Talk:Patrick Whelan

Discussion about notability
The creator of this page and I started a discussion about this draft on my talk page, but since I am requesting input from WP:MILHIST I felt it best to bring the discussion over here. I have copied the original discussion below.

Dear Primefac

Thanks for taking the time to review my article, but there are a few things I have issues with.

The definition of a martyr is to give your life for your country. Patrick Whelan was awarded the 1916 medal posthumously, in recognition of his sacrifice to help build the foundations of this State and allow Ireland gain her freedom. In acknowledgement of Patrick's contribution, our family is invited to attend State Commemorative Masses and Events on an annual basis. In addition Patrick Whelan's name featured as part of the 'written names logo' for the centenary of the Easter Rising this year.

In your review, you state that 'he does have a street named after him' - it's actually an entire block of flats - Whelan House - that's named after him. The flats are beside O'Rahily House and next door to St. Patrick's Church in Ringsend. Both blocks of flats were named in memory of the two men who were killed in the Rising. I've since amended the reference to this (14) in the Wikipedia article, as I found the source of this information contained in Turtle Bunbury's book 'Dublin Dockland - An Urban Voyage'. http://www.turtlebunbury.com/published/published_books/docklands/ringsend_poolbeg/pub_books_docklands_rd_streetwise.html

I used the following as independent reliable sources:


 * Joseph E.A. Connell Jnr. (Who's Who in the Dublin Rising 1916)


 * Ray Bateson (They Died by Pearse's Side). Patrick Whelan is mentioned specifically on the back of the dust jacket.


 * I have made reference to the Military Archives, where Patrick's name appears on the Roll of Honour and which also stores the Witness Statement of the Captain of the 3rd Battalion, Joseph O'Byrne, who was standing beside Patrick, when he was shot dead.

Even though it only lasted six days, the Easter Rising was a seminal event in Irish history, and Patrick Whelan played his part in it. The centenary of the event this year has brought a greater interest in the various aspects of it and there is currently a writing contest (and photography contest) running on Wikipedia:

http://wikilovesmonuments.ie/?pk_campaign=Centralnotice

where one of the categories is 1916 People and Places. I think this would be a great context for Patrick Whelan’s involvement in the events of Easter week and would like to enter my article, as I believe it would be of interest in this category.

I look forward to your response and thanks again for your time

Helen Larkin (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , there were multiple issues with the draft, which I left as a comment on the draft itself. I will not reiterate those points. However, I will expand upon your main concern about references: while it is clear that Whelan has been mentioned in a lot of places, brief mentions do not demonstrate notability. Articles on Wikipedia require significant coverage of a subject. He could be listed on every honour roll that they print, but if those listings never say more than "died in the Easter Rising" then they're pretty much useless.
 * Unfortunately, "notability" as defined by the Golden Rule is different than what most people feel is "important" or "significant." There are important and significant people who will never get an article on Wikipedia simply because they do not meet the requirements for inclusion. I am certainly not saying that Whelan is one of those people, but I am saying that at the moment (at least to me) he does not meet those requirements. As a courtesy, I will be copying this discussion over to the draft's talk page and will ping WP:MILHIST for their opinions. They might have some good suggestions. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The main gist is that Whelan is mentioned in a lot of sources for being there during the Easter Rising, but brief mentions do not demonstrate notability. Without sources giving more detail, he does not meet the criteria for inclusion (for more, see comments on the draft itself). Primefac (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing notability here. The article's main sources appear to be official files and directory-type listing which are not useful for establishing notability. The other sources do not appear to include a strong emphasis on this person, and seem to have been used largely to place his role in the Easter Rising in context. I imagine that the content here would be welcomed by a local or family history-type website (where the author/s may wish to submit it), but it's outside our inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised by the very unyielding rejection of this article, I would certainly think that with a little tweaking it would easily pass the bar for notability. Firstly I'm not sure about judging it by WP:SOLDIER in any way as I think these kind of people aren't best judged by standards of a military career. Secondly, the comment about the Irish naming buildings (or streets) after people with little due cause is a bit derogatory (to say the least!). Whelan House was erected and named at the same time as O'Rahily House, and given how important O'Rahily was to 1916, to have Whelan House contemporaneously named must be noted. Also the fact that this happened some 20 years after 1916. Thirdly, there is precedent for such articles of notable deaths during 1916 and the preceding/proceeding years, such as Alice Brady (labour activist), Thomas Allen (Irish Volunteer), Charles Carrigan, Edward Costello, Joe Howley, and Larry Lardner. Lastly, notable omissions of the Dictionary of Irish Biography have not gone unnoticed, so his absence from it is no surprise. Myself and another Irish editor are going to work on this over the next few days, so I hope that when it is resubmitted you'll give it a close look. Smirkybec (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Below is another conversation started on my talk page regarding this subject. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

, I have been asked for my opinions and rationale for declining the draft, and I have given them. Clearly you do not agree with them, and that is your prerogative. I am not prohibiting this draft from being created; it was submitted for review and I did not (and do not) believe that it is acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to resubmit; you have made changes to the draft and as a personal rule I do not re-review drafts unless no one else is willing to do so. If you wish to ask WP:MILHIST again for input and/or assistance you are welcome to, as they have more interest in this subject area. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Information not about Patrick
, I'm confused as to why you keep adding information about Patrick's brother. I'm on the fence about whether "he died on his brother's birthday" is pointless trivia, but the entire biography of his brother is completely unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , It's a good example on a personal level of how divided and conflicted Ireland was on the matter of the Rising. There was strong opposition to it initially as so many Irish men were employed by the British Army and derived their income from it. It was only when the leaders of the Rising began to be executed that public sentiment changed towards the rebels.Helen Larkin (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all fine and dandy, but this is a page about Patrick Whelan, not the Easter Rising (and it's certainly not a feel-good piece). While dying on his brother's birthday is related directly to Patrick, information about his brother's career/death/etc are not relevant to a page about Patrick. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to accept the article. Anyone honored with a large building named after them is a candidate for an article. People want to Know 'who was this person' and wikipedia can provide the answer. If pageant queens get pages for one day events that have zero relevence in history, this boy warrents a page here. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be worth one of us moving it to mainspace? Thanks for preventing its deletion for the moment. Smirkybec (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with a move to mainspace. Let the thousands of editors there deal with any remaining issues instead of the handful working in draft space. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you're inclined to accept it, then accept it. If someone disagrees, they'll take it to AFD. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would accept it but, although every spammer, COI, vandal, 5 year old and troll in the world can put garbage directly into mainspace believes the 'community' does not trust this spam fighter with that privilege. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have published it, would you be able to advise on what to do with the discussion still on the article page - where should that be archived? Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Artwork commission
I removed a section added by about a portrait that the family commissioned of an artist. I removed this primarily because it is sourced only to the artist himself, with no indication as to why it is significant or encyclopedic (i.e there do not seem to be any reliable sources that talk about this commission). If the artist had done this as a tribute of his own volition, or was otherwise not being paid to do this, I might feel differently, but "family gets guy to paint a picture for their dead relative" is not really something we need to include. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As someone who has had issues on the notability of Patrick Whelan from the outset, you have clearly not changed your mind on the matter Primefac. However, as the page has been published, winning a Barnstar in the process, I can only assume it has some merit.
 * The portrait to which you are referring is one by Jim Fitzpatrick (artist), a notable Irish artist, known for his work of one revolutionary in particular. Fitzpatrick has also painted a series of Irish revolutionaries: https://jimfitzpatrick.com/product-category/irish-revolutionaries/. Patrick Whelan's portrait is done in a similar style, and represents the rank and file of the Easter Rising or Everyman. The difference in the work being done by Fitzpatrick 'as a tribute of his own volition' as opposed to 'family gets guy to paint a picture for their dead relative' is a moot point, as readers of the page would likely be interested in the portrait given its context. Helen Larkin (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, that difference is the point; it's not "special" that he painted this portrait – he was paid to do so. If he did it as part of the series (and not just "in the style of" the series) and/or it was part of a gallery show that received press, etc, then we would be having a different discussion (and likely none, because it would probably be worth including). Primefac (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Artists have to eat Primefac
 * Jim Fitzpatrick cleared copyright for the portrait, after you marked it as a possible copyright violation and removed it, and is perplexed as to why it is still not available on the page. He wanted to create a link to it in a discussion on another aspect of the Easter Rising and found he could no longer make his point. The Rising is a seminal event in Irish history and as such, part of ongoing discussions here.
 * Also just to be clear, the portrait is very much a part of the Irish Revolutionary series, with Patrick Whelan representative of the rank and file or Everyman.
 * In light of these facts, I would like to request that you please reconsider your stance on this matter, and allow for the Patrick Whelan portrait to be featured on Patrick Whelan. Thank you in advance. Helen Larkin (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will request a third opinion on the matter, because I still believe that the family commissioning the portrait, and with no independent sources reporting on the image, makes for little if any reason to include the portrait in the article. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of why the portrait was created, I don't see any reason for the section to be included, due to the lack of sources mentioning the piece. If the portrait gained more attention, such that the section could be written about the attention it received, then it might be worth including, but for now it just reads as "this is a portrait that exists". WelpThatWorked (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The portrait is a new piece, but will feature in any upcoming exhibitions of Jim Fitzpatrick's series of Irish revolutionaries. As it is new, there is currently a lack of sources mentioning the portrait.
 * However, this is also a Catch 22 situation, as pointed out earlier, in that Jim Fitzpatrick cannot allude to the portrait on Wikipedia as it is being prevented from being shown. Helen Larkin (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not create news, we report on it. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at Third Opinion. The request for a 3O made there has been removed because WelpThatWorked has already given a third opinion (or become a third party involved in the discussion and 3O's are only available in disputes involving exactly two people). However, I would note in passing that I agree with both Welp and Primefac. As for this being a Catch 22, you can look at it like that if you like, but it's really a function of the fundamentals of how English Wikipedia works. Fitzpatrick's website can - probably - be used as a reliable source for the fact that the painting exists and that he painted it, but not much more since it is a self published source that can only be used for very limited purposes, two specific prohibitions being that it cannot be used to support assertions about third parties or events. The fact that there may not be other, non-self-published, sources which would serve to document the additional information beyond that and that the absence of such sources prevents its inclusion is, for us, a feature not a bug. (There are far more important issues, such as medical and legal information, which cannot be included here for that very same reason, but cannot be included because to do so would fall outside the scope of English Wikipedia's mission and purpose.) Once the information to be included in the article is limited to the fact that Fitzpatrick painted such a portrait, then it even more becomes insignificant to this article unless prohibited original research - directly or by implication - is used to make it significant. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks TransporterMan So, just to clarify: if the portrait is reported on from an additional source e.g. appearing as part of an exhibition, being written up in an article or included as part of a documentary, this would mean that it could then be included on the page? Helen Larkin (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not with just that and probably not generally. As I said, the mere fact that Fitzpatrick painted a portrait of this person is not significant for this article unless it can be shown why it is significant for this article. So in addition to sourcing the mere fact that he painted it, there has to be a source for the additional facts that would make it significant.
 * And what kind of source matters. A reliable source for Wikipedia is an independent third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For example, if an exhibition catalog reported the painting there it would likely be a self-published source again - though catalogs from some sources might have the reputation for fact checking and accuracy needed to make them a reliable source for third party assertions; a catalog from Bob's Gallery probably not but a catalog from the Louvre maybe - so if it's an SPS might be an acceptable source for the the presence a painting named "Patrick Whelan" by Fitzpatrick in the exhibition but not for why Fitzpatrick is significant or anything about Whelan. The Devil in sourcing is always in the details.
 * But I agree with Welp and Primefac that it's going to be hard to make the existence of the painting, even if by an acclaimed painter or as part of an acclaimed series of portraits, significant to this article. It might very well be covered in the article about Fitzpatrick, but it's much more iffy here.
 * And in that context I would note the effect of the Onus policy. First, merely having a reliable source is not a requirement that something be included in Wikipedia: the reliable source policy is exclusionary to determine what cannot be included, not a requirement for what must be included. Once something can be included in Wikipedia the Onus policy says, "While information must be verifiable [i.e. have a reliable source] for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Since you think the information about this portrait should be here, it's your burden to obtain consensus for its inclusion once you find a reliable source for it.
 * At the moment the current consensus is against you. The usual means of addressing that is to either convince the opposing editors to see it your way or, without canvassing, seek neutral editors to join in the discussion to see if they might agree with you. The primary way of doing the former is to engage in discussion here, but you've done that unless you can come up with some new arguments. The next step would be to file at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As for attracting neutral editors, the most common method is to file a carefully-constructed request for comments with the knowledge that it could end up with no consensus which would leave the current consensus against your position in place or, indeed, even strengthen the consensus against your position. And it's slow, most RFCs run for 30 days at least.
 * So, I think that covers the waterfront on this issue. While I agree with Welp and Primefac about the relevance of the painting to this article, I would also in all candor note that this material about a portrait is also the kind of material which would in many other articles be added without objection (except, perhaps, as to adequate sourcing). Since article content is determined by the consensus of editors and since consensus may vary from article to article (and, indeed, is determined independently for each article unless there is a policy or guideline creating an established consensus) things that become a point of contention for one article, as this has here, may not even be objected to in another. That's just the way Wikipedia works. The fact that it can go without objection in one article, but raise an objection in another is one reason we have policies like the Onus policy: to set the roadmap for sorting them our.
 * Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks TransporterMan, appreciate the detailed information Kind regards Helen Larkin (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)