Talk:Aghada

Obscure source

The book

THROUGH THE MIST OF TIME Memories of the past from Whitegate, Aghada, Saleen, Roches Point, Guileen etc. Compiled by Whitegate/Aghada Historical Society

has been proposed as a source for the claim that the village is nicknamed "Andrew Meaghers Playboy Mansion". That book is not available at the Library of Congress, the Irish National Library or at Amazon. People at the reliable sources noticeboard argued that the book probably isn't published by an established publisher with a reputation for editorial oversight, making it not a reliable source, and that, besides, even if the nickname could be verified, it would be too trivial to mention in this rather short article. I agree with those opinions and therefore have once again removed the nickname. Huon (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

therefore delete it - if in doubt, cut it out ClemMcGann (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you write to the Litho Press, Midleton,Co Cork,Rep. of Ireland. I am sure they will fill you in on the price of the book and post and packaging. You can then order a copy from them to inform your self of the history of Aghada. Like the motto by the way Clem, but if you read this book it verifies the story of the libertine Andrew Meagher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.96.3 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. We cannot ask our readers to write to a printing service (is it even a publisher?) in Ireland to verify the existence of a book which they would then have to buy in order to verify the article's content. That's not what WP:V means by "verifiable". If the only source for this nickname is a book which is almost impossible to obtain, it's too insignificant a detail. Huon (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touche Mr Huon, but its not the only source, "Down Paths of Gold" by Pat Fitzgerald "AGHADA More Echoes From The Past" Whitegate/Aghada Historical Society These are a to name only a couple of books which tell the story of Andrew Meagher and Aghada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.96.3 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald's book is actually known to the National Library. It is self-published, meaning there was no editorial oversight and it is not a reliable source. The other book is just as unavailable as the first one. Huon (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: Wikipedia is not about truth, but about what readers can verify in reliable sources. And reliable sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", while "self-published media [...] are largely not acceptable." That makes the sources you gave not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huon listen to yourself "Wikipedia is not about truth". Just leave our humble village alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.49.1 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was an almost literal quote from one of Wikipedia's core policies, WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Huon (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," Truth may not be important to your kind, but it is to us. You cannot quench our people's thirst for the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.49.1 (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Ignoring Wikipedia's core policies will get you nowhere except blocked for disruptive eding. Huon (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can block me but when I fall my sword of justice and truth will be raised once more by my comrade behind me, and when he falls the comrade behind him. We will not be silenced, we will not just go away, we will fight for the truth for as long as it takes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.185.55 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "sources provided on the talk page" is not sufficient. The sources would have to be added to the article proper. I would do so myself, but for the second problem: These sources are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. There probably was no editorial oversight; one is self-published outright. That all but the self-published one aren't even known to the Irish National Library just shows that they are insignificant, and they cannot be used by readers to verify the nickname. Huon (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I think you are assuming a little too much good faith here. This is a bunch of local boys trying to play a joke on their friend Andrew Meagher by adding his name to a Wikipedia page. We've seen this before. I don't intend to waste any more time pretending that they are serious. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aghada. 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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 14:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Guliolopez (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confused structure/topic

This entry appears to be about the village of Aghada but half of it then focuses on the eponymous parish. The title could use a clarification as to which is the focus. Rickogorman (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In terms of:

Scope. Many (many) articles on Irish towns and villages are scoped to include both the village and (often eponymous) civil parish in which they stand. I, personally, do not see any issue with this article (also) covering both the village and civil parish. Having separate articles, for the village and civil parish, would seem unnecessary.
Removing Scarleigh. I agree with this removal. Not least as the townlands of Scartlea Lower and Scartlea Upper are actually in the civil parish of Garranekinnefeake. Per related sources.
Confused structure. In all honesty I think that the content is complex because the reality is complex. Rostellan, for example, while separate from Aghada for administrative purposes, is combined with Aghada (and Farsid) for census purposes. If anything needs clarification (based on the sources), then we should absolutely try and improve the clarity of the text. But, to confirm, we shouldn't over simplify (to the extent that reality isn't reflected)...

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]