Talk:2009 Bank of Ireland robbery

Context?

I disagree that the circumstances described in the Context section is relevant. Just as important would be the day's football results. I have cut and paste the section here:

Main article: 2008–2009 Irish banking crisis

Further information: [[:Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy]]

The robbery followed a crisis of confidence in Ireland public finance sector. The country's third largest bank, Anglo Irish Bank, is subject to an ongoing controversy over hidden loans carried out by Sean FitzPatrick and had to be nationalised in January 2009. Allied Irish Bank and the Bank of Ireland itself have also been subject to recent recapitalisations of €3.5 billion each. These incidents have led to a number of resignations within the financial sector and government approval ratings have dropped to record levels, as industrial action was seen for the first time in two decades the day before this record robbery.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like WP:SYNTH to me. The sources make no mention of the bank robbery, as it hadn't taken place yet. We can't just make the connection ourselves. Grsz¹¹ 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not so much a connection as informing the reader that the country has gone down the tubes rather rapidly... there is no sentence which states "this robbery might have happened because..." --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Robbery section

The text is verbose, confused and in some cases irrelevant. Do we really need to know that the boy was collected because his parents were enroute to a holiday in Spain?! In addition it is extremely hard to read and make sense of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.202.122 (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... it would be why he was involved yes. He wouldn't have been there if they hadn't been leaving the country... so it's hardly a trivial matter... --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor assessment

An assessment must stand on its own. That an assessor has a good reputation is of no import. If you assess you must say how the article can be improved. Do not remove the assessment of the assessment. If that goes then so must the assessment itself. Please just say what must be done to improve the article. Thanks. Then the assessment of the assessment as being of poor quality can be removed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which project assessment are you complaining about? Concerning the Ireland WikiProject template, I placed that template and made the assessments. The article is better than a stub or a start class and a C-class, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Quality scale is defined as: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup and that seems to sum up the current state of the article. Regarding the importance class I rated it as a "low" because it is notable, as are all wiki article by their very nature, but it has yet to attain any long term standing due to it being a contemporary story. BTW, there is no need to say how or what must be done to improve it unless the assessor wishes to add to his assessment. Improvements are up to the page editors though I am happy to give a personal opinion if asked AND if I have sufficient knowledge of the topic in question. Tagging articles is essentially a project housekeeping task to try and track articles within its domain and the assessments themselves are totally subjective though some projects do assign assessments by consensus. If we were to do that we would never get anything constructive done. Many articles are tagged with project templates without any assessment being made. ww2censor (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get something constructive done, do something constructive. Who does anyone think they are to "assess" an article by just giving it a star rating? and to do so practically anonymously? without offering reasons for the assessment? It is artist vs critic but here the critic cannot even be bothered to offer a critique. I think that behaviour is ugly. Who set you up in judgement? Who are you to say I cannot assess your assessment? You can dish it up but you cannot take it. Go edit an article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I removed your initial attempt at undermining ww2censor, whose assessment credentials I do not doubt – we tend to operate in unison, due to our paths crossing on a regular basis. I am a frequent editor of articles and actually created this one. I found it somewhat ironic that you removed a section of this article based upon your opinion but then removed ww2censor's assessment because it was too opinionated. Can you please clarify this as I'm a little confused? I realise you had a issue and placed the removed content on the talk page but would it not have been more appropriate to point it out first rather than remove it? Also a C is not that bad at all – it can hardly go much further unless it is nominated for GA. I wouldn't classify it as a stub either... so what do you think it should be? P.S. Thank you for standing up for me – the artist ;)--Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel tempted to patronise and explain how WP works. All I have done is operate how an editor (i.e. a creator of the encyclopedia, not a critic) is supposed to behave. I have acted boldly, I have explained what I have done, and I have even copied the deleted section to the Talk page as one of the WP guidelines suggests. What I have not done is "undermine ww2censor". I have nothing against him, or you, personally. In my view many of the assessments being handed out are against well established WP practise. And they are certainly happening in contravention of the advice contained in the very templates being inserted willy-nilly into the articles as supposed assessments. I care not one jot about the good reputation of he or you but of the quality of the articles. There are artists and critics. You and he, when acting as critics, do not even have the good grace to pass on any critique. It's simply Caeser's thumb, up or down. No reasoning is recorded anywhere. You are not contributing, at best you are meta-contributing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I cannot recall an article which I have rated or assessed in any way that you describe. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, good. But as the assessments are unsigned (despite being the "work" and the opinion of but one unqualified "editor") it is not immediately apparent who it is who is tagging the articles. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And you do this again now. You say you do not like what I am doing in my edits to the article but you decline to say what it is I am doing which is counterproductive or which is against the guidelines. No, you don't like it and that is good enough. No, it isn't. Put up or shut up. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And it seems some assessors can dish it out but can't take it. We're supposed to stand idly by while some punks graffiti the talk pages with their unreasoned, unjustified (or at least UNDOCUMENTED) unthinking value judgements of our hard work. Then, when I say I think the assessments are themselves poor they squeal like stuck pigs. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Psb777 misunderstands the purpose of assessment - it is only a quick way for a WikiProject to track how an article is evolving, as part of the collection of 22635 articles being watched by the project. A WikiProject with a few active members can not be expected to provide detailed reviews on 22635 articles. An assessment is not intended to be a thorough review, nor a critique of someone's work. If you think it is a "close to perfect article" and you want a review, then it should be taken to WP:GAN to be examined for GA status, or to the WP:Ireland talk page if you believe it to be A-Class. If you think assessments are a waste of time, then ignore them, but many people find them useful and therefore choose to devote some of their time to assessment, as is their right.

I have no objection to any person or any body of self-appointed group of people keeping track of articles they like, don't like or which (in their opinion) need improvement or a gold star. That it is convenient to do so by prominently placing their official-looking, bold, big, brightly-coloured real-estate grabbing posters at the top of the Talk page. If they, or anyone, what to add a section (to the then bottom!) of the Talk page saying, simply, "Hey! I like this page" (or whatever), that's fine. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But why wouldn't they keep lists of articles grouped into their own peculiar categories on their own Talk pages? Or on the club page of the "WikiProject"? Because they are not merely keeping a list. They want us to be swayed by their opinions. Why else would they exhibit their opinions in the way that they do? Effectively they are creating a false impression about the importance of their assessments by the way they present them. And, now, by complaining about the assessments of their assessments! Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Who do these assessors think they are, prominently screaming their unreasoned opinions about the quality/importance of an article at the rest of us. Casual visitors to WP cannot help but gain the impression that these assessment templates are more than I know and you know they are. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And who do you think you are are, with your trolling and cheap insults to other editors? Don't put up, just shut up. Physchim62 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a WP editor who gets annoyed by big bold brash official looking unreasoned assessments graffitoed onto the top of the talk pages of articles to which I have contributed. I deny my insults are cheap, I have gone to great lengths and significant effort to explain what I think is wrong. You insist on taking my generalised (but reasoned) criticism personally and you revert with an unreasoned and personal attack. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

---

However, I think it would be unlikely to pass either of these reviews, because it is unclear at this early stage what a "complete" article should be on such a recent event. For similar reasons, assessments on recent events can be expected to be fairly conservative (especially when WP:BLP issues are involved) and I would support that (here I speak not as a subject content expert, but as someone involved in writing and setting up the 1.0 assessment scheme). I think the article is reasonably well written and it seems to cover the main topics I would expect to see, but as a recent event I think a C-Class is warranted at this early stage. Given the good referencing from newspaper stories, I do think it should be quite easy (once the event becomes "history") to turn this article into a GA, or even an FA as was done with Virginia Tech massacre, with some work.

I think the usual thing here would be to request help here on this talk page - something along the lines of "I've added what I can, what still needs to be done?". If that fails, go to the [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland]] page and request help from others - we do this at WP:Chem all the time, and frequently colleagues pitch in and help. The basis of Wikipedia is a spirit of cooperation, and a belief that a fresh pair of eyes will see new things. Hope this helps, Walkerma (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Psb777, there is a small team working to release a DVD with around 13,000 articles, that hopefully provide good coverage of all topics, like countries, animals, history, people. To assist the job, it requires automated tools, so that at a glance articles that are important but poorly written, or that are well written but less important, can be juggled into the mix. The assessment tags are critical for these automated tools. Perhaps the template should be modified to make it less prominent ? The bottom would be a bad place to put it, and I don't think it should be invisible, but maybe floating top-right ? Wizzy…☎ 13:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The "small team" may (or may not) ever get around to releasing the DVD. But how are they going to choose what articles to include. By looking at the assessments! But as I have pointed out and as no one in discussion with me denies: The assessments are, in the very great majority, entirely unreasoned. We have self-appointed assessors who react quite agressively when their unreasoned assessments are challenged in any way, they are setting themselves above the rest of us by saying what is good enough to go into Wikipedia 1.0. No! It's plainly ridiculous that this is going on. (Your suggestion to make the assessments less prominent addresses one of my more minor concerns, and is welcome, but does not address the issue of the official-seeming, practically anonymous, almost always unreasoned, assessment of the worth of articles.) Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

how are they going to choose what articles to include? By looking at the assessments!. Exactly. A start must be made somewhere. And .. let us say that the assessments get 'vandalised' (a more extreme form of your anon, unreasoned, but lets just call a spade a spade). Well, we have to live with it. Most people just ignore the template, so vandalism is not much of a problem. Can't we just ask you to ignore it ? Wizzy…☎ 08:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

When I put a notice before an assessment describing what the assessment actually is, saying exactly what you agree it is, a one-person, unsubstantiated, undocumented assessment, then that is not vandalism. When I remind the reader that their own assessment is just as valuable as the assessment they see before them, then that is not vandalism. When that person disagrees with an assessment and (prompted by me or not) changes it, then that is not vandalism. How can you misrepresent it so? Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that what you were doing (or the assessment) was vandalism. I was just taking (anon|unreasoned) to its wiki limit. Wizzy…☎ 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment tags: I've made this point: these are worthless because they are unreasoned and therefore unreviewable as the best anyone ever does is replace them with a different but similarly unjustified tag! Another point: There is no need for the collection of info to from prominent official-looking assessments: you acknowledge that. But there is NO NEED for a WikiProject's assessment data to be on the pages at all! They could have a page of assessment data on their own project (sub-?)page. And they could use templates there to help them gather the stats that someone said to me that the use of templates enable. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They could have a page of assessment data on their own project (sub-?)page. I suppose they could. However, quite a bit of work has been put in to the present system. It generates output like this using this selection criteria, which is one step on the way to ensuring good coverage on the released DVD. I put these DVDs in to schools that have no internet access, and it is an instant hit, and widens the appreciation of the wikipedia project. I am not a template guru - someone else did all that stuff, and I don't know how it could be converted. Wizzy…☎ 10:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What we have now is being defended on the basis that there can be or could be no better way of doing what is said to be necessary. When I suggest other valid ways I do so just to counter that notion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How about making a change to the assessment template itself, rather than creating a new 'challenge' template ? Something short, perhaps along the lines of Assessment identifies articles in need of improvement. It is for guidance only within that wikiproject. Even shorter, perhaps ? Wizzy…☎ 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to other articles

The links to the articles on the Volkswagen Golf and Toyota Celica seem a bit out of place. Any thoughts? Mattbondy (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the entire point of Wikipedia, to have links that point everywhere. Grsz¹¹ 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are probably many who are unfamilar with these names. I, for one, am not a car fanatic. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Such is the ways of Wikipedia. The Squicks (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to call attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links which was the basis for my comment. Mattbondy (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

High Court

Update needed. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

The article shouldn't include any more personal details than are strictly necessary. Let's not forget that most of the people mentioned here are notable only for this one event. Physchim62 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection for vandalism

Would it be necessary? The Squicks (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Colombian drug cartel

This article claims the robbery was motivated by a debt to the Colombian cartel. No mention? Grsz¹¹ 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Bank of Ireland robbery. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304123157/http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0227/timeline.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0227/timeline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)