Talk:Nelson's Pillar/Archive 1

Untitled
Note: the architect was FRANCIS Johnston.

Well spotted. I guess I was thinking of the former Irish Labour Party leader when I was writing this. Opps. I've corrected the reference. FearÉIREANN 21:10, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Compare and contrast: Nelson's Column, Dublin --rbrwr&circ;

Who said this was called 'Nelson's Column'? It was no more called Nelson's Column than President Bush is called Queen Elizabeth. 62.77.180.65

What was contained in the "Time Capsule"?
There is a reference to "3" in the part of the text that refers to the "Time Capsule" form 1808. Reference: The Irish Times, October 4, 2001 But what was contained in the capsule??

The contents of the time capsule were never disclosed. The authorities concluded that it was in the public interest not to reveal them and they have since been returned under armed escort to their country of origin. -- Nora Mór


 * Actually, it seems there's a less exciting explanation... - according to this, there wasn't a time capsule - it was just a copper box used to fix a plate with the names of dignatories present at the installation of the foundation for the piller.


 * Just in case you aren't convinced... this page even has pictures, along with a more detailed explanation of what was dug up.:zoney &#09827; talk 08:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Changed the article to reflect this Khukri 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?
Are the songs in the article copyrighted? If so they'd have to be deleted. -R. fiend 07:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright
The songs are not in the article, only the words. Tuneless

Terrorists?
Going by the usual understanding - as well as the definition in the Terrorism article, I would argue that those who destroyed the column were not terrorists, because they did not cause, or aim to cause, deaths. I think NPOV would be achived if the article should noted that not everyone would call the perpetrators "terrorists". Rocksong 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, it was vandalism by terrorists ;-) Bobak 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Michel Collins, hey hey hey!
This article is totally biased. The Island of Ireland is the rightful property of the aboriginal irish people and only them and the britons are colonialist invaders and not even 500 or 600 years can change that fact. Ireland belongs to celts and the holy romand catholic religion. It is totally laudable that the towering monument of britains colonia power, the navy was destroyed by national liberation fighters. I hope to see all henry8ist heretics and anglo-saxons go away from Ireland soon and let all irish celts live in their aboriginal land and praise apostolic continuity without disturbance. 195.70.32.136 09:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As a non-Christian, only dubiously Celtic (Irish people are hardly pure Celts) Irish person, I'm quite offended by this. Racist, sectarian nonsense. Rsynnott 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While you're away looking at a dictionary to improve your lamentable spelling, ponder the fact that you are writing in the language of the evil, colonialist Anglo-Saxon invader. If all us Anglo-Saxons go away from Ireland, do you promise to take back all your Irish compatriots living in England? Or all the Irishmen who enlist in the British Army, and who swear allegiance to a 'heretic'? While you are in the process of turning Ireland back into a bog, do trip in. . . Sir Andrew de Harcla 10:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As a British agnostic who has mostly Irish Catholic ancestry, I think the idiot who wrote this sectarian shite should go out and actually meet some British people, then perhaps he'll discover that his extreme stereotype isn't true. He also fails to grasp that Ireland was not a colony and it was the British, not the Irish, who were oppressed by the Anglo-Saxons. His use of the word 'Celt' is also interesting, the only people who could truly said to be 'Celts' were from France, does he think Ireland should be ruled by the French? I doubt it. A more common definition of the term 'Celt' is the pre-Roman civilization of Europe, under this definition the British are also Celts- User:TashkentFox 06:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tashkent, the "British" (by that I am guessing you mean the English, Welsh, Scots Highlanders, Scots Lowlanders, Cornish, Orcadians and Shetlanders) aren't opressed by the "Anglo-Saxons" they are opressed by the (originally Norman French) upperclass who created the idea of "Britain" (in the modern sense), the "British Empire" and "British nation". The "British" are actually a mix of ethnicities, the Welsh and Cornish being mostly Brythonic, the Highlanders Gaels, the English (shock-horror) and Lowlanders "Anglo-Saxon" and Orcadians and Sheltanders Anglicised (or Lowland Scotticised if you like) Norsemen, all groups having various more recent ethnicities added (Hindus, Punjabis, Italians, Chinese, Swedes... and even Irish). Their is a valid definition of modern "Celtic Nations" and England doesn't come under it so that rules out all of Britain being Celtic sorry... a pre-Roman population does not a modern ethnolinguistic grouping make... or in that case the Germans are mostly Illyrians, Slavs or Celts (depending on the area) the Spannish are Iberians etc. Groups change either by means of replacement or assimilation. Incidently the "Celts" where originally from Germany and Switzerland not France. But it is true that the Gaelic peoples (such as the Irish and Highlanders) do have much native non-Celtic influence. They are to the Celts and Scandinavians are to the Germanics they have some non-Indo-European features that make them unique. That being said all groups are a mix of populations. And Wikipeadia isn't really the place for this kind of debate (I just couldn't leave it with Tashkent's misinformed post) 86.151.186.193 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

POV problems
Irish republicans are "Gaelic supremacists"? An explosion in which nobody was injured is "genocide"? A vast and shadowy Sinn Féin conspiracy? Vague and unsourced assertions about what the "common Dubliner" felt? This article has some serious POV problems; I've done my best to remove it but much still remains. Demiurge 10:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and reverted to the version of February 16th by Bmpower. The intervening edits seem to be either the POV of the anonymous User:68.230.6.179 or people attempting to remove this POV, so I don't think I've removed anything important. Demiurge 10:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Demiurge I think you did the right thing. Rocksong 11:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Demiurge, you should compare and contrast the ideology of groups such as the KKK and the SF-IRA. Do the same for other organizations that fight for a particular nationality, ethnicity, or race.  You will see that aside from self-descriptive names, the SF-IRA is exactly the same as other groups which are called supremacist movements.  Indeed, it is the official policy of SF-IRA to expell all British influence, language, people etc from Ireland.  Witness the preceeding talk above titled Michel Collins, hey hey hey.  Genocide does not require the physical extermination of a people.  According to internationally accepted norms it can also include the extermination of language, culture, monuments, religious buildings etc.   Sinn Fein is in fact a conspiratorial organization under US Law and guess what Irish law.  It is also certainly shadowy, while its ability to move arms, material and propoganda across the world indicates it is certainly not small.  If the common Dubliner didn't like the column why wasn't it legitimately dismantled?  Newspaper articles of the period as well as the Irish government's own display about the column in the local museum of Dublin history asserts categorically that the column was popular and the majority of the people didn't want it removed.  But of course majority opinion means nothing to criminal groups such as SF-IRA who have consistently waged a war the majority of the people of Ireland do not want.  Sadly, self-deluded romanticists in America like to think otherwise.  The article which you removed did not have serious POV problems except that perhaps it didn't fit your own false POV about what revisionist history should read. Anonymous user 68.230.6.179
 * Please read WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Also please provide sources to back up the assertions you make above, about Sinn Féin's policies, the legal definition of genocide (Genocide appears to contradict you) and those contemporary newspaper articles you mention. Demiurge 18:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Demiurge, Obviously you did the right thing. Is this the AidanWork guy back again?

Origins of Nelson's Pillar
I was in the great An Góilín last friday night and one of the Dublin regulars decided to sing a few songs in honour of this Horatio Nelson chap, or more accurately his removal. It being the anniversary of this stranger's removal, the singer decided to give us a ten-minute history lesson on how he got there, the debates about putting him there and the numerous attempts to remove him. Apparently Dublin corporation voted against the erection of the Pillar in 1808 but the British Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond, overruled them and ordered it to be erected. I'll get more information from him next time I go. El Gringo 05:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Date for Nelson's COLUMN
According to the article on London's Nelson's Column, it was built "between 1840 and 1843". Here we've got 1849. 83.71.1.38 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Folk Memory
Regarding the bits with "citation needed", (the "Stump" and "should have got the original boys back") these are articles of folk history and any Dubliner will be able to recite them. Accurate or not, one doesn't disregard folk history because someone with a PhD hasn't written a book about it.

Nelson's Head
Changed current location of Nelson's head. It is now in Pearse Street library, next to a newspaper article proving its authenticity. Attila the Pooh (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's in the Gilbert Library (upstairs from the Pearse Street public library)--I've corrected thatHohenloh (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When was it completed?
The article does not state when the pillar was completed. It says that work started in 1808, and in 1809 there was a published complaint about the statue. So the pillar was probably completed in 1808 or 1809--but I don't know that the pillar was actually completed by the time of the complaint. Does anyone know the date of completion? Riordanmr (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked up several sources but all of them mention only that the Pillar was "erected in 1808", or similar.Hohenloh 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Guinness?
The page says an Arthur Guinness was present at the meeting to decide to erect a commemorative statue to Nelson in Dublin in 1805. However, that redirects to Arthur Guinness, creator of the famous beverage, who died in 1803. Unless a different Arthur Guinness was meant by this sentence? 134.226.254.162 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be Arthur Guinness (1768–1855) a wiki redlink - his dates match. I wouldn't feel confident enough to change (I'd be guessing), but I'll change the article to point to the Arthur Guinness disambiguation page and least it's not then pointing to a dead man.Icarusgeek (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've recently done a page on The Second Arthur Guinness. His brewery imported hops and malt, and had started its export trade, which would have been more difficult without Trafalgar removing the menace of French ships preying on ships sailing into Dublin. Dublin existed on trade, end of. Nelson had done the city a huge favour, and at the time it was nothing to do with celebrating London's control of Ireland.PatrickGuinness (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)