the concept of suburbs in general and of the sources relating to the subject here. Any number of sources describe Rathfarnham as a suburb of Dublin city – including:

• RTÉ Archives (1977) – “the Dublin suburb of Rathfarnham“
• Rough Guide (2002) – “A few of Dublin’s less well-known attractions are situated in the suburbs [..incl the..] suburb of Rathfarnham [which] lies close to the city’s southern fringe“
• Irish Examiner (2007) – “the Dublin suburb of Rathfarnham on Monday“
• Irish Independent (2017) – “Rathfarnham, the south Dublin suburb“
• Irish Times (2026) – “in the Dublin suburb of Rathfarnham on Tuesday“
• South Dublin County Council (n.d.) – “in the later part of the nineteenth century [..] Rathfarnham became a suburb of Dublin“
• etc.

Personally, I find the claim (“It is not a suburb of Dublin“) to be an extraordinary one. And I find the text removal (which removed mention of both the city and the country) to be equally incredible. As I do not see how the removal of the city/country improves the reader’s understanding of the topic?

While, yes, Rathfarnham is not within the Dublin City Council area, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a suburb either of or to the city.

What are other’s thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These nonsense edits should be stomped on. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While seeking to address some of the {{cn}} and {{or}} tags in the article, I went searching for sources that could support the text (or were possibly relied upon for the text – but accidentally omitted in an oversight by the editor who added them).

What I have noted is that, in a series of edits in Aug 2005 (granted when Wikipedia was a different animal and granted where the editor does appear to list Patrick Healy as a reference), an editor appears to have copy/pasted large tracts of Healy’s book. Effectively verbatim. Whole chapters/paragraphs/tracts. Just taken from the apparent source. Where Healy’s text (and his opinions/comments) are presented without attribution or inline reference.

While I have absolutely no doubt that the editor did this in good faith and in a genuine attempt to improve/expand the article, it is far from ideal.

While Patrick Healy is deceased (and his works published, by South Dublin Libraries, posthumously in 2005), it is not good that (until added it as a reference today), there was absolutely no indication that this Wikipedia article relied on his work.

Even now, and while I have attempted to frame some of the tracts as quoted text (with attribution), the current revision of the article still indicates a fairly significant issue with COPYVIO/copy/pasted text. (Taken from Healy without attribution or reference).

I would be interested to see what thoughts others might have. And while I’m slow to completely gut the article, absent other thoughts, I don’t see how we can leave Healy’s work here. Without attribution. Absent other thoughts, I’m inclined to remove some chunks of the text, reframe others (with attribution) as quotes from Healy, and perhaps paraphrase some bits. Without this exercise (or some kind of “donation of copyrighted material” (in respect of Healy’s work), I don’t see how it can remain as is…. Guliolopez (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]