Talk:Spire of Dublin

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spire of Dublin. 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://archive.is/20080705180117/http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/northcity/oconnell_street/spire_competition/introduction.html to http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/northcity/oconnell_street/spire_competition/introduction.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) 06:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Information was Missing

Reception restored

At the time of writing (February 2018) the article was missing any Controversy or Reception[1] information except for Award nominations (no wins) which was giving undue weight to something people have mixed feelings about. WP:NPOV requires balance, and WP:RS means they should be reliably sourced, it does not mean an article must not include any opinions at all and deny reality. The long discussion about Controversy on this page above was ignored and the article failed to include any of it, and frankly the article was a whitewash. Dead links and linkrot are only an excuse, but it is difficult to take deletions in good faith when sources can be restored thanks to the Web Archive and other properly sourced opinions can easily be found in Irish newspapers. I have restored an old bit of information about the Reception and restored the source using an archived link. (The above mentioned nicknames for the Spike are another indicator of how some feel about the monument, but I'm not going to spend time trying to restore the nicknames to the article although there are good arguments to include them.) [1] I think Reception is more appropriate and Neutral compared to Controversy.

Criticism of the monument is ongoing:

• When it was erected it was claimed that the monument would be "self cleaning", a 2012 article in the Irish Independent complains that cleaning costs reached €2.1 million
  • earlier 2007 article about maintenance costs
  • 2015 article again about maintenance, lights restored after months of darkness and monument lit with Green Light for St. Patricks day.
• 2010 article about former architect turned comic author critical of the spire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.217.76 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• A 2013 article discusses the problem with the problem with the spire suggesting various reasons why people don't much like the monument.
• In 2015 the monument was decorated and lit up to resemble a lightsaber to promote Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The article notes that London charged Disney for a similar stunt in Trafalgar square.
  • A followup article criticizes the Star Wars stunt and characterizes it as money lost

These details dont necessarily need to be mentioned in the encyclopedia article about the monument but they clearly indicate ongoing interest and repeated criticism about the monument. This was only a quick check of the Irish Independent to find a few examples, the Irish Times would have similar stories too (partially paywalled), as would many smaller smaller publications. The article absolutely must include some of this information, and admit people have mixed feelings about the monument. Anything else is undue positive bias, and older versions of this article lacking any opinions were a whitewash.

People of the future: if you are reading this and if the article is again missing Reception information please check the article history for this date and help restore the necessary information to the article. -- 109.77.217.76 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, People of the future; restore the quote from world reknown architectural critic Mary Kenny. Spleodrach (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

At the time I read the article there was no negative comments or nicknames mentioned, none, of any kind. The article only mentioned that the monument had been nominated for several awards.

I was so very disappointed by the article I almost got angry but instead I used a slightly silly phrasing to encourage others to make sure the article remains balanced and neutral. The people of Dublin have different (mostly indifferent) opinions about the monument so the article MUST include Points of View, both positive and negative. The article need not include a long list of criticism but if it is it to be fair or even neutral, it must acknowledge and include at least some negative commentary, as to do otherwise gives undue weight to the few positives of this white elephant. -- 109.79.174.59 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)