Talk:Kilmainham

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.inchicore.info/history/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Singularity42 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of user created image

An IP editor removed File:Cill Mhaighneann 700 AD.jpg from the article. This was queried at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Painting removed by the image's author who had originally uploaded and inserted the file. In the discussion at the Teahouse I concurred with the editor who removed the image, but invited Msriposte (and any other interested parties) to open a discussion here. ~~Msriposte chose to ignore the invitation to follow the "D" in WP:BRD, and~~ I have reverted his reinsertion and am initiating the discussion here.

My view is that the image is not of an acceptable quality (per MoS: images should be "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see"). Policy states "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." I don't agree that the image meets these criteria. It purports to be a representation of Kilmainham in 700 AD, but it would appear to be a very stylistic, subjective, interpretative and symbolic representation. The author is not, afaik, a notable artist or historian. A few minutes searching demonstrated that there are many high quality photographs of the Kilmainham area available on cc-by-sa licenses at Flickr and Photo Pin (eg here.) The image also contains text and a signature, which are not favoured in images used in articles. I do not know if Msriposte is local to Kilmainham, but if s/he is I would suggest that a well composed street view taken on their camera would be a much better image to upload. Images shouldn't be used just because they exist - editors should be judicious in their choice and use. Blackberry Sorbet 13:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackberry Sorbet: A discussion has been ongoing on my talk page with Msriposte in regards to the image here. Apparently, the image is being displayed in the Municipal Library in Kilmainham, which I think at least begins to lend it some credibility, though a local library certainly falls short of, say, an art museum. I agree that there is probably not a great deal written about the area at the time, but at the same time, there is no way to verify some details in the image (wildlife in the image, monks fishing in the river, the Celtic cross across the way, etc). At the same time, there are details which are accurate or could be verified (i.e. the church, the presence of two rivers where the church was built, some topographical details). I also agree that it has features that are not desirable, such as the signature and the large, black border. I am willing to grant a degree of artistic license given the nature of the topic here, but I still have reservations about inclusion. I suppose I am less concerned about the style or the notability or the artist. I also agree that a present-day photo of the location would be appropriate for the article, even if it looks very different present-day. Do you think an RFC on the issue might be helpful? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(The following posted from my talk page I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}):

Thanks again Jethro...... re your concern about the Celtic Cross .... the shaft of a 10th Century Celtic Cross still remains in situ on the site as can be seen here http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/zKilmainham.htmin Bully's acre which is on the ridge where Maighneann built his church. Many thanks or taking time over this.

A photo of the unveiling of the painting in the Library can be seen here http://kilmainhamtales.ie/ on the Kilmainham Tales Site which is owned by Kilmainham Gaol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msriposte (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. First, I agree with BlackberrySorbet that an image at the top of the article should be a present-day photograph (of the area, not of the jail or the Royal Hospital). Once this was done, it might well be acceptable to add this image to the History section, with an appropriate caption ("Artist's impresion of Kilmainham c. 700, painting on display in Inchicore Library"). But this brings me to my second point: at present there is no pre-Viking age history of Kilmainham in the article. It was removed some time ago as copyvio. So the image would not be illustrating anything in the article. This is another matter that would have to be rectified before we could consider re-adding the image. My third point relates to Msriposte's link, showing the unveiling of the picture in the library. This establishes verifiability for now, but the page will probably change in a few months, and verifiability will be lost. These are all serious difficulties that need to be considered. Scolaire (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also agree that the image ought to be cropped to remove the border, the text and the signature. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bully's Acre

"Kilmainham holds one of a small number of Viking era burial sites (Old Norse haugr meaning barrow or mound), within Dublin, others including Bully's Acre and where College Green is now located."

Is Bully's Acre not the "one of a small number of Viking era burial sites" they're referring to? Ridiculopathy (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First longphort

"In the Viking era, the monastery was home to the first Norse base (longphort) in Ireland." Can this be true? There is no mention of Kilmainham in the longphort article and the annals refer to Dublin (usually taken to mean a site at the confluence of the Liffey and the Poddle, near what is now Dublin Castle) and Linn Duachaill, which is in Louth. It's possible this is asserted in the source but it's nowhere near consensus as far as I can tell. Snoooooooopywaves (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]