Talk:Camden Fort Meagher

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camden Fort Meagher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714201319/http://www.corkharbour.ie/pages/FortCamdenDevelopmentProject_Study2011.pdf to http://www.corkharbour.ie/pages/FortCamdenDevelopmentProject_Study2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camden Fort Meagher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140402091032/http://www.militaryarchives.ie/collections/offline-collections/coastal-defence-artillery-collection to http://www.militaryarchives.ie/collections/offline-collections/coastal-defence-artillery-collection

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy.

Are there any credible sites for the idea that the majority of this structure is underground? Qwirkle (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there a single point along the trace of the works which shows a 40’ ditch...as opposed, perhaps, to a combination of ditch and scarp of that height? What does that say about the source that supplied this factoid

Are there any authoritative third-party, arms-length sources which make the claims of historical significance the article does? What does this say about the sources that make this claim? Why do so many of these sources concentrate geographically, and use almost exactly the same wording? Qwirkle (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Qwirkle. Mainly to aid with WP:VER, I had leveraged news sources (like the Irish Examiner or Echo) and at least quasi-primary sources (Cork County Council and Subject's website) when adding this text. However, there are also other sources which deal with the underground nature of the site. For example, and while he doesn't give a "percentage" in the same way, in Castles and Fortifications in Ireland, 1485-1945 (1995; ISBN 9781898256120) Kerrigan deals extensively with the extent of the structures which are below "ground level". Including the engine room, boiler room and torpedo room for the Brennan torpedo installations. In particular on pages 253 through 255. I'm happy to leave the more specific "more cites/better cites" needed tag in place alongside the queried text for the time being (until I can dig out my copy and provide a quote to support), but an article-wide hatnote otherwise seems a relatively blunt instrument. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

As it stands, the whole idea that the structure is mostly underground still looks very shaky, and it needs to be debunked or clarified rather than shored up. Masonry casemates and bombproofs often have some dirt on the roof, but they aren’t always really “underground.” Qwirkle (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think as long as press-release level cites dominate the sources, a general warning to the readers is warranted. Qwirkle (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for the follow-up. I really do much prefer talkpage discussion over communication by editsummary/tag. On the main points raised there:

• RE: Reliance on primary/quasi-primary sources. In honesty that's probably a valid point. I probably relied a little too much on those initially. As they were more expansive/accessible/"easy" at the time. I'll take a look at that.
• RE: Reliance on "local"/self-affirming sources. While I don't think many Peruvian/Mongolian historians have had a particular interest in the Palmerston Forts in general <smiley-face>, I do understand the point. And will take a look and see if I can update things to (as you suggest) more "arms length" sources.
• RE: "40 feet is questionable, therefore so is the source". I'm not sure I see any particular reason to question the validity or reliability of the source here. The gradient of the site means that some of the ditches are significant. Reference works from that source are otherwise used relatively extensively throughout the project. If needed, perhaps a discussion on MILHIST (as to the reliability of that/those sources) might be an idea.

The source might be excellent otherwise (and that one isn't at all bad generally), but it’s obviously either wrong, or describing the whole by the deepest segment. Yeah, there are probably some healthy drops where the ground slides off into the sea, but up on the higher ground, over most of the moat’s trace, the ditch is a little more modest, and obviously so on map or photo. Qwirkle (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• RE: "claims of historical significance". Other than the note on the site's use as a test-bed for the Brennan torpedo (supported by Kerrigan (1995), Gray (2004) and others), I'm not reading any other material claims of "historical significance". Are there claims or editorial that I am overlooking?

Camden Fort Meagher is internationally recognised as being “One of the finest remaining examples of a classical Coastal Artillery Fort in the world” strikes me as neither true nor even meaningful. (What, if anything, does “classical” mean here? An ignorant expansion of “classic?”)

Unless “one of” is used over a base of, say, several hundred, even thousands, this isn’t that true. This isn’t Suomenlinna. Qwirkle (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• RE: "as long as press-release cites dominate, a warning is warranted". As above, if, after I've attempted to address this concern, any significant issues remain, then I'm happy to have a discussion. Otherwise, in my experience, the purpose of maintenance hatnotes is to prompt improvement. Rather than as a warning or a badge-of-dishonour or similar.

Well, article improvement is nice, but it’s oriented toward those on the inside. There aren’t any other ways of letting the reader know that the article should be taken with a whacking great boulder of rocksalt.

Qwirkle (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway. I'll take a look at the concerns raised over the coming days. And will (if it's OK with you) drop a note here if there's anything that needs further discussion. Guliolopez (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

See you (metaphorically) then. Qwirkle (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for your notes. There are some clarifications that will help address the core concerns. I am, I'm afraid, still struggling with what to do with a couple of points that you've noted:

• RE: "finest remaining examples of a classical Coastal Artillery Fort in the world". This claim is not made anywhere in the article. And never has been. So I'm not really sure what change is being proposed here. Except as a comment on the impartiality of some of the former sources (which is probably fair), I'm not sure what to do with this. No change to the article/content seems to be proposed/expected here.

No, just changes to the sourcing, which you are already making, or have already made. Using sources like these leads to an indirect form of wikipedial citogenesis, where the use as a cite both publicizes and validates a source. When the source is bad, that is a Bad Thing. Qwirkle (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• RE: "describing the ditch based on its deepest segment". We're not describing the whole ditch based on one segment. The text currently and specifically reads "which at points is 40 feet deep". Personally I read this as being clear that the entire thing isn't 40 feet deep. But some points are. Or were. The ditch on the north side, for example, follows a very steep contour to the water and is quite formidable.
• RE: "dirt on the roof != underground". Certainly that's the case with most forts. And while the same might apply to the upper levels of Camden (like the "grass on the roof" of the casemated barracks or even the "cut and cover" tunnel down to the lower levels), the shoreline structures of Camden in particular are not of the same sort. In particular, as noted, the Brennan torpedo infrastructure is cut into the cliff face. In any event, I've already removed the more specific claim. And replaced with a simpler (and, in my view, not especially controversial) statement that some of the "site's structures [are] underground". Which is hardly hyperbolic :)

Anyway, as noted, I'll take another look in the coming days. Mainly to reduce the reliance on (and reflection of) sources by "those on the inside". And we can see from there. Guliolopez (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Til then. Qwirkle (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Qwirkle. In all honesty, I've probably done as much as I'm gonna do for now. I've reduced the reliance on primary and "churnalism" type sources. And tempered/removed some of the stuff which reflected those sources. (Like the "65% underground" stuff, the stretching "claims to fame" in the lead, the more wordy passages about the volunteer clearing/development efforts, etc). I've also bulked up some of the more "arms reach" sources that you had suggested. And, though, in all honesty, I don't really have much reason to question the "ditch depth" claim, I have removed it none-the-less. I personally don't think there are any WP:PSTS or WP:DUBIOUS issues remaining. But if you note any, I'm happy to discuss. Guliolopez (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good now. Once a usable picture surfaces that shows the honking deep chasm below the entrance bridge, explicitly mentioning the range of depth of the ditch ‘d make sense again. I suspect it is actually about 25 feet perpendicular to grade. Stating a maximum size while illustrating a much lower typical one causes cognitive dissonance for the reader, so I’d rather not emphasize one number while prominently illustrating another. Qwirkle (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Has this source surfaced here?

Have these shown up here yet? There’s some beautiful stuff there. I especially like the 7” disappearing gun battery drawings. Qwirkle (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen those two myself before. They are pretty (and pretty cool). The main thing that strikes me is that the draughtsman (John Reilly?) from the Royal Engineers (who measured and drew the plan of the Brennan Torpedo Installation) was clearly Irish. As he used Irish script for some of the labels. First time I've seen that in a British Army document. Very interesting. Guliolopez (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)