User talk:RashersTierney/Archive 2

Alfred Denning, Baron Denning

Thanks for your contributions here :). I'm trying to get it up to Featured Article status, so I'd be grateful for anything else you can add in. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your endeavors to reach FA status. Happy to help if something comes my way. RashersTierney (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Damian Draghici

A tag has been placed on Damian Draghici requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

'Person of color' page

Hey, I just noticed your contribution to the body of the article. I actually mistook your addition for vandalism when I was reverting another edit, and for that I apologize! (By the way, I made a minor change to your addition to include the word 'not' which seemed to be accidentally omitted from the sentence "The following peoples are considered people of color" in your section 'List of peoples not of color'.) I definitely understand the purpose of your addition, but I was wondering if a "list of people who aren't of color" is actually necessary? I am not questioning your intention or motives, because I see some potential with what you have done (thank you for providing the excellent reference), I am just thinking it might be better to link your source in the first paragraph rather than adding another list? I guess I'm thinking that while it provides a very clear definition for the page (something which was definitely lacking, even with a correct 'List of peoples of color'), it could be improved? For example, if the footnote was placed following the first sentence (Person of color (plural: people of color) is a term used, primarily in the United States, to describe all people who are not white) it might be of even greater usefulness. I am not suggesting we throw out the idea of a new section altogether, but perhaps we can improve upon the current one/list? Thanks for the contribution (very helpful) and consideration! --Tweeheart (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either section is really necessary. The idea that this phrase should be moved to the wictionary makes sense. The article only has value in explaining the words, rather than outlining the attributes of a particular a group. RashersTierney (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

We should discuss this on the British Empire talk page. I accept the current source doesnt mention that they are outside the British Isles, but this is fact and the source lists the overseas territories which are indeed outside the British Isles so i do not think its synthesis as it still has the same meaning. I dont object to a re wording of the section, but right now it doesnt mention the crown dependenices at all, so its good to say outside the British Isles to avoid confusion. Apart from the fact it does not exactly match what the ref says, i do not see the big problem with use of the term British Isles there. Anyway if you really do think this needs to be changed, the place to raise it is on the talk page as your change has been reverted by another editor before as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference was never intended as a cite for "outside the British Isles", as this is patently true. (Here is a Parliamentary publication that also uses the phrase "outside the British Isles", to refer to (Bermuda), "the oldest legislature in the Commonwealth outside the British Isles". The intent behind the use of the phrases is exactly the same: as a way to geographically distinguish.) BTW, I added the reference for the "14" claim, because an editor changed 14 to 13, I think on the basis of his view that the British Antarctic Territory is not actually British (that is another issue that may require rewording). But, if you want to discuss this further, please take it the BE talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand why you changed the ref from one that was immediately accessible to one that isn't. The term British Isles is not necessary and I really don't see why the determination to have it included, as you must know its use is contentious. RashersTierney (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A House of Commons publication is a better reference than the "way back machine", and besides the article has been through a length review to get to FA status, which included ensuring all the way the reference are cited adheres to Wikipedia's manual of style (your change broke that). Finally, the page in question is there for all to see in Google Books, so I don't know why you say it is not accessible. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I had highlighted the fact that the ref link was broken some time ago, but nobody seemed too concerned about fixing it much less adhering to the highest standards of referencing, at least not until I made the ref in question available again. RashersTierney (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that would have been clearer if you used talk pages rather than edit summaries to get your points across. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:In the name....

You said "nothing more than product placement", indicating that you thought that whoever added it (me) was doing so only to advertise the bookie. Perhaps in the future, you should avoid making such unfounded accusations without knowing who you are actually accusing. If the statement was based on a Paddy Power press release, then I would agree with you. However, it was covered by multiple reliable third party sources in multiple countries, including Forbes [1], the Irish Independent [2], MarketWatch [3] and Canadian Online Explorer [4]. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very effective self promotion by the company. How do you think these media outlets picked up on the storey if not through press releases from Paddy Power. These novelty bets are exactly how it advertises itself, and being complicit in this methodology does little for the credibility of Wikipedia as an independent encyclopaedic source. RashersTierney (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you remove it because it is like an ad, wouldn't the mention of Guinness also have to be removed (in fact, one could say the entire article is just an advertisement for The Simpsons)? When I was researching for the article, I noticed that quite a few minor sources had picked up on it, and very few other Simpsons episodes have actual had reputable bookies take bets on them (the only ones I can think of are Who Shot Mr. Burns? and There's Something About Marrying, and in the latter case, the article notes it) so that is rather notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to your judgement, but please remember that this article has huge interest in Ireland, and the manufactured advertising potential for the company (unlike scripted products) is enormous. The issue is one of the cynical use free media advertising, and by extension Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Personally I won't fall out with an established editor over this, whatever your decision. RashersTierney (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

RE : Thank you

You are so welcome ;-) MaenK.A._Talk 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rajasthan

Hi. Your post came just after I had logged off. I noticed the change on this one page I have on my watchlist, but I see that it's been going on all around; kudos for the reverts - that sort of editing is one of my major peeves. Dahn (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

just a heads up about Stanton Station

I don't mean to "step on your toes" but due to the legal risks associated with copyright violations I went ahead and added a speedy deletion notice to this page rather than let the PROD you put there handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your assessment perfectly justified. RashersTierney (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, I just noticed you appropriated the hierarchy of disagreement from my talk. I love that chart. If you didn't mean to make your whole talk page into larger print, add {{/big}} at the end of the lead section. (I did the exact same thing when I made the lead of my talkpage bigger!) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Should have run it by you before 'acquiring' it. Its great advice, and nicely presented. RashersTierney (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In the name of the Grandfather

One reference confirms the joke is in the episode. The other verifies that it is a tune in a song. You are putting them together to come to a conclusion that is not specifically stated in either source. That is basically original research (See WP:SYNTH for more). It should stay out unless a citation that expressly states it's being referenced is provided (that's why it's a cultural references section). Otherwise, it's just going into unnecessary detail about a very loosely related fact. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the article we have "The airline "Derry Air" references Derry, the second largest city in Northern Ireland." when evidently it more directly references the song 'Derry Air' (more widely known as 'Danny Boy' from its first line) and not the city directly. No OR or Synth . RashersTierney (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, where is your reference that directly says that then? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The song is called the 'Derry Air' and the airline is called Derry Air'. Evidence for what exactly? If anything, linking the airline to the city rather than the song constitutes OR. RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's making assumptions based on original research and WP:SYNTH. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Have it your own way. If you are not prepared to engage, don't pretend otherwise. 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)RashersTierney (talk)

Here's the thing, it's not my own way. It's as policy dictated. I see cultural references all the time that are obvious to me but I can't add to a page because of policy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This entire storm in a tea cup could be resolved if the link to Derry, the city. was not made. It is a mistake ( and poorly referenced) and so diverts attention from the clearly intentional joke reference to the song. I agree, it is cultural, but to ignore it is to ignore the joke, or else take a position that 'in order for there to be a reference to a joke, there must be a systematic deconstruction of the joke in a reputable reference'. That would just be Wikilawyering to the nth degree. The ref in the Derry Journal is clearly playing to a local audience in making the city connection. Its a ref, but a bad one. RashersTierney (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I started the quarrel by my original edit, can I comment? In musical circles, Danny Boy and the Derry Air are well known. The Simpsons episode was clearly researched carefully by the producers, and contains a large number of accurate Irish references, which indicate some knowledge of modern Ireland. It deliberately targeted some Americans' old-fashioned image of the country, by showing a highly caricatured view of the modern state that actually exists.

To resolve the edit war, could I suggest that you agree to insert "This may have been a reference to the Derry Air (or Londonderry Air), the tune to which the popular Irish song Danny Boy is sung." Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you believe the source misinterpreted the reference, how about the mention of Derry be removed all together? Would that be an acceptable conpromise? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The tune 'Danny Boy/Derry Air' is also part of the score, so mention of the song rather than the city is preferable, and more in keeping with the script. RashersTierney (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, and not worth an edit war. However, I suspect you will find other people will make a similar edit in future, believing you have omitted a very obvious cultural reference. What's worse, they may think it's a pun on derriere, and miss the better one. However, certainly the reference to Derry city alone should not remain, unless accompanied by a Derry Air musical note.Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Even worse, we could be inviting the whole Derry/Londonderry naming dispute here. God forbid! RashersTierney (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called the Londonderry air actually. Anyone calling it anything other than this or Danny Boy is very incorrect --De Unionist (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) If you used the terminology Derry Air in public they would think you were talking about the air quality over the Foyle. --De Unionist (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) A blocked sock

The joke relies on the (London)derry air and the word 'Derriere', otherwise it's about as funny as Simon & Garfunkel travelling with "Scarboroughf Air". Use of "London" would have been confusing to a U.S. audience. It's not the first allusion to this pun (London Derriere)--Bogger (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Antiziganism

I was doing recent changes patrolling, and noticed an IP had added some unsourced content (see here). I did however know it had been reported, so sourced it . If you'd like to remove it for other editorial reasons, please do. For the record, Yahoo news contains syndicated stories from respected agencies - in this case Associated Press, so it is WP:RS. Removing the source and not the content though is a rather odd action if you don't mind me saying. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't spot previous edit, which was the primary reason for my revert (recent news as a section is untenable) and has now been removed. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs, and I've learnt a new word - what's the root of 'ziganism'? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Root comes from 'Zigeuner', German word relating to Romani people. I first came across the term about ten years ago (only 4 yrs. evidently, certainly seems much longer)at a conference in Hamburg when some academics were attempting to 'introduce' a term for racism directed specifically at Roma. I haven't checked when or by whom it was first used in Wikipedia, but it appears to have found some purchase. RashersTierney (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDunc^Talk 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

I agree with you that the Ireland article should be limited to geographical issues not political ones, which should be for the article about the state of Ireland. Aogouguo (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of Romania

Hi. I completely agree with removing the entire section - it's nonsense. If there's any perception of this issue to be quoted, it needs to be integrated into a larger narrative, as either part of the history section or some other to be developed. As such, the info it provides is beyond salvation (for both bias and recentism), but the simple facts it discusses did obtain some recognition, and significant opinions regarding the Romani people as a whole did emerge from that mess (they are significant, even if most are objectionable). This interlocking mechanism is what's more frustrating about having to edit the article, particularly since some notable stuff is seasoned here and there among the bad faithed accounts and the attempts at comparing them with with other stuff - a process which has resulted in unwitting equivocation.

The issue of "image of Romania" is a can of worms, because the very concept seems to only refer to projections many Romanians (some wikipedia editors included) make about their own society. For one, an entire section under that title, no matter what it says, will feed the notion that there really is a connection between the Romani people and "the image" other than the Romanian imaginary.

This says more about Romania's sinuous relationship with the West than about the recent Romani departures (which is itself part of a larger exodus of Romanian citizens). It also shows, on any level, some issues inherent to Romania: for example, that the mainstream Romanian discourse shares a lot with extremist discourse elsewhere. It is telling that Romanians seem to have partly rejoiced when foreign racists identified Romanian emigrants with Romani people, implicitly because it "validated" negative views of the Romani people as a whole, and explicitly because it allowed them to amend the idea rather than challenge it - "it's the Romani people that do the bad, Romanian immigrants who are not Romani people are good blah blah". In a fully civilized society, this would have raised alarm about the majority's willingness to integrate or even respect a minority with which they share citizenship, but the typical Romanian response was to claim: that the foreign media should not identify Romanian citizens with Romanian ethnics (when in fact the that foreign media referred to citizenship, as was both natural and appropriate), that all cases of crime where owed to the "Gypsies" and that Europe was catching up to what we knew all along (even when, realistically speaking, all sorts of Romanians have and have traditionally had prominent spots in most categories of pan-European crime), and then, paradoxically, that the sporadic attacks exercised by foreigners against nomadic communities (who are presumably mostly Romani) are in fact targeting Romanians... For someone with fully developed brains who had to live through this hype while in Romania, it was a most disgusting spectacle - but, then again, not a day goes without this sort of nonsense.

I don't recall much of anything about the report mentioned in your source, except to say that it is probably hogwash. In any case, whatever it was, it and the respective commission are long buried. But I think the same commission might just be the one who financed the album mentioned by your source in the next phrase (the text doesn't make it clear). If this is truly the case, then they are probably the same to have been later indicted for corruption and derailing state funds on this very issue - where the money trail led to a political client of the Social Democrats. The repercussions of this still form part of an inquiry involving some Social Democratic politicians. Talk about image...

In short, a separate section on that can't avoid but to lead the reader on the path of some editor's original assumption, no matter how rephrased. I say we need to show it the door, and revisit the complicated events in a more comprehensive and restructured overview of the facts and claims. Dahn (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But my experience tells me that this sort of reaction goes hand in hand with absenteeism, and ends up feeding the mechanism it criticizes. But I shouldn't be so grim, because I do agree with the spirit of your point: there really is another more enjoyable side to Romania. It is the tolerant side (in fact, it is often the devil-may-care side), which may annoy with its own shortcomings, but which is very enjoyable and much more interesting. And it does also involve a huge and fascinating capacity for wit, satire and self-reflection, which you'll find has its roots with Ion Luca Caragiale and Urmuz, and recently with Corneliu Porumboiu et al. And partly as an aspect of this, search for "ruining Romania's image abroad" in this article and "respect his nation" in this one, for just a glimpse into how far and how far back the debate extends and how it affects Romanians themselves. Dahn (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Btw, if it's possible, please "ping" me with short messages on my talk page if are more comfortable with replying here. I have a huge watchlist, and the opposite would imply checking this page's edit history every time I log in. Dahn (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the elaboration of your ideas and links, which are, as always, highly illuminating. My first introduction to Romanian satire was in the Winter of 1992, in a small rented apartment not far from Piaţa Unirii. At that time I had just arrived for the first time in the country and was taking my first tentative steps in learning the language. The very trusting owners (who had never met me personally), had left all their personal possessions in their usual places, showing a level of trust for which I felt very honoured. On a very extensive book cabinet, with translations in Romanian of the classics of world literature, (quite beyond my ability then), I found a little book called Acum nu e momentul by Mihai Stanescu. It was a seminal discovery for me. With my little dictionary I found I could get many of the jokes, and those that required 'local knowledge', my gradually increasing circle of new-found student friends provided with pleasure. In that little book I felt was a steely spirit of resistance. It was in such stark contrast to the bleak surroundings of daily life and the (for me) intolerable interruptions of water and electricity' roving packs of half-wild dogs, the tired shuffle of workers returning home in the dark to the side-streets off the Piata. But the elaborations of my 'interpreters' showed that they too shared that same sense of 'dignified subversion' as Stanescu.

I agree that self mockery can be a two-edged sword, but I think in this case it was much more positive than negative, and something I could and can relate to and tend to admire. RashersTierney (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anne Lovett

I see you're adding material - I've noticed that the spelling "Ann Lovett" gives more references and articles in googling. I'm not sure if the spelling the article was created under was a typo on my part or was unique to the articles I first found online. Autarch (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is serious ambiguity on the point of 'Ann' or 'Anne' from the usual sources. For the moment lets concentrate on retaining and expanding on the article where it is. It can easily be renamed if necessary. I cannot believe there is no extensive article on the person and the impact her death had on a new self reflection in the South. RashersTierney (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Irony?

I've no idea which. -- Evertype·✆ 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I read it as I saw it (which was unfavourably), but there was always the possibility that you both had some subtle thing going on elsewhere. The initial edit , at face value, looked like an unequivocal personal attack, and who needs that? RashersTierney (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm used to it. Would you consider weighing in [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#My_suggestion:_A_definition_statement_for_each_of_the_choices here]? (Dunno who the user is; no subtle thing going on.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)