Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

History Forum discussion

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Just to clarify- No post from Paky was deleted. Also he did not say that he was not posting (although he seems not to be). I think the post you are refering to is no 29 and it is still in thread. Thus his post (the full content) is there and can be judged for its self.

    Posts were deleted for either being abusive or off topic. The purpose of this was to try and facilitate discussion and removing these type of posts does not mislead anyone .

    *I add as a footnote that I had to check back on deleted posts to clarify this so there is no suggestion of anything more than an honest mistake which I am correcting.

    Yeah I remember that post that you quoted but that's not the one I am talking about. Maybe I am misremembering who said what but there was another later poster who said something like I'm out of here now - thought that was Paky? If not, I stand corrected. I do know that Paky [the OP] was upset at the change as your post indicates.

    But I have no problem really with deleting posts - two of mine were and no problem with that - especially if the thread was being closed. But it does now leave the issue seemingly one sided as the early objections to the title are still on thread [were they not off topic also?] and the discussion about negative reaction to the change are all deleted. IMO it would have been better to have closed the thread.


  • Options
    #93
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Just to clarify- No post from Paky was deleted. Also he did not say that he was not posting (although he seems not to be). I think the post you are refering to is no 29 and it is still in thread. Thus his post (the full content) is there and can be judged for its self.

    Well if it intended to build up a community again in H & H then maybe Paky deserves a pm.

    If I had been planning a thread and the issues were being messed around with I would be annoyed.


  • Options
    #94
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Dades wrote: »
    That said, I think deleting every single post not actually addressing the OP would be what I'd do.
    But you see the problem with doing that is the OP's stated intention/subject has been altered. The thread title was changed without the OP wanting it. That's the issue not being addressed.
    Just to clarify, I wouldn't have changed the thread title before deleting the OT stuff.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    IMO it would have been better to have closed the thread.
    Given the thread is now developed properly (albeit with a controversial title change) doesn't this suggest allowing it to live was the a gamble worth taking?


  • Options
    #95
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Dades wrote: »

    Given the thread is now developed properly (albeit with a controversial title change) doesn't this suggest allowing it to live was the a gamble worth taking?

    Properly? That's a very subjective term if I may say so -it may be developing 'properly' as the person who made the changes had wanted but not according to what the OP wanted. I'm now keeping off the thread for one - the heavy hand of an enforced direction in the discussion and the policy message that the title change sent out is something that I choose to avoid. I think others have also. The price to me for a proper discussion i.e. one that would not 'offend', was too high.

    Having said that I understand how the original subject would have required careful monitoring. But better careful monitoring than what we got IMO.


  • Options
    #96
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    MarchDub wrote: »
    But better careful monitoring than what we got IMO.
    What exactly did you get? A thread, the title of which was changed (rightly or wrongly), but still inclusive of the original envisaged thread topic.

    And to that you complain of "the heavy hand of an enforced direction", in a feedback thread that complains about the lack of moderation. There's nothing to stop you posting about British atrocities as per the original title, except this perceived notion that discussion is being directed. The change was made in good faith to stop the thread from being derailed. It's fine to think that was the wrong move, but not to read into it some sinister agenda on the part of the mods.

    You would have closed the thread rather than edit it - how is that less heavy-handed or enforced?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Dades wrote: »
    What exactly did you get? A thread, the title of which was changed (rightly or wrongly), but still inclusive of the original envisaged thread topic.

    And to that you complain of "the heavy hand of an enforced direction", in a feedback thread that complains about the lack of moderation. There's nothing to stop you posting about British atrocities as per the original title, except this perceived notion that discussion is being directed. The change was made in good faith to stop the thread from being derailed. It's fine to think that was the wrong move, but not to read into it some sinister agenda on the part of the mods.

    You would have closed the thread rather than edit it - how is that less heavy-handed or enforced?

    My comments are also made in good faith - regarding the original topic. Sorry if they upset you so much. I don't want to go any further with this.


  • Options
    #98
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I'm certainly not upset, although I'll admit I'm mildly frustrated.


  • Options
    #99
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    I'm certainly not upset, .

    I haven't started a Nationalist Post of the Week Thread yet, be patient ;)


  • Options
    #100
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    By the way, should this not be the 'History and Heritage Forum ' discussion?


  • Options
    #101
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    slowburner wrote: »
    By the way, should this not be the 'History and Heritage Forum ' discussion?

    Troublemaker. Now we are going to have to discuss the methodology of heritage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Troublemaker. Now we are going to have to discuss the methodology of heritage.
    Oh good :confused:


  • Options
    #103
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    slowburner wrote: »
    By the way, should this not be the 'History and Heritage Forum ' discussion?

    Are you suggesting

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lO7Oo7s0D0



    or

    home-feature-nonflash.png


  • Options
    #104
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    CDfm wrote: »
    Are you suggesting

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lO7Oo7s0D0



    or

    home-feature-nonflash.png
    I suppose I am.
    Heritage doesn't have to be 'good'.


  • Options
    #105
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    slowburner wrote: »
    I suppose I am.
    Heritage doesn't have to be 'good'.

    There is a way of representing our past that is not properly supported by historical evidence (take, as a probably non-controversial example, The Book of Invasions). Can we smuggle that sort of thing in as qualifying under the Heritage subhead?


  • Options
    #106
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    There is a way of representing our past that is not properly supported by historical evidence (take, as a probably non-controversial example, The Book of Invasions). Can we smuggle that sort of thing in as qualifying under the Heritage subhead?

    History isn't always dry or about whats in the history books

    Beer & prossies are just as important too.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055964448

    I did Parnell from Captain O'Sheas point of view

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056115564

    Nothing to be sneaky about it and if sources are there and there are a couple of decent history heads around they will discuss the sources


  • Options
    #107
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    There is a way of representing our past that is not properly supported by historical evidence (take, as a probably non-controversial example, The Book of Invasions). Can we smuggle that sort of thing in as qualifying under the Heritage subhead?
    Why smuggle it in.
    Rejoice, sing, shout about it, make placards.
    Precious, precious things, these old sources - their historical accuracy is another matter altogether.


  • Options
    #108
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    There has been an Independence/1916 forum/sub forum request made and I would be delighted to see it up and running.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541823

    This is the issue that everyone will want to discuss. People will want to look up their family genealogy and their local area and the like.

    It is fairly poor on boards that those of us who are proud of our history and heritage are denied the opportunity to discuss the foundation of our country.

    History is a discipline and deals in facts - efforts to keep up with what's happening among historians at a more topical level.

    Over the past 20 years or so, the word "revisionist" has been used by some as an implicitly pejorative term. The intellectual debate in Ireland has been intense amongst academics. Diarmuid Ferriter has been the poster boy.

    Ferriter has currently criticised Alan Shatter for his reading history and two professors from other universities over the WWII deserter pardon .

    Us history bods are often denied the opportunity to debate and its the extreme republicans or loyalists that get to define the subject matter.

    Boards has not been supportive of us in the mainstream & contemporary history that want to discuss

    The academic debates that get reviewed, for example in the Aubane Historical Society, demonstrate that in history strong views are normal and that disagreements can get heated.

    http://aubanehistoricalsociety.org/

    We have had some great historians posting on history and we are consistently told we are "bold".

    For the demographic of boards , students, teachers , academics, enthusiasts , even political fans etc who cover this academically etc our forum must not appear very contemporary with this glaring omission.


  • Options
    #109
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I've no problem with a new sub-forum, but am curious about your comments.

    Is the subject matter currently banned or in fact how is a change of location going to change anything?


  • Options
    #110
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Something does not need to be banned on boards to be verboten.

    Lots of boards.ies do not know a history forum exists.

    Would the Independence military issues sit better on the military forum ?

    My instinct tells me it would and could be a great forum in its own right and that even academics and events organizers would have an interest.


  • Options
    #111
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Someone might want to prompt a response from the Military mods who would be responsible for this forum.

    I note none of them have responded in the request thread, or the thread in Military.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    There has been an Independence/1916 forum/sub forum request made and I would be delighted to see it up and running.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541823

    This is the issue that everyone will want to discuss. People will want to look up their family genealogy and their local area and the like.

    It is fairly poor on boards that those of us who are proud of our history and heritage are denied the opportunity to discuss the foundation of our country.

    I don't see where this opportunity is denied- Is it prevented by the people with more extreme views or otherwise? I'm open to your view on this.

    I have looked at the forum request thread and have a view on this also that I will post there. IF people wish to debate that forum request it could be done here as debate is not encouraged in that forum.


Advertisement