Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:31, 15 August 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Trains: in UK Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090422064343/http://www.steamtrainsireland.com:80/carriages/dublin_vintage.html to http://www.steamtrainsireland.com/carriages/dublin_vintage.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over controversies section

The Controversies section is relatively new to the article. I see an ongoing edit war with Dining car, Craven O'Brakevan, and GalavantEnchancedMoon adding the text and an IP editor (I will send a notification about this discussion on their talk page) removing it.

I do not think either side is acting in bad faith, so now is the time for all parties involved to engage in discussion on the talk page about whether or not to include the controversies. Please focus on Misplaced Pages policies including whether the information is reliably sourced and whether it is encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion.

If the edit warring continues without discussion, I will have no choice but to protect the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems fair - Im happy to discuss. Generally anything I put up is citated unless its general knowledge (as in Number 4 is one of the fleet etc) Ive had a look at similar pages with sections like this (Welsh Highland Railway Restoration is quite an extensive example of this). Maybe this is the format that should be followed? I would view AGM minutes and newspaper citations as reasonably reliable sources - can we come to some sort of consensus around this or what do people think? --GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Accurate or not the vast majority of this information is not remotely notable or encyclopaedic in nature, and should be removed.Pipsally (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have taken out some of the bits that arent relevant. The rest is fairly well sourced(I see in the edits somebody suggested it wasnt controversy, I doubt anyone would argue that the culture of turning a blind to sex offenders isnt controversial GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

That there is a pattern is what kept it in. I've pared back a number of the items that are minutiae related to membership (failed bids for office, mass resignations, etc.). The level crossing blockage and signage seem significant enough to keep in. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

- with some hindsight I think the 2000 AGM is in the public interest here, as the reference here what could be interpreted as a corrupt election process (its obvious from reading these minutes that there was an attempt to avoid the person asking questions about missing money getting the Treasurer role. When you consider the amount of funding this organisation has receieved from public bodies it is perhaps of relevent to the general public I would say GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, once citated but I think it's best lay the facts as they are rather than interpret as conjecture (hence previous edit citation) Dining car (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But I would agree this is of public relevance as it relates to an organisation getting funds from national bodies Dining car (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A section of content was removed again today by someone or other who says it is vandalism. it's all content that is verified and discused here and we agree that it is relevant and of interest to the public. Just because some of it may look bad on doesn't mean it should be blocked or replaced or not recorded. The same point about the AGM in 2000. Its in their Minute Book that it happened so it should be said that it happened.Craven O'Brakevan (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the minutiae of what relates to membership is unclear. There's been several Directorship resignations of Safety critical staff, I do argue that this is of public relevance as they are a Train Operating Company interfacing on public rail networks. I would agree individual membership arguments and failed office bids are not relevant in of themselves though. I think it varies on case. Dining car (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dining car: Is there an external or independent source reporting on the resignations, or is the only source the self-published email bulletin? —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes the Companies Office and other press news announcements Dining car (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A members news letter or book or magazine or website from them should be a reliable source enough to say it happens. Most charity's send them out to their memebrs Craven O'Brakevan (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading this article overall it currently feels like a point scoring slogging match between Dublin and Whitehead. I am not impressed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any slagging..... GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be useful if your sources actually led anywhere... Most of the sources cited are either to FFT magazines with no mention of the controversy (ie irwin pryce) or don't have a verifiable article (ie Sunday world paul newell thing)

Beckettisanob (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

they do lead somewhere though, offline/print media is a perfectly valid source on Misplaced Pages, heavens knows there'd be a dearth of information without print sources here Diningcarriage (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think its important to point out the endorsement of Irwin Pryce was the fault of Whitehead, nothing to do with Dublin RPSI GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There was no objections so I put it in. It's very important to make sure people know the endorsing of sex offenders was not Dublin RPSI's fault but people at Whitehead's.GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@GalavantEnchancedMoon: I don't see anything in the cited magazine that either endorses Pryce or makes clear that it was Whitehead, not Dublin, that made any alleged endorsement. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The writer of the tribute article in the magazine was a Whitehead members, not Dublin GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@GalavantEnchancedMoon: What tribute article? I don't see any article in the referenced issue that mentions Pryce by name. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/38245737/five-foot-three-number-57-railway-preservation-society-of-ireland pg 52 GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@]: I cam unsure if the yumpu URL is in breach of copyright, but reading the "tribute" ... more strictly obituary, I personally am minded it is appropriate. Both the IRRS and RPSI have generally done obituaries for members of long standing. Obituaries are usually expected to be respectfully "appreciative" remember the positive aspect of the deceased. In this case their was vague reference to the deceased "personal problems" towards the end of the persons life as a suitable and respectful way of dealing with those matters. I therefore remained troubled. I remain concerned names have been specified and indirectly implied without appropriate tagging to this article talk page. I have no clue if there are anything other than "normal" Whitehead vs. Dublin disputes but I feel people with a vested interest are trying to bring it to this article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC) I don't think I'd agree there, imagine the BBC publishing an obituary for Rolf Harris, for example? Wouldn't be seen as acceptable. Diningcarriage (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: If people with a vested interest are bring their off-Wiki concerns to the article, this is a good time to remind people of WP:COI and its obligations for editors who are involved with the subject of an articles. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I was on the cusp of doing that anyway. I've added {{COI editnotice}} to the page and issued one {{Uw-coi}} to a user talk page; and will issue more if feel appropriate from this point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect COI may be at play with the removal of controversial info, with respect Djm-leighpark you seem very familiar with RPSI/IRRS processes, but objectively speaking there's no denying that the pattern of sex offenders within the subject of this article is a controversial matter.Diningcarriage (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have restored some of the controversy where citable (this excludes the Facebook group controversy which I think is conjecture). I see from above that this wasnt to be removed without discussion here yet DJMleighpark has taken upon themselves to remove, I agree the 'point scoring' has no place here Diningcarriage (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Diningcarriage: On a blp related matter the presumption is to privacy and initial removal and to a discussion if that should occur. I observe you are (currently) a WP:SPA and therefore new to this page, but I suspect you may have a conflict on interest, as to others on this page, and given the account names of previous contributors to this discussion your choice of username is unfortunately close to a previous contributor to the article, which while not wrong is perhaps unfortunate. On balance of all things going on it is probably the best choice. If I trawl through the Misplaced Pages help links my editing may be considered disruptive and if you feel so you may wish to flag me n my talk page as disruptive or talk me to WP:ANI. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my account is similar, I cannot find my login for DiningCar so have no problem in being transparent in saying it is me, no trickery intended. I do not believe the content is a 'minority view' (that the presence of multiple sex offenders in an organisation is a controversial), I also suspect there is a COI from yourself based on your familiarity with RPSI processes. Diningcarriage (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Diningcarriage: To be clear I am not and have never been an RPSI member (it is possible I might join later, but at this point I don't). I have been an IRRS member for an amount of time. I have edited multiple articles on Irish Railways per my contributions, usually pre-CIÉ and usually pre-1950. Because of the association of accounts and no answer to a {{uw-coi}} I am fully entitled to undo your reversion of my edit. Thank is not to say I will participate in an appropriate adjudication process on what may be added, but the current discussion has been sullied by undeclared COI editing. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Presumption to privacy and UNDUE

When names are being mentioned in respect to controversies the policy and the spirit of the policy WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy comes into play; sometimes because family members exist. There is also the case of WP:BLPTALK. For persons who are deceased BLP does not directly apply but BLPO does. And additions should be totally related to the article and be supported by fully RS non-sensationalist sources. And consensus gained here first before names are spread across the internet. Additionally content needs to be not WP:UNDUE within the context of the article, which at the moment is not in the greatest of shapes. If anyone has concerns over the RPSI's safeguarding then contact their safeguarding person (I assume they have one), the Guards/Police or Charities commission if necessary. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:Diningcarriage, please do not restore that content: it violates the policy on the biography of living people. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

All of the facts mentioned here are/were in the public domain which were reported in bonafide newspapers and other reputable media news desks and agencies. For you to prevent any mention of any negative news report about significant figures of the RPS is rendering this Misplaced Pages page to little more than a cheerleader troupe. What I am is a former patron of their trains; there's no axe to grind here.

Perhaps the best option then is to remove the names were still alive, and keep the controversies in Diningcarriage (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the COI declaration need, no I am not a member of the organisation RPSI Diningcarriage (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the sources are sensationalist - the Belfast Telegraph is a respected paper of record over here Diningcarriage (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Diningcarriage: In my view the best option is to stay clear of BLP/BLPO in an article like this. I've made that clear above. If you insist on re-adding then you take the consequences; technically you've probably in my opinion done enough to get blocked already and you are on thin ice, but the admins will alway be trying to find options other than blocking. It may be people feel I am being disruptive and using BLP to win an editorial argument (which is disruptive), if so seek advice on how to proceed or raise at the relevant notice board. Continuing this risks issues on WP:BLPTALK in my opinion. I would suggest invoking a formal dispute resolution process if you want to re-add content; I assure you I don't want to go down that route but if needs must. I may (note may) not comment further unless a formal dispute resolution is raised as I have RL. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Photo

We should probably have No.4 and 85 and 131 the loco picture to be up to date GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a good case for different set of images (without getting into image wars). There's only a limited number the page can stand so they need to show different aspects of the RPSI. One might, I repeat might, get away with a small image of each loco. on the table providing viewing from the mobile site is not disrupted. For other images its a case of good spread .... Its important to represent different aspects of the RPSI the (non-geek) viewer would like/expect to see and ideally illustrates something about the RPSI. So you need a steam, a diesel, a special (charter) train (There's really no shortage of pictures of RPSI charter trains!) and probably the Whitehead museum (I'd like ot get there one day). General thoughts in passing. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

COI

@Drmies: Sorry to trouble you. You placed a {{COI}} tag on the article at I would like to explore ways of removing it. Per the templates documentation: Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.. To be clear I don't want to simply remove the tag; I want to improve and source the article, preferably with a little more non primary information. I have had a challenge COI, which I believe I have reasonably refuted, but I wish to understand the problem. One technique to clear COI is to STUBIFY and rebuild but I dont want to do that here, I'd prefer to build a history section and a section for the Whitehead site/museum and work from there. (Museum would probably be a redirect). Slightly weirdly the history section is likely to start with the IRRS running railtours (via CIE) prior to the RPSI but I think I can work that in nicely and it will also avoid confusion with pictures should IRRS railtours in the 1960s. ( I know this stuf because I have worked on many articles related to Irish Railways and have sought properly licensed pictures high and low), Thankyou for any comments (or anyone else for that matter). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have rarely seen an article so clearly edited by "interested parties"--a quick glance at the history makes this clear already. Just look at all the redlinked names who sometimes just made a few edits and then disappeared--and most of those edits are adding unverified details about what trains the organization rides or what things they do. Like User:Irish Railway Heritage, or User:GalavantEnchancedMoon. User:Craven O'Brakevan and User:Dining car have a COI too, but it's the opposite interest. Galavant looks like a former or current member who, on the one hand, wants to fluff up the article while taking stabs at old colleagues. I'm glad User:Pipsally came along in April to remove all those BLP violations, which I'm about to scrub from the history.

  As for your comment, it's easy: remove what is not verified, remove the long listings of stock and whatever (which is not of encyclopedic interest--the club has a website for it), have everything written neutrally and with secondary sources. That's it. BTW a bunch of things have been scrubbed from the history, but it's plain to see that comments like "it's hoped that locomotive XXXX will be acquired" is inside knowledge, as are a lot of the actual BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

BLP violations

I've scrubbed the history. There will be no more undue and unrelated talk of child porn convictions (that had nothing to do with the organization), of volunteers who were convicted, of other volunteers who , and of "girlie thingies" thrown down the toilet. If need be I'll semi-protect the article. User:Dining car, User:Craven O'Brakevan, User:GalavantEnchancedMoon, User:Diningcarriage, I will be more than happy to block you indefinitely if you continue this crusade. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Ireland articles
• Low-importance Ireland articles
• C-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• C-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Low-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• C-Class rail transport articles
• Low-importance rail transport articles
• C-Class UK Railways articles
• Low-importance UK Railways articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages
• C-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles