Talk:CRH plc

Learn more about this page

Peacock terms

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was full of peacock terms (WP:PEACOCK) which I have stripped out. Phrases like

This is an especially great achievement as CRH had revenues of €1.3 billion less than ten years ago.

are not encyclopaedic. Please let the facts speak for themselves.

212.2.172.241 13:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Crh logo.gif

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:Crh logo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CRH plc. 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/20110519021238/http://www.moriarty-tribunal.ie/images/sitecontent_26.pdf to http://www.moriarty-tribunal.ie/images/SITECONTENT_26.pdf

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) 09:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on CRH plc. 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, 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) 14:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Removal request - sect. 4

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

I would like to Kindly ask the removal of the final section of CRH Plc., the no. 4, called “Controversy” as I do not think should be there for pseveral.

If such allegations were made public by the media, this shouldn’t allow users to report them on a virtual enciclopedia like Wikipedia. There is no purpose of knowledge or education, and so it is simply disturbing and unnecessary to display them.

As a financial contributor, reader, and supporter of this Website, I would expect more attention to the protection of certain information that might be also sensible or in any case generating an unfair situation between companies of the same field.

I thank you for your support and look forward to your comments.

Declined The request is declined for two reasons:

Edit requests must include specific instances of text which are to be either added or removed. These must be clearly delineated upon. Your request mentions "Controversy" section but offers no additional details about what is to be removed. If it was the entire section that was to be removed, see point #2 below.
The section you have proposed to delete is not minuscule, it is substantial in size. Anytime information of that size is proposed to be removed, there must be a clear consensus on its removal. One request does not equal consensus. Once this is achieved the request may be reopened. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fairness and Impartiality concerns

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Wikipedians, There is no consistency (at all) between all the Wikipedia pages. For instance, on the wiki page of the Royal BAM Group nothing is mentioned about their past controversies. Surely not because they have never faced an investigation or legal proceeding. Perhaps, is there any politics behind this choice? Or shall we work on making things better and less harmful for everybody? All the good people who currently work with the CRH Companies, and it’s a Group of huge dimensions, may feel jeopardized and intimidated by the description of the Group as provided by some Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is not only journalism, but is also information and education. Impartiality and consistency, aside from the respect to privacy, are the least it can promise to its users. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.11.240 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

In fact, Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as a place to publish journalism. It is instead an encyclopedia, which should be based on summarising reliable, published sources. It might be that other articles are underdeveloped, but that's not a reason to remove information from this article. If, however, there is material that is incorrect or does not comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, then it should be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic