Jump to content

Talk:Fermoy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"This Ireland geographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"

I wouldn't consider it a stub. If you have ever been to Fermoy, that paragraph just about explains everything  :)

NPOV?

[edit]

"the decision by Mary Harney to introduce risk equalisation to the Irish Health Insurance market, effectively forcing Bupa out of the Irish Health Insurance Market" - Kdivad 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Famous Inhabitants

[edit]

I've never heard of the 'famous' businessman, JJ Bunyan. Can anyone confirm this is a legitimate claim? Any references? (Sarah777 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • I know this guy, he has been CEO and chairman of several successful IT companies, most of them were sold privately- no Nasdaq stuff, but would think the guy is worth in the region of €100 million according to 'The Phoenix' magazine

Re-rate

[edit]

This was a fairly good article but recent additions are not helping. Needs an editor. Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save Fermoy Weir?

[edit]

Is this encyclopoedic? I think it should be removed from the article. Seighean (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. He has a cite and it seems valid. We can't just remove - that would be censorship. I suggest getting a contrary view for the sake of balance ClemMcGann (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Weir Saga" (as the local paper calls it) is one of the most controversial proposed developments that the town of Fermoy has seen. It is a "live" issue in the town at the moment. I don't apologise for being one of the people involved in the campaign but would suggest that the language in the entry is as neutral as possible. As to the inclusion of the link, surely this external link is as valid as any other? -D. O'Keeffe D. O'Keeffe (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it should be a reference rather than a link ClemMcGann (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

The external link surely refers the interested reader toward the relevant site and, as you said yourself, the site is valid. You're right, a contrary opinion would balance our website. The problem is, the proposed work was sold as necessary, indeed essential, because "Europe" would fine Ireland out of existence if it were not carried out. We went to Europe and have proven these claims to be groundless.

So, best of luck finding a valid contrary perspective. We are a small group of citizens fighting against the forces of central government. The only strength we've been able to harness is our own innate weakness.

Hopefully, David always has at least a shot at winning. And fair play to you for your stance against censorship.

D. O'Keeffe (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you ask "why?" - because the external links are for fermoy itself - references are to support specific statements in the article - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fermoy. 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) 00:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fermoy. 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) 11:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of barony

[edit]

Re:Gulio Lopez Hi. Regarding the use of the word Barony, it is incorrect to say the use of the word Barony has less relevance today. The truth is the word Barony has no/zero relevance today. You will not find any mention in any governmental documents or the constitution. It's a term that is extinct and of no reference.As someone who is from Cork and Fermoy this is a term I have never heard referenced, only on Wikipedia. It's also quite insulting as it's a term that was used during the British occupation.

I think it's fair to have the reference to the Barony in the history section of the page. This is logical. According to Wikipedia the term has "been administratively obsolete since 1898". It's strange that Wikipedia would contradict itself. 2001:BB6:11D9:9700:94E4:D829:4ACD:45F5 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of barony in lead

[edit]

In a recent series of edits (including these two), an anon editor has removed the mention of the historical barony, in which Fermoy sits, on the basis that it has "no relevancy in the 21st century". (And something about "thousands of Irish people [having] died to break free from [the concept of baronies?]"). As per my own note (and the convention in dozens of other articles, from Glasnevin to Finglas and Cahir to Knock), it doesn't seem unreasonable (and seems consistent with convention) to mention the barony in the lead. Perhaps even more-so in the case of this article where the town of Fermoy doesn't sit in the barony of Fermoy. I have restored the long-standing convention. And opened this thread. Per WP:BRD. Happy to have a policy-based discussion on the topic. To consider what issues there are and what solutions may be available. Guliolopez (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 21st century for God's sake. Why include something in the lead that last had relevance in the 19th century. This beggars belief. It seems the only argument for including this in the lead is "precedent". Well, precedent may not be correct. 2001:BB6:11D9:9700:B86C:27AB:50:BA17 (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the turn of the 19th century Armenia was part of the Ottoman empire. However, the opening lead of the wiki entry for Armenia doesn't mention this. I think most people agree this is common sense. For some reason it seems the people of Ireland are being treated differently. It's sad to see the same old colonial attitudes are still there today. Shame on the author. 2001:BB6:11D9:9700:B86C:27AB:50:BA17 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In terms of:
RE: "precedent". Indeed, precedent and consensus can change. Typically consensus is confirmed through discussion/compromise/whatever. A process underway here. What compromise/change are you proposing?
RE: "the people of Ireland are being treated differentl". Not that it has any bearing on anything, but you realise that I'm Irish right? As are the vast majority of editors who have contributed to this article and the others I mention? So you can leave that "put upon" argument (or whatever you've got going on there) to the side.
RE: "same old colonial attitudes / shame". Again, while this is not an argument or rationale I follow personally, it is worth noting that many (Tudor-era) baronies followed the same boundaries (and indeed had the same names) as the already pre-existing Tríocha céad territories. See MacNeill (1911) or Keating (1898; p112).
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP(s) who have removed the barony mention: Guliolopez is correct in restoring that information, as it reflects an extant official unit, as discussed at Barony (Ireland)#Modern existence. The assertion that "no such barony exists today" is not borne out by the barony's entry at the Placenames Database of Ireland. The barony article Condons and Clangibbon lists Fermoy and it is reasonable that this article in turn mentions the barony. Declangi (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to a Barony belongs in the history section. That's the compromise and solution offered. It's a historical term and from a different era so should belong there. I would guarantee that the vast majority of Fermoy have never even heard of a Barony, let alone that they supposedly belong in one. 2001:BB6:11D9:9700:F963:7577:9E7B:5B16 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fermoy&oldid=1236128364"