Talk:Synge Street CBS/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:SyngestrettSc.gif

Image:SyngestrettSc.gif 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 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, I have edited out Eoincar 's vandalism and removed Hugh McFadden's which included adding himself to the list of former notable pupils, destroying hypertexts and adding many unknown individuals.

Alumni

Some very important alumni here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themont85 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits in violation of wp:burden

An editor has repeatedly restored challenged uncited material in violation of wp:burden. Such as material removed and restored here. Such material may be restored -- but only in compliance with wp:burden. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thats a very personal interpretation of burden, just like your rather personal interpretations of other policies and guidelines. If you want to delete stuff then you need to say what you think is wrong with it. Pointing at WP:V is just making a circular argument. But the likelihood is that you haven't a clue what might be wrong with it. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote: "Per wp:v". We've had this discussion before.

Wholly uncited material was added. It was challenged and deleted. You restored it, repeatedly now, without any citation. Let alone the requisite inline RS ref. That was a clear violation of wp:v.

My edit summary stated: "d uncited per wp:v". I thus stated a concern that it violated wp:v, and by turning to wp:v we understand that to be a concern that "there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable." (it is fine to link to the language; we don't have to repeat it in the edit summary if there is an appropriate link to it). The material was wholly uncited.

As to whom the "burden" is on vis-a-vis such material, wp:v states, inter alia: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Since you restored the wholly uncited material, that burden was on you, and you failed to comply with your burden.

Please stop edit-warring, making restorations in complete violation of wp:v. Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

the fact that I ignored your outrageous behaviour on Ecuador does not mean that I agree with your interpretation. The burden lies with you to explain why this material is being challenged. And not everything requires a reference, therefore citing WP:v is just creating a circular argument. drive-by {{cn}} additions at the end of every incited paragraph is plain disruptive if you have no knowledge of the underlying material. There are plenty of clarification templates available if something doesn't make sense. But if you are going to delete, you need to state why you are challenging the material and hiding behind WP:v doesn't cut the mustard. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've stated quite clearly both here -- in my immediate above post, for example -- and days ago in prior tp discussion, that my challenge is per wp:v, and more specifically that it is my concern that "there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable," and pointed to the fact that the material was wholly uncited.

And pointed to the fact that your repeated restorations of such uncited challenged material violate directly wp:burden -- for, in contrast to your unsupported assertion immediately above, wp:burden does in fact clearly require that any material you would like to restore which is uncited and challenged does most certainly require an inline RS citation ... which, of course, you continue to fail to provide. Despite my having pointed this out to you many times this month, in a series of edit summaries, posts to your talk page, and posts to article talk pages. Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And as I've told you, that argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If there is something wrong with the content, state what that is. else move on. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Atlas-maker, you are unequivocally wrong. Now that the material has been challenged, an inline citation is required. Do not restore the material without an inline citation again.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Atlas-maker...you want a rational for the removal... OK... I challenge whether the material is accurate. I don't need to explain why I challenge the accuracy of the statement... it is enough that I do question it. Now... prove to me that the material in question actually is accurate, by providing a source per WP:BURDEN. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So is this accurate enough for you? 46.208.91.60 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No idea how an observer is supposed to know which roof belongs to whom, or how a map could support " includes a Christian Brothers monastery which also houses a number of retired Brothers who have served in various other schools".—Kww(talk) 21:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Kww... Google maps verifies that a building exists at those coordinates, but it does not verify that a) the school includes a Christian Brothers monastery or b) that this supposed monastery houses an number of retired Brothers who have served in various other schools. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Having just proved its not inaccurate, now you want verification? You have challenged wheteher the material is accurate. I have proved that it is. At least part of it. You were wrong in asserting it was inaccurate. Just as Epeefleche was wrong. Verification is a totally different thing to accuracy. The content is accurate. It might be difficult to verify it using reliable sources. But it is accurate. The challenge was inaccurate, not the content. Peace. 87.115.9.199 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Having just proved its not inaccurate..." Um, in what way did you "prove" that the statement is not inaccurate? I have yet to see a source that "proves" the accuracy of the statement. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr/Ms IP -- Thank you for appearing here, with your first edits ever under this IP address.

As Atlas-maker (who has just recently been blocked, immediately before your appearance here, but whose arguments you echo) has pointed out when it suited Atlas (though not here) "It is really important that all articles and content are properly referenced. I'm quite sure that the content you are adding is really good quality accurate content, but it also needs to be sourced." Atlas thought that a good rule of thumb when Atlas was the one challenging material. But, from the above, not when others challenged material that Atlas was partial to.

Where, as here, the content has been challenged (here, by a number of editors), it can be restored, but only if supported by an RS inline cite "that directly supports the contribution" (see wp:burden). Which, I agree with KWW and Blueboar, is not the case with the proferred ref. Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So what was your challenge here? That the content was inaccurate? You're not a very good judge of inaccurate content, are you? 31.185.132.32 (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello IP # 2. I see this is your first edit ever, under this IP address. Are you also IP # 1? And perhaps Atlas? You all sound the same. Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• N.B. -- Atlas has been blocked for edit warring here, and blocked further for block evasion with the above IPs. Epeefleche (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

I have marked the entry for Niall Andrews in the past pupils list as {{dubious}}. I can't find any mention of him attending Synger anywhere. I have also added Noel Andrews who is a past pupil and I wonder if it was initially a transcription error that added Niall? 84.92.209.116 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The necessity for citations in the lead

There have now been 2 challenges to the summary wording used in the lead to cover the school's involvement with the Young Scientists. As far as I am concerned, the relevant section is extremely well sourced and rather than taking the citations from there and placing them in the lead, it might be better to come to a consensus on a more acceptable form of words in the lead. I'm quite happy that the current wording in the lead accurately summarises and reflects the contents of that section. But others may have a different view. Perhaps they would like to propose an alternative wording? CalzGuy (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)