Talk:One-off housing

What's missing[edit]

OK so here is a first attempt at a page about one-off housing. I have done my best to be as neutral as possible so please don't add any of your own opinions or analysis to this article, but please do add any relevant opinions or analysis you can find from source material WP:RS. Here's a few things that I think are missing from this article:

A photo of a classic modern one-off house
Something about the aesthetics and size of one-off houses
Comparison with policies in other countries
Policies of other political parties (Sinn Féin, Greens, Labour)

Curtains99 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert schuhart's contribution[edit]

I reverted schuhart's edit to the subsidies section as it violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia pages contain either undisputed facts or referenced assertions from published sources. They do not analyse or comment on those published assertions no matter how much any editor disagrees with them.

Articles should rely on secondary and not primary sources. See Wikipedia policy WP:PSTS for an explanation of different types of source. You may not quote from primary source material such as CSO statistics and then make your own analysis and draw your own conclusions. You may however, quote from somebody else who has done this and had this analysis published in an acceptable source such as a journal or a newspaper.

You can even get your own analysis published and then quote from it but you may not publish the results of original research in Wikipedia. See WP:OR for the policy on this. Thanks for your contribution and please don't be put off from contributing further within the guidelines.

HapaxPhenomenon (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing problems in schuhart's earlier contribution[edit]

Thanks for your helpful explanation of the necessary standards. I've redone the contribution taking that on board. You'll appreciate the problem - the quote from Senator Dooley simply contains factual errors. I don't comment on this myself now, nor do I interpret the CSO material. I simply cite Dublin Chamber of Commerce's statements based on that material. Similarly, I don't directly state that Senator Dooley's comments regarding Luas and the Port Tunnel are wrong - I simply briefly link to reliable sources illustrating his factual errors.

On the question of marginal costs of one-off housing, I quote from an article by James Nix. He is a known commentator in the area of planning and co-author (along with the Environmental correspondent of the Irish Times) of a well-known book about problems in the Irish planning system. I'd suggest if this material is inadmissable, then we should really delete both the quote from Senator Dooley and the link to Minister O'Cuiv's speech as otherwise we will be letting unreliable material stand without reference to well-known and well founded argument to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuhart (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, the footnote (4) which is the reference to that speech by O'Cuiv seems not to work. I'm too new to this sort of thing to know if I should delete it, and what should happen to the statments depending on it as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuhart (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schuhart. Please sign your comments by adding four tilda symbols to the end of anything you write. Also, when you want to reply to a comment, just write it below the last comment, but indent it using one or more colons at the start of the paragraph.

The paper you added by James Nix is a relevant published counterargument to O'Cuiv's published argument about the marginal cost of one-off housing. This improves the article.

The quoted argument from Timmy Dooley is from a Senate debate on one-off housing. You are not allowed to advance an argument by quoting statements made outside of the context of the debate on one-off housing that contradict his opinion. See the guidelines at WP:SYN for an explanation of this rule. Also the information about the profitability of Luas and DPT fall into this category. This would apply even if Timmy Dooley had stated something easily provable incorrect such as that 2+2=5 or the world was flat. HapaxPhenomenon (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Cuiv's speech is on his government department's web server (Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs) This server has been down for a while. I presume it's coming back some day. HapaxPhenomenon (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If dems is the rules, then dems is the rules. I’ve located a quote which makes the same substantial point – that one-off housing is bad and not good for national infrastructure – made in an article on one-off housing by former Central Bank economist and commentator David McWilliams.

Schuhart (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that works.

One point about one-off housing that's missing from this article is that it is excluded from the section V rule on providing land to the council for social housing which only applies to developments of 5 units+. As a result the social and affordable housing levy is only applied to urban and suburban developments. When I find time, I'll add something along these lines. The above link to O'Cuiv's speech is now working again. Read it and enjoy. HapaxPhenomenon (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]