Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:41, 14 January 2016 (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
@: 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)
 * @: Really thanks for the comments and that gives me a terms of reference to rework the article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @: sorry to ping. One comment on the stock lists, actually a list of motive power, this is common practice on (UK) WikiProject heritage railway articles and has a great advantage in (often) linking to information on the locomotive type in question for background information on that type. Issues tend to arise more in poorly cited comments.  I would lose any attempt to remove that content from any similar UK and I'd expect to here.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark, if that's how it's done, then do it. I don't like it--I don't like any unverified content--but it's not really my prime concern here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @: A heritiage companies' website will generally verify the table, plus linked article. That is primary, but it is usually relatively up to date.  I'll also be using a fair number of primary sources for (non controversial claim/facts) parts of the article; but I am hunting other sources as well.  I'm just bringing forward a third resource as well, I've found a little on a borrowable book on open library.  Thankyou for your time and advice. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:32, 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 [predacted], 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)

Hardly a fair procedure to just brick the issue on a basis that you don't like what's up even when it's relevant or topical or newsworthy. I get that it's messy to have shit loads of edits but the facts remain that horrible things went on from prominent members yet it was ignored and hidden to it's members. As regards post and run, some of us have work, family, work and so on so we can't just sit down and monitor and reply things 24/7. We are only humans, sorry but I'll leave this all this knowing that you are morally wrong, same way they were. Craven O&#39;Brakevan (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's done with a number of other topics. The misdeeds of an individual associated with an organization are often omitted from the article about the organization. I'm thinking of a number of school articles where activities by individual faculty members are omitted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * C.Fred, exactly right. "Associated with" is just way too malleable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the controversy wasn't based merely on association however, it was based around the RPSI giving tribute (in the case of the guy on trial for child porn) or turning a blind eye (the guy exposing himself at a girls' school), the newspaper article citated quoting the RPSI as saying it was nobody's business if he was rostered. By the logic expressed above, one would be removing mention of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal from the UK Royal Family page, as it wasn't directly perpetrated by them? Do you see what I mean? Diningcarriage (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought consensus was meant to be reached before the Controversy edits were removed as per original instruction from admin? I don't know, but it strikes me that in recent days there's a sudden attempt to cover up cited information. Evening allowing for living persons, it could be anonomysed (although it's already out there in the public record).

I believe it is relavent, consider, if a tribute article was controversially published about Jimmy Saville, for instance, could this not be mentioned on Wikipedia? I'm certain conflict of interest is at play here, there seems to be a desire to reconstruct this article entirely to present the organisation in a wholly positive light. And as I say, where was concensus reached as per original admin request? GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If Drmies—an uninvolved administrator—has come to this page to remove BLP violations, then that is indicator that some things were seriously wrong with the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Siding/spur dispute
Raised by at  which I pragmatically have no clue how to WP:V the claim in the summary. I have reverted at with the edit summary: (Undid revision 1039131219 by Diningcarriage (talk) Rvt: AGF reasonable arguement but ultimately not indicator or where to verify. There's issues with the term siding as the site contains several sidings/loops and spur line might suit better. Reverting and raising dispute on item. Have a cn placeholder was possibly a mistake and I'll replace with something different to move on..). I am likely to move to non-controversial alternate statement but people may care to discuss this. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it is official NIR (railway company) terminology however. Historically 'siding'/'sidings' can refer to either a singular or network of such. A spur suggests it's of significant length akin to a short branch, which it isn't. There's several published sources which refer to it as 'Whitehead RPSI Siding' also. Diningcarriage (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Article reconstruction
Per comments above I am going to have a good-faith WP:BOLD attempt to re-work the article so a baseline version is attained where COI can be reasonably removed and in the spirit of Drmies comments. One way to proceed is to WP:STUBIFY to the lead section and build back up ... that easy but I prefer to preserve some bits and ideas and concepts people have had previously nad build up replacement sections in place of the old sections. I'll be using Havard referencing during the reconstruction to reduce the clutter in the main text. Strictly I'm not mean't to do this without consensus and if requested I'll revert it after the re-construction (I might ask the concession to hold a discussion first depending on a flip flop). I will point out the link recovery and cite embellishment work I've done recently in the article, this results in a lot of meta data embedded in the prose and makes things harder to work). To give an idea of the way I might work, although this case was a German to English translation, trawl history of Galway to Clifden railway.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This reconstruction attempt has been abandoned by what I feel is interference by one or more COI editors, possibly as part of a campaign, but I have to AGF it was not. I have reverted to the admin's suggestion of WP:STUBIFY to remove the COI.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction
While not mentioned here an admin has read this notice and responded on the article talk page and my talk page. The admin has indicated I am fit to proceed on a non-COI basis. The admin has supported the WP:STUBIFY and has notified WikiProject Trains in an assist of a reconstruction. Members there are likely to have access to resources I do not easily have access to, equally I have have access to resources they likely do not. Some points: I very much wish to return to a Harvard style referencing. With very long citations it can be extremely hard to concentrate on seeing the prose from the citations at time; and I left a requested edit by a paid COI at Emer Cooke having spent over an hour longer than I needed to because it was not using Havard referencing. I'm meant to gain consensus for this. I one is looking for references/citations checking is an invaluable place for a few easily easy resource pick up or pointers. In the final analysis if good faith challenged on this I accept I may have to, perhaps after a quick short discussed, back it out and raise a formal discussion or RFC. I can be arrogant and suggest I near top-link in some aspects wikipedia editing. I also need to be humble and state, that in addition to my grammar and spelling I make some real factual whoopers at time. When corrected the article usually ends up better. I intend to aim the structure of a Rolling stock section towards the structure, if not the exact words, of that at ; That is with locomotives grouped for comparison. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (Self trout - this was meant for RSPI talk page) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories
Propose removing from categories 'Heritage Railways in Northern Ireland' and 'Heritage Railways in the Republic of Ireland'. Its a mainline operator which happens to have a museum/depot in the former jurisdiction, it would not be a heritage railway. Diningcarriage (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On this occasion done quickly as reasonable request and I'm a little pained after a trip to the Dentist. In the same area I kludged a slight anomaly in Heritage railways in Northern Ireland title and aligned it with Heritage railways in the Republic of Ireland.  It terms of working on the article I've ordered (Cassell's, Friel, 2004) and treading water a little until I get that (thursday?); I then have to read it and get bandwidth to continue on this article.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

40 years of steam book
Just a caution, I dont think Cassell's, Friel 2004 is necessary an biased source. The two are active members and it was published as a publicity thing for the Society's 40th anniversary. GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * unbiased source I mean GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, its effectively primary. But primary can be used for uncontroversial stuff.  There is a case it can't be used or much be attributed for controversial claims.  I am currently minded its currently being used to "indirectly" support a number of uncited statements in the tables, and it also needs to be taken account it was written 2004, nearly 20 years ago, and some things have moved on.  Ideal world might be I'd take out a "Railway Magazine" subscription to gain access to the archives ... but I'm thinking of the £££'s. I actually tend to be a sceptic by nature and generally take the view a lot of (fully commerical) companies will get their marketing departing to promote an aspect their not good at ... So if the marketing is stress their customer service is great ... that may well not be the case or not be the case immediately prior.  Anyway that source is bound to be appreciative.  10:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm the postie has delivered the book complete with a letter for a neighbour 3 doors down. I have had a quick scan: P.2 confirms Friels/Cassells RPSI membership; P.7 links the book to the 40th edition. I am excited by the content ion p.105 on turntables (Though this was 2004 and shortly thereafter the withdrawal of the B121's has meant most turntables are not required by CIÉ). Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Warning for edits?
so I make some simple, factual edits and now Im getting a warning (editing the loco list, 2-6-4Ts are not 'Moguls', only 2-6-0s are) The V Class is not owned by the RPSI so I clarified this 'Southern Ireland' or similar is not an appropriate term, it is an archaic term that went out of use in December 1922. 'Republic of Ireland' is appropriate. Diningcarriage (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @ You are giving a WP:OPINIONs rather than sourced content. The term "Northern" and "Southern" is in use at, albeit not arguably in a difference context.  The mention of 1922 means I have may strayed into a "tt" related dispute which is never my intention, there was another possibility I had sourceable but I had not added the source up to this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * with respect, what I have stated is fact not opinion. The 'Mogul' being only a 2-6-0 is not an opinion, it is established railway nomelecture, there's a multitude of sources that will qualify this. Likewise, my stating of 'Southern Ireland' not being correct is also fact, the state of 'Southern Ireland' ceased in 1922 and became known as the Irish State which in turn was renamed the Republic of Ireland in 1937. While some UK publications sometimes refer to it as 'Southern Ireland' this is not in fact, correct. As with the Mogul thing there are plenty of sources that will qualify this statement (not least the Irish Constitution) Diningcarriage (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've come across this from ANI. Let's get this clear from the outset - compliance with WP:BLP is non-negotiable. The article will comply, or the banhammer comes out! WP:BLP1E is probably relevant reading., is correct to say that a 2-6-4T is not a mogul, but 2-6-0s are moguls. As for stock owned by the RPSI, this should be verifiable by independent sources, such as Steam Railway, Heritage Railway, Traction, Trackside and other magazines. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As a point of interest, (IRRS Journal, Feb 21, v29, issue 204, p.232), claims Class WT Jeeps sometimes alternatively referred to as the oxymoron mogul tanks relating to Class W parent ... ( while  are the "true" mogul tanks the the Wikipedia article ). Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @: On review I accept I disremembered somewhere I had had seen 2-6-4T's as moguls.  The main purpose of the ssubection header was to compare the type 2-6-0 and 2-6-4T in the same section.  One could debate 2-6-0's are relatively rare and untypical on the Irish scene, from memory the Coey 2-6-0's which were the outcome of a 0-6-0 that was a top heavy disaster; the 2 DSER 2-6-0 which was untypical for the DSER in ordering a very suitable 2-6-0 for goods work; my personal feeling is a tad better than the 25 strong bargain basement 372/393 ordered by the GSR.  The NCC Class 2-6-0 Class W were fairly(very?/extremely?) capable in the passenger role.  Effectively the tank version of this design, the 2-6-4T class WT, was a very notable and the RSPI was able to preserve No. 4, a notable member of a notable class in my opinion.  In terms of Class W/WT the RSPI has acquired a subset set of part that possibly be new build into either 2-6-0 Class W or a 2-6-4T Class WT; and there are strong arguments for either choice (it would be lovely for an independent analysis source of this!).  In the end what I understand was a controversial decision to go for a Class 2-6-0 Class W.  In the context these matters a squabble over a subheading under a Under construction (not ready) is a pretty petty matter.  But it has been sufficient to me to have to stubify (at a time of the RPSI's Whitehead steam gala in the context of a Covid 19 pandemic) gives a clear win if there is an intention to disrupt the RPSI by a campaign by those with a chip on the shoulder.  While the boundary of UK Railways project in regard to Ireland is probably loose Involvement RPSI Whitehead probably comes within remit, and you may wish to take this matter there - they would certainly have (hopefully) more access to he magazines you mention; where my ability to access is less and less.   You should perhaps consider I may well be driven away from this article.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

ReqEdit20210825Z1744

 * Specific text to be added or removed: Total replacement with
 * Reason for the change: Article improvement
 * References supporting change: Already given in replacement text in source subsection.

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have reviewed the edits and do not see any primary sources used to cite controversial or exceptional contents. Article is written from a NPOV. Seloloving (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over controversies section
The Controversies section is relatively new to the article. I see an ongoing edit war with 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 Wikipedia 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&#39;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)
 * 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&#39;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 Wikipedia, 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

@: 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * @: 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 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * @: 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)

It still doesn't explain why the ilk of the Belfast Telegraph isn't seen as a valid source, or sensationalist, when the organisation's own magazine and 'fluff' publications such as those by Cassells & Friel are citable? (The authors being founders of the organisation and the latter a current museum committee member of the RPSI). Diningcarriage (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Publications by the RPSI are WP:PRIMARY sources for an article about the organisation itself, so are best avoided. The Belfast Telegraph is a secondary, reliable, source. That said, WP:BLP, of which WP:BLPNAME is part, applies. Is this an article about the organisation, or one about certain individuals in that organisation? Suggest that it is about the former, and is better without info about the latter. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The controversy was over the organisation's response to the issue. In this case referred to in the Belfast Telegraph, the individual is deceased and not a living person. The controversy was over the organisation publishing a tribute article (rather than a passing line) something it does not do for all volunteers, and continuing to laudibly mention them in their further media (which continues to this day, I have citable sources). I would cite the UK Royal Family page as a similar (ish) case, while the Family has a whole did not involve themselves in Prince Philip's behaviour, they are still drawn into the controversy over their handling of the issue - it is mentioned on their page. In the case of the other two sex offenders, yes they are still alive so I appreciate the need to consider the rule here. Again, the controversy surrounded the organisation turning a blind eye to such actions, and a key official telling a newspaper that it wasn't anyone's business if they rostered a sex offender. Perhaps it would be better to not mention names? Consider if it was any other organisation that three sex offenders in short space of time, and they turned a blind eye/upheld two of them in their media, would this not be allowed mention on their article? Diningcarriage (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * did you mean Prince Andrew? Something else we need to consider here is the reputational damage done to companies and other similar entities by mentioning negative things connected with them. This doesn't mean that we can't do such things, but if we do, then we need to tread carefully and weigh up inclusion vs omission. Let me give you an example - the West Coast Railway Company (WCRC), which you may or may not be aware of, operates charter trains in the UK mainland. They have been involved in several incidents, two of which have led to them being banned from operating over Network Rail tracks. The first was the SPAD at Wootton Bassett in 2015. There was a prosection as a result and the driver of the train is named in the article. Said naming did not occur until after he was convicted.
 * The case in question with the RPSI needs to be considered in terms of "how serious is/was it?" and also its seriousness when considered as part of the history of the RPSI. As I see it, criticism of the RPSI's actions/reactions by entities independent of the RPSI will carry a lot more weight than what the RPSI itself says. Names of those involved do not need to be in the article, even if there is a line or two about the controversy. If there is to be any mention in the article, it really needs discussion on this talk page and consensus formed as to what is said and what references back that up. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies yes Prince Andrew is who I meant, late night brain :) I agree, consensus and perhaps a briefer, nameless, account that the previous versions (of course substantiated by external entities as suggested). Diningcarriage (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. So how would people propose it be phrased?

"In the early 2010s, the Society faced controversy over its lauding and rostering of three members either on trial or convicted of child sex offences, with a Society spokesperson claiming that it was noone's business how they rostered their trains. (Obviously with citations from press etc, and no names mentioned) GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , please provide your sources, and take care to make clear that people not convicted (not just charged) of a crime are innocent. Seloloving (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. Should it be in it's own section or merged with the Incident section (as was the original case)? GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , please provide your sources here first. An admin has already commented that the contents should not be included and revision deleted everything, and I would like to see the sources you are referring to. They may indeed not be warranted for inclusion. Seloloving (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Formal Mediation request
Despite requests for sources nothing has appeared in over 72 hours; normally 48 hours would be expected for a response, but RL can happen. at made the good faith and "It is obvious that Djm-leighpark wants no mention whatsoever of any scandals involving RPSI members in the article at all. Other editors apparently disagree, but seem to want too much detail included.". I'd broadly claim that I private individual matter should not be brought to the article page, but a safeguarding incident fail (possibly relating to the standards of the time period) might well be. 4 weeks ago I really knew only a vague bit about the RPSI, enter if I I've contributed majorly to the articles of Ireland, and was definitely non-COI. I'd not visited Whitehead, not traveled on one of their trains, just photographed one 25 years ago when taking my Grandmother to see it pass. Because of watching Zoom IRRS meetings last winter I'm more aware of some IRRS people and their is a significant intersection between some of those. the sources I use, and some IRRS members. Having researched in the rebuilding of the article I now know a lot more, and agree achievements are impressive. Through those sources I can also see tensions (at per many organisations), Notably Dublin/Whitehead unbalance, Class W new build. And prior to COI involvement I hope I was showing faith in bringing same to article which try to use non primary sources. But the obsession with the sex scandal, and possible, just possible, attempts to link third parties by association as an issue. Quite frankly its nearly impossible to deal with this on the talk page but a Mediated discussion on a seperate page is probably a better place to deal. The mediator should be strong and experienced at the same: I recall an inexperienced good faith mediator setting up discussion where a participant became involved where a participant let us say "played the monkey" and because of the rules set up and how administered may a mockery of it. There is a danger of that here of course. Can I ask a neutral to guide to the setting of this up. See Mediation & Dispute resolution. I've waffled too much, I'm tiredish, and I want to watch the football highlights on iPlayer before I hear the results. But I'd like a formal mediated process set up please. any others willing to considfer partication in general please feel free to indicate without commitment. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one's responded. I appreciate its a public holiday in England.  If there's no progress towards a mediated off this page and a neutral does not steward into the raising of that process my current intention is to raise a request myself at Dispute resolution noticeboard at some point on or after 2 September 2021 UTC.  If I am the one raising I will try out of courtesy to invite parties who I can identify as being involved in the dispute in some fashion including admins, though many choose to silently recuse, the real purpose would be to avoid a complete no-show.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , my advice is that if there's no reply, there's no dispute. No one would accept a case where there are no active discussions going on. As GalavantEnchancedMoon has temporarily or permanently retired from the topic, there's not much to mediate/arbitrate over. Seloloving (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @: This is on your mediation watch. Please read WP:SEALION which may or may not have relevance here.  There is surely a real danger of civil POV pushing ... per reciting unsourced claims, evasive answers about sourcing, and leaving clues for the streetwise about parties and 3rd parties not directly mentioned.  If I recall your not currently admin, but you show signs of the qualities if you are not mistaken, but at an RFA cauldron your handling here would likely be scrutinised.  I am happy to let matters rest here, I am not happy if the matter is again not brought up unsourced simultaneously.  If brought up again I sourced if I have any concerns about the matter at that stage I would like to go to mediated discussion off talk page to avoid direcctly implicating or indirectly implicating names on the article talk page.  Making that happens seems reasonable. (I have to dash).  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I intend to, on or after 2 September 2021 UTC to introduce talk page thread auto-archiving. Probably will use Miszabot per Talk:No-deal Brexit with key parameters minthreadsleft = 3, minthreadstoarchive = 1 and algo = old(35d)  (Basically Dont archive threads until at least a month has passed since last activity on the thread.  Intend to use I might manually archive "External links modified" as part of the setup or in all events anyway, which is non controversial.  Obviously from my viewpoint part of my purposes are to clear possible pointy comments, but there is also reasoning that I may be contributing via the edit request mechanism which might get lengthy.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

ReqEdit20210903T0505Z
This is a single edit to expand the history of the RPSI: This section is heavily under-developed and this is but one step in achieving a expanded balanced section. This step indicates the 50th anniversary: As I have a COI the I give the request resolver freedom to to re-phrase or adjust from source as they feel appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The RPSI commemorated its 50th anniversary in 2014, RPSI president Lord O'Neill driving the newly overhauled No. 85 Merlin through a tape to mark the occasion, and Member of Parliament for East Antrim, Sammy Wilson enthusing over the RPSI's achievements and sponsoring an early day motion.
 * Specific text to be added or removed: After paragraphy about RPSI operations were curtailed in 2020 and 2021 due to the restrictions placed to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. :
 * Reason for the change: Step in expanding history section
 * References supporting change:


 * Yes check.svg Done &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ReqEdit20211007T0140TZ
Append to end of existing paragraph in films section with reference to sources: Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Specific text to be added or removed: The shooting of the The First Great Train Robbery in 1978 was an early significant involvement in film making by the RPSI.
 * Reason for the change: Step in expanding Films section.
 * References supporting change:


 * Yes check.svg Done &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)