Jump to content

Talk:Architects' Alliance of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is wrongly accused of being biased

[edit]

I am wondering why this page was proposed for speedy deletion? Architects' Alliance of Ireland is a non profit association which is defending the rights of self-trained architects in the Republic of Ireland. Their actions have created a political and legal questioning on newly created registration procedures for architects in the Republic of Ireland. The group is at the origin of a proposed bill for the amendment of the existing legislation (Building Control Act 2007). The group has exposed some of the weakness of the actual legislation and the European Commission has started talking with the Irish government to solve what is regarded a breach of European Law in Section 22 of the Building Control Act 2007. Architects' Alliance of Ireland also defended self-trained architects' interests when the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), broadcasted a radio advertising which compared non RIAI registered professionals to incompetent practitioners. The advertising was stopped by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) and the RIAI had to make some apologies on national radio.

Architects' Alliance of Ireland is a "Nationally famous local organizations". All Irish Architects are aware of the association and its actions. It complies with Wikipedia notability criteria for non-commercial organizations. It also complies with Primary criteria for notability. Architects' Alliance of Ireland actions were covered by Irish Media such as The Irish Times, The Irish Independent, RTE. The article includes links to National Newspapers articles and to a web site of the Irish Government where minutes of a public meeting between members of the Irish Government, representatives of Architects' Alliance and Directors of the RIAI exchanged their views on the system and legislation related to the registration of architects in Ireland.

Orangemike, the administrator who proposed a speedy deletion of the article, has not stated the reason for doing so. I think that I have proved above that Architects' Alliance complies with Wikipedia Notability Standards for organizations and companies.

Orangemike, is also disputing the neutrality of the article. I have tried my best to write this article in a neutral way. I have compared the article with the RIAI article; the RIAI is the direct competitor of Architects' Alliance on the issue of registration in the Republic of Ireland. Onrangemike never stated what in the article is not neutral.

Orangemike pretends that the article is written like advertising. However, the article only inform on Architects' Alliance of Ireland. Nothing in the content support the cause of the association, nothing promote the association or appeal for the reader to join the association. The content of the article is only descriptive.

I think that Orangemike is responsible of vandalism on this article. He is probably opposed to the position defended by Architects' Alliance of Ireland, but this does not give him the right to propose the article for speedy deletion or to pretend that the article is biased without explaining why. --Christophe Krief (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore the bizarre accusations of vandalism, the insulting verb "pretends" and the false assumption that I disagree with your organization's position (as it happens, I agree with your stand; this creates an even stronger moral obligation on my part to treat you impartially). The problem is that from the very first paragraph, the article uses partisan language: "It represents experienced practitioners who were recently stripped of their rights to practice as architects, despite years of experience, skills and knowledge" is simply not neutral, with the emotionally-charged terms like "stripped" and "despite" in there. The case for notability is better now; but impartiality is never optional here, and one cannot but suspect that you, Christopher, are either an officer, employee or activist member of the Alliance. Have you read our guidelines on conflict of interest? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, I though that anyone with good intentions would have started the dialogue before proposing to delete the article.

I was a member of the association; I am not anymore due to divergence of ideas. I am still sharing similar interests with the group. However, I think that anyone with an interest in Architects’ Alliance of Ireland, would either be opposed or in agreement with their position, it is difficult to be in-between.

I think that no-one uninterested with the registration of architects in Ireland is aware of Architects’ Alliance, but everyone with such interest know who they are and what they stand for.

I am trying to explain that people who do not have an interest in the matter of architects’ registration in Ireland, do not know the Association. The opponents and those who disagree with Architects’ Alliance will not create an article on the association. The creation of an article about a group which has a political agenda is in itself an engagement, but it does not make the article biased.

The idea of this article was to make public the existing conflict between academically qualified architects and the so-called self-trained / self-taught architects. It happens that Architects’ Alliance represents the self-taught and that they did not have a page in Wikipedia despite being compatible with Wiki standards for notability.

The fact is that the direct opponent of Architects’ Alliance has its page on Wikipedia. If you consider the article on the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), it was surely created by members of the Institute if not some of their employees. The RIAI page does not stipulate that the RIAI has misled the public when advertising on national radio. It does not stipulate that the RIAI has campaigned for years to gain a monopoly in the Republic of Ireland. It does not inform on misleading information issued by the Institute regarding compliance with EU Law. The RIAI article does not explain that the RIAI has created the most expensive examination for the purpose of registering self-taught architects. The Irish examination for self-taught architects is 3 times mor expensive than its US / Canada equivalent and 4 times the cost of its Dutch equivalent.

I think that, if there is still a problem of neutrality with the Architects’ Alliance article after the latest revision that I carried out, then there is the same problem with the RIAI article which does not give details on the strong opposition against the institute having been appointed as the registration body. A survey of approximately 500 persons interested in the subject show that about 60% would have preferred a new body to be created rather than the RIAI to carry out this task. Only approx. 26% support the RIAI as the registration body for architects. If you do not remove the neutrality banner on this article, then you should also ad one on the RIAI page.

I hope to hear from you again on this matter

Regards

--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag reasons

[edit]

I placed an article-issues tag on this article. The subtags were chosen for the following reasons:

  • Intro too long: self-explanatory
  • Neutrality disputed: Not added by me; I was just consolidating the tag added by someone else
  • Factual accuracy disputed: I feel that the article is written to score points on behalf of the AAOI. The "status" suggestion that there are over 100 members is one of the disputed items.
  • Copy editing: No longer required.
  • Slanted towards recent events: The article focuses on recent lobbying efforts by the AAOI.
  • Self-published sources: several of the cites are to the AAOI itself. These should be cited to third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no self-published sources in this article that would induce a misleading interpretetation of the covered subjects. If you think that some self-published information are not veirifiable and may be misleading, just tell us which ones?--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with some of these issues: (1) lead written and tag removed, (2) neutrality: a wider range of editors would increase confidence, (3) the Irish Times says (without explicitly quoting AAoI) the membership is "about 200" but I have left "over 100", I think more fact checking generally would help, (4) completed, (5) certainly "recent" but so is the subject of the article: a more historical background perhaps?, (6) self-published: I have cited to the Law Society Gazette itself rather than a copy on the AAoI web site. It is a letter by AAoI, however, but is cited in support of an AAoI claim. Other cites to AAoI and RIAI are to support their own views. Tag removed.
The claim of CPD points is unreferenced and I have tagged it. I can only find it in blog posts, the best being here which is seemingly from a cynical RIAI member. I can't even find AAoI claiming for them to be quoted. Unless it can be better supported I think it should be removed (although it might well be true). Thincat (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your are doing impressive work... You cannot imagine how difficult it is to find someone neutral but still interested in the subject. I do not recall to have met someone like that before. Politicians aren't neutral on the subject, architects aren't, journalists are not really interested, legal advisors neither... But I guess that some will say that you are not neutral anymore due to your positive participation towards this article--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With reference to the CPD points for lobbying purposes, I remember something published in the magazine "Architecture Ireland", but I cannot find it anymore. Nearly everything that would represent a valuable source was removed from the web, except this link to one of the RIAI CPD manager "linkedin" account, which is probably not acceptable and which will probably be deleted soon. It is stated there that in September 2010, as a RIAI CPD manager she "prepared training presentations, databases, lecture notes and arranged training of Architects in all regions of Ireland in effective lobbying and the Building Control Act.". Maybe I will find the reference in the magazine "Architecture Ireland". It stated exactly how many points RIAI members were granted to attend the CPD.--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened lead

[edit]

In response to the "issues" tag, and in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), I have created a short introduction and have kept the existing initial material in a new section. I am not attempting to alter the content at all, merely changing the formal presentation. I have next to no knowledge of the subject matter so please change my wording if it is not well nuanced. I have merely tried to summarise what the article already says. I have not included any citations in the lead, the idea being that all the material is further down in the article where it is cited. However, if citations are felt helpful in the introduction, I have no difficulty here. Thincat (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Thincat you have done a very good job, "chapeau" (French expression for well done but the word also means "hat"). You demonstrated what is a neutral intervention on a article. Comparing your intervention to stifle, it is obvious that this later is completely engaged in what is at stake. I admire your interest in a subject that seems completely foreign to you. Good job...--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the word "long-established" to your introduction because it was not clear that AAoI is only asking for those with more than 7 years of experience to be automaticaly permitted to continue practicing. In France this was implemented for those in practice for more than 5 years. The only request was that the individuals seeking to continue practicing had to present their tax records for the last 5 years for their works as architects. AAoI supports the same in Ireland for those with over 7 years of experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course "long-established". Thincat (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Marshall and Thincat's works, I like to think that all tags can now be removed from the page. Are the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article still disputed? If so by who and on what ground?--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since these tags are more subjective than the others, I suggest leaving them until after the AfD closes. After that, for an article which has been contentious, best practice might be for anyone to open a new section on this talk page, to review what the obections were and how matters have been addresed and then ask if there is agreement for the tags to be removed. The presence or absence of the tags will not affect the outcome of the AfD, I would suppose. Removing them prematurely might well create dispute. That's my view but other people have more experience than I have. Thincat (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy tag

[edit]

The factual accuracy tag was added to this article generally, but only specifically mentioning the number of AAoI members. At present "more than 100" is referenced by the Irish Times saying "about 200". I believe there is another source saying words to the effect of "over 100" but I have not bothered to seek this out. Does anyone have a difficulty on this specific? Are there any other contested factual inaccuracies? If not I shall in due course remove the tag. I am not here raising the matter of the neutrality tag. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the "fact" tag. If there are still any factual inaccuracies, please indicate specifically what is wrong or, better still, correct the article. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of article

[edit]

A tag was added 10 November 2010 suggesting the article did not reflect a neutral point of view. Then the article looked like this, a lot different from now. As well as discussion on this talk page and at User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0311#Your_deletion_of_.22Architects.27_s_Alliance_of_Ireland.22_was_inappropriate_and_not_properly_justified, there was subsequent discussion at DRV and AfD. Some objected to apparently promotional aspects of the article which I think it reasonable to be included in the scope of lack of neutrality. The AFD closing admin actually ruled "keep - - for now" but the caveat related to possibly temporary notability (a rationale I did not understand) and not neutrality. Anyway, the article was kept. My own position is that I do not know whether the article is currently lacking neutrality although my own edits have been in good faith and I am not aware of specific non-neutral issues. However, I know practically nothing about the background to the subject matter. I think it is not reasonable to leave the tag in place unless people raise specific problems with the article as it stands. What, if anything, needs to be done to achieve reasonable neutrality? If no adverse points are raised here, I shall remove the tag in due course. In the meantime, improvements to the article itself would be most welcome. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Thincat, I think that it will be difficult to find someone neutral and interested in the subject. You are one exception I guess. AAoI relates to very specific matters which have strong political implications. To extend the subject on a wider public, we should maybe specify in this talk page that the actions of AAoI are in line with other actions seeking the recognition of skills obtained in practice rather than through educative systems such as schools or universities. AAoI may also be identified as a group that is challenging the reasons for restricting the practice of architecture to certain qualifications. The arguments for such challenge are also valid outside the field of architecture. AAoI believes that protecting the public is not the real goal behind the imposed restrictions. There is a strong belief that a social selection through academic rules is the main leitmotiv. There is also a belief that the protection of a certain technocracy comes before public interests in the agenda. This technocracy is seen as a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people. The fact is that about 50% of last century masterpieces in architecture were created by architects who did not hold a qualification as architects. It seems that schools of architecture and holders of recognised qualifications are making sure that it will be different this century. I believe that it is the quality of the built environment which will be the big looser. Many academically qualified architects do not have the skills of others who are prevented to describe themselves as architects today. Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies Van Der Rohe are some of the most famous proofs that one can master the art of architecture without having academically qualified in this field. Tadao Ando is still practicing today, and he is probably one of the top ten if not one of the top 5 contemporary architects worldwide.--Christophe Krief (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the neutrality tag. Thincat (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of the ARAE and procedure

[edit]

An editor named "User:ARAE Exam" has removed the cost of the seminars to the ARAE examination overall cost. Attendance to the seminars is non-compulsory but essential for anyone passing the examination. Unless someone objects with a valid argumentation, I am re-inserting the cost of the seminars because it would be difficult for someone preparing the ARAE exam to be successful without having attended the seminars. Have the cost of the lectures / seminars now been included in the overall cost?,I found no clear confirmation on the ARAE website, for the first exam the lectures / seminars fees were in addition to the overall cost. The editor "User:ARAE Exam", also added to the article that the procedure of the exam in the Netherlands is different from the ARAE Exam. I agree with this statement, and we can also say that the Dutch examination is much more appropriate than its Irish counterpart. However, Unless someone objects with a valid argumentation, I will be adding to the article that the the Dutch exam and Irish exam serve the exact same purpose despite the disproportionate difference in the cost. Both exams assess practitioners without formal qualification for access to the register of architects.--Christophe Krief (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seminars and lectures are organised for those who are willing to become RIAI members. These lectures are designed to help future RIAI member to be successful to the RIAI exam. Attendance to the lectures are included in the RIAI examination fees. This exam is also one part of the ARAE exam, however it appears that attendance to the lectures is not included in the ARAE overall fees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIAI members have achieved the necessary educational and professional qualifications?

[edit]

An editor named "User:ARAE Exam" inserted in the article that RIAI members "have achieved the necessary educational and professional qualifications". This is a false statement that I am removing because hundreds of RIAI members have no qualification in architecture and became part of the institute on the presentation of a portfolio. Others became members on the ground of their achievements in the field of architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of revisions by User IP 83.71.138.18 belonging to Lorcan Greene & Associates

[edit]

I have undone the insertions of User IP 83.71.138.18 because they were very engaged in this difficult subject. I think that the arguments would have had their place in the critics paragraph only if references were included to verify the claims...

First it was stated that: "Although in 2006 the Competition Authority of Ireland had recommended the creation of an Architects Council of Ireland, most considered this unecessary. It was decided that the RIAI with its long experience would perform the role of the new registration body under the 2007 Act.". The RIAI had no experience to act as the registration body for architects and the main issue was related to the conflict of interest existing being the RIAI as a limited company representing its members (MRIAI) and fulfilling its new role as a registration body. The present situation proves that the Competition Authority was right in its recommendation. The RIAI has allowed all its members free registration without exam when the others had to pay a fee. The RIAI was supposed to dissociate fees for membership of its limited company and fees for registration. Today there is no more fees to become o member of the RIAI. There is no dissociation between spending for RIAI members and spending for registered architects non-members. Applicants who were successful to the ARAE are not able to register without becoming member of the RIAI.

It was stated about the exams that: "[...]This is to ensure that those who would use the title are in fact competent. [...] Although the assessment requirements are to an internationally recognised standard, the AAoI considers the examination as inappropriate and exclusionary. ". The ARAE is to my knowledge the world most expensive exam of its kind. It is based on academical knowledge rather than the necessary knowledge to function as an architect. It requires the general knowledge of a newly qualified architect rather than the knowledge of a mature and specialised architect.

The insertion also claimed that it is not only RIAI members who were automatically registered, but that those who were successful at the examination were also automatically registered. However, non-RIAI members had to pass an exam prior to registration and this is hardly an automatic procedure. There were other similar false claims, such as the fact that a grand-father clause is already included in the legislation.

Finally User IP 83.71.138.18 (a member of the RIAI) stated that: "Many are of the opinion that such a reduction in assessment requirements would not be in the interests of the consumer." this is a non-referenced engaged statement. It is the opinion of the RIAI. I think that this statement should be included in the critic paragraph with a reference.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Architects' Alliance of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architects%27_Alliance_of_Ireland&oldid=1198922804"