Talk:Oughterard

The Dead is regarded as one of the most important English-language short stories of the 20th century. Oughterard is barely known. To not mention that it is a central reference point in the story is a serious lacuna in this page. ~2026-13505-8 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• "[Oughterard] is a central reference point in the story [The Dead]." Please provide a reference which supports the assertion that Oughterard is a central reference point in "The Dead".
• "[Not mentioning The Dead] is a serious lacuna in this page". Even if there is a reference establishing that Joyce's mention of Oughterard in The Dead is of critical importance to either or both topics, content of that type is typically covered in an "in literature" type section. Which comes with its own caveats. Repeating the same information twice (in the lead and in an unrelated section in the body) is well beyond those norms. Representing ~160 or ~560 (29%) of the total content. Most of it duplicated. And bordering on undue weight.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi - No, not undue weight. Anyone very familiar with James Joyce will be familiar with The Dead - but it doesn't work in the other direction. The reference to Michael Furey and Oughterard is (reputedly) a fictionalised reference to 'Michael Bodkin' and 'Michael Feeney', both 'unknowns' buried in the area. The best approach here is to accept that Ougherard is a significant location precisely because it is so prominently reference by James Joyce. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13505-8 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to keep this simple. In terms of the:

• Content added, please see WP:BURDEN. All content needs to be cited. Your proposed additions are not. And can be removed. By anyone. At any time.
• Content placement, please see WP:POPTITLE. Content which relates to mentions of a place/topic "in literature" or "in fiction" are typically covered in sections of that title. Not the lead. And not in multiple/unrelated places in the body.
• Content weight/duplication, please see WP:LEAD. The content of the lead should summarise the body. Not verbatim repeat/duplicate text from the body.
• "The best approach here is to accept that Ougherard is a significant location precisely because it is so prominently reference by James Joyce". This is your opinion. Expressed without any reference or support. And seemingly oblivious to the fact that Ougherard's history spans many millennia before it was mentioned by Joyce, in passing, in a single early-20th century short story. Please see WP:ONUS.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello again - The heading 'In Popular Culture' is perfect. Just my opinion, mind you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13505-8 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. "In popular culture" (of "in fiction or "cultural references") sections are not solely a matter of opinion. Mine or yours. The related conventions (in terms of their heading, content, balance and referencing) are supported by longstanding conventions and norms. Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello - You seem to be determined to undo every edit ref The Dead. Wiki editing wars are also part of norms. We all know this. What you need to do now is sit back and reflect on why you are constantly undoing the updates. You can cite norms and conventions, but we both know the real reasons here are psychological. As I say, sit back and reflect. There's no vandalism going on here. I was genuinely surprised that there no reference to Joyce and The Dead. Note that your updates ref Harry Clarke are inaccurate. I will be fixing those too - but I appreciate your effort in incorporating it into the main text. ~2026-13505-8 (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• "the real reasons here [for removing uncited text] are psychological". Nope. Not only does this assertion fall below the expectations of assuming good faith and etiquette, as I've already pointed out, additions are expected to be cited. None of your additions have been cited. You haven't even made the slightest attempt to support your additions or attribute the opinions expressed to anyone or anything. If you are unfamiliar with the technical/syntactical aspects of providing a reference, you could even mention the webpage or book or whatever in the text or edit summary. You haven't. Not once.
• "genuinely surprised that there no reference to Joyce and The Dead". The character/grave/story was previously mentioned. But in the "people" section. From which it was removed some time ago by another editor (@Declangi:) who noted that the entry wasn't cited and didn't appear to meet the inclusion criteria. As already noted, I have zero issue with mentioning the story/fictional burial/etc in the "in popular culture" section. What I have an issue with is the uncited editorial, unattributed opinions and undue weight given to what amounts to a passing mention by Joyce in a single story. If you don't have a reference to support these additions (and/or someone to which this opinions can be attributed), then they are misplaced.
• "your updates ref Harry Clarke are inaccurate". This edit of mine, which simply reflects the linked source and notes that the Church of the Immaculate Conception contains a "Harry Clarke Window", is "inaccurate"? Inaccurate how? Please elaborate.

Slán. Guliolopez (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)