Jump to content

Talk:An Taisce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Trust Committee (all-island)

[edit]

Can there be a few lines on this body, not heard of it before but it sounds a great cross-border idea.51.171.243.62 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]

A modest-scale (esp. compared to the massive NT for E/W/NI) but significant and sometimes influential body, with some notable people having been involved, and also some occasional (if often "manufactured") controversy, this needs a better article, including:

  • images of a range of the properties in its care
  • an actual history section, with details of some key projects beyond the Blue Flags and Green Schools (and a little more on those)
  • a notable people section
  • more on policies and positions, and achievements based on these
  • discussion of attacks on its work
  • more on the local associations, some of which have done substantial work
  • a little more on the organisation and finances
  • ..?

An Taisce succeeded the old all-Ireland National Trust Committee, which might warrant an article too, and no doubt other spin-off potentials also exist.

SeoR (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you really need is a Controversies section but do it carefully and with balance, please, as many of the so-called controversies were based on lies or self-interest. People have come to see that this outfit were right on most issues, and many of the attacks on it are from opportunistic politicians or greedy developers. There have been internal splits - it's an Irish organisation - but they've been more about radical -v- polite action, or in the latter years, whether it remains volunteer-led -v- creeping "charity-professionalisation", a disease affecting many Irish associations (the Irish Georgian Society was taken over by a few key people some years ago, and the members no longer have any say about anything, for example). 2001:BB6:4A07:C400:918C:736C:5A5:A2C7 (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will keep that in mind. One attack, that by Kevin Boland, is already noted. I would not go as far as to say "People have come to see that this outfit were right on most issues" too broadly, and we are encyclopedists and can only work from sources, but the point about the need for nuance and context is noted. SeoR (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When founded?

[edit]

Was it 1946, as I learnerned in school, or 1948, with this year being 75th anniversary? Good work those people do, true idealists, maybe you could list more of the buildings and beauty spots they’ve saved? 94.119.3.48 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good question - it was both. As I see another editor has already added into the article, a launch meeting and provisional structure date back to 1946, and from then to 1948 it was an unincorporated association (as are most clubs and societies other than professional and learned ones in Ireland still today). Why incorporation took so long I do not know, no one I met when I was a member back around 2000 seemed to remember. Anyway, the main work began after the company limited by guarantee was authorised in 1948. An Taisce wanted legislation for a true national trust setup, but it never happened, and although the Heritage Trust was eventually formed, much later, that is not a full NT setup either (but it should be cross-referenced in this article). SeoR (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project organisation with a conservation charity and planning tail?

[edit]

An Taisce has changed, and now >70% of its staffing and funding is about programmes on behalf of various other bodies. It's all good work, for schools, cycling, beaches and more, but the planning and advocacy is now a minority aspect, and you should at least give this some airing.51.171.243.62 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. This can be addressed in some way; the purposes of the charity are what they are, but it is true that the project focus has changed, and the balance of paid staffing (not allowing for part-time vs full-time) seems to be 90% projects, 5% advocacy and planning (+ much work by members / volunteers) and 5% management and admin. (incl. 3 out of 4 seniors) - but the paid point is material, as much of advocacy, and almost all work with heritage properties, is "delivered" by members and volunteers, as is the vast majority of effort in big national programmes such as the Spring Clean. I will study what sources say and see how this can be taken into account. SeoR (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by SeoR (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/An Taisce; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Thanks, Launchballer and theleekycauldron, I will check and address the paragraph sourcing right away (I thought this was covered, but the article has been edited by a couple of other people, at least) and work on the hook with the comment in mind. The charity's name is like that, but we must account for general readers. Sorry for delayed response, have been offline much of July. SeoR (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And citation, with some effort, now present in every para. again. While for the hook, two more compact options offered. SeoR (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, although I reckon you can trim ALT0b further. I wonder how wedded you are to the phrase "heritage properties". And where is your source for "Properties formerly in An Taisce's care include"?--Launchballer 10:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Launchballer. As for "heritage", it's to emphasise that these are a particular type of property, and as this term is used widely by the subject of the article. On the "formerly in the care" point, I will add referencing during Thursday. SeoR (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SeoR and Launchballer: any progress? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer, I made the change as promised and if any further action is needed, I’m available. This body is old so no rush, it’s not changing / going anywhere. Thanks, SeoR (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all my major concerns have been dealt with; [6]: 65–68 [16] in the 1990s section looks weird, and I would argue that no single claim needs more than one reference (a source is either reliable or it isn't), but that's not a DYK issue. I would propose something like Alt0c: ... that the heritage properties An Taisce cares for include a guildhall, a marsh, a castle, a Quaker cemetery, and Babe's Bridge?, but that's an issue for the prep builder. Good to go.--Launchballer 09:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. And I will look into the referencing points you mention, Launchballer - I haven't been to that article in many weeks, but I also think I did find a further potential picture or two to add back in August. I'd really like to get more shots of some of the heritage properties, incl. Babe's Bridge, but some are quite remote... SeoR (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Taisce&oldid=1204828005"