![]() | A news item involving 2011 Irish general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 February 2011. | ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 25, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cite Irish_general_election,_1987, and from my home country, Canadian federal election, 2008, as examples that the seat that the leader is contesting, not the seat they currently hold, should go in this slot. Regardless, I've removed Adams' NI seat as he ho longer holds it. Nickjbor ( talk) 00:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The box says Leader, not Parliamentary Leader. I think it misleading to an outsider to list Ó Caoláin rather than Adams as leader. It will be Adams, not Ó Caoláin, who will act as party leader during the campaign, whether in debates or anything else. -- William Quill ( talk) 13:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved (not controversial so discussion not needed). Number 5 7 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Irish general election, 2011|Its been confirmed now that the govt. has falled and a new election has been called for [1]
Next Irish general election → Irish general election, 2011 — Its been confirmed now that the govt. has falled and a new election has been called for [2] Lihaas ( talk) 20:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.The exact date of the election is currently unknown. It may be January but could well be February or March, as stated in the Irish Times, see here. The budget vote on 7 December, is only one part of the process (usually concerned with alcohol taxes). The Finance bill is usually passed in February. It could be passed in January in 2011, but then add 3 weeks for an election campaign and that means February. Anyway, the date is not yet known, which is why I put in early 2011, to cover all bases. Snappy ( talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why the seat nos and percentages in this field are not being displayed for FF/Fg/Lab but do show up for the other parties. I can't seem to fix it. Or maybe it's just my browser (firefox)? Lozleader ( talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Errr.. I'm trying to understand the rationale for including the Socialist Party (who have no seats in current Dáil) in the infobox. This is presumably because someone thinks it likely that they might get a seat or tow in the election? In which case People Before Profit ought to be there too. Looks like a breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Lozleader ( talk) 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
According to politics.ie, Seymour Crawford (FG, Cavan-Monaghan) is standing down. So whenever a reliable source appears he needs to added to the "retiring incumbents". Lozleader ( talk) 13:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The Irish Times story re retirement of Seymour Crawford [4] states "at least 11 sitting TDs will not be contesting the poll". We have only 9 in our list. Lozleader ( talk) 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Pádraic McCormack (FG, Galway West) seems to be bowing out, against his will... [5] There is a possibility that he could still run, even as an Independent, I suppose, but worth keeping an eye on. Lozleader ( talk) 14:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
think we need some diversification of sources. probably would naturally happen with the campaign coming along, but thought id say it here. Lihaas ( talk) 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
in order to both avoid POV/undue coverage and a list of the parties, would it be possible for someone to put into prose perhaps in the campaign section the parties running adn some mention of platform/intention. Right now only the new alliance is in there. We need Gael, Fail (although some is in the background), Sinn Fein (in general, not just Adams), Labour, and Greens (again some mention in the abckground already, but need more). This may not be urgent, itll probably come up in the next few weeks. Lihaas ( talk) 13:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I was going to say the quote is unnecessary (I am not a fan of using them in articles in the blockquote format), but perhaps this is just my "bias" shining through. Number 5 7 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
At the moment the article reads:
The electorate will choose the members of the 31st Dáil who will assemble shortly afterwards to elect a Taoiseach in the 31st Dáil.
The use of "31st Dail" twice in the same sentence seems very clumsy... can't we just manage with:
The electorate will choose the members of the 31st Dáil, which will assemble shortly afterwards to elect a Taoiseach.
or similar? Lozleader ( talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
is there any source that affirms that Sinn Fein are most likely to beenfit from Fail's failure (no pun intended)? The poll does suggest it soemwhat, but some text would be nice to add to perhaps the campaign section expanded. Lihaas ( talk) 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess we should be doing this.... (if they can be reliably sourced), there have been a rash of selection conventions in the last few days. Lozleader ( talk) 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
"was in effect forced " was reverted. although i believe i wrote that, i think the editor who changed it is right as theres no way they can be "forced." Persuaded perhaps (and more reasonable), but decided was more accurate than the status quo term.( Lihaas ( talk) 12:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).
This releates to the election infoboxes on candidates in their respective constituencies. Should ULA candidates be considered members of the ULA or members of their respective parties. ElectionsIreland is making a bit of a cockup in their info on the candidates by designating people who've ran in previous elections by the party they ran under (e.g. Richard Boyd Barrett and Joe Higgins) and others, such as WUAG member Seamus Healey and members of the SP and PbP who havnt previously contested the election such as running for the ULA.
An example of this is on the page for Dublin North Central where the candidate as a Socialist Party candidate. Should it be ULA for the sake of convenience? Exiledone ( talk) 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in the campaign section "A new party called An Chomhdáil Phobail – The People's Convention, was established in Cork in December 2010. It intends to run candidates in Cork constituencies." is supported by a single reference in the Cork Independent, and on Googling the group the only hits are versions of the single news report and this article. To quote the news report "The new group is hoping to gain members and momentum at its Cork launch next week." (December 2010). I suggest that they got neither and do not in fact exist. Unless anyone objects I will remove them. Lozleader ( talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there any rationale for Democracy Now having it's own section in the article? Maybe it should be included as a subsection on new political groupings as part of the campaign section. Exiledone ( talk) 13:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A news report suggested that Fine Gael's position on cuts may be too incompatible with Labour for a coalition. That got me thinking about what sort of chance FG has to rule on its own, either as a majority or a minority. Of course, I looked to their share of the vote, but I don't know Irish elections well enough to have a sense of what national share is likely to result in a majority. That all lead me to wonder whether there are commonly used seat projection models for Ireland as there are for Canada and the UK. Does anyone know of any and have any thoughts on including the projections? - Rrius ( talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ignorant American question--how soon can we say who the next government will be? An RTE exit poll is already reporting that Fine Gael is winning going away, and the BBC and the Guardian have both quoted that poll in saying Kenny will form the next government. Blueboy 96 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"Caucus", "have the inside track" ... ? Are these usual phrases is Irish politics? Is there any alternative phrases we could use to de-Americanise the opening sections?
Looking at the results from outside Ireland, is it not a little confusing to have the United Left Alliance and New Vision listed as parties in the tables? My understanding is that the United Left Alliance candidates were officially described as Socialist Party, People Before Profit Alliance or Independent, and that New Vision candidates were described as Independent also, presumably because the Alliance and New Vision were not registered as political parties. Skinsmoke ( talk) 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As for grouping the ULA as the ULA, that's the banner these groups are going under now so I say so be it. But again I'll wait for consensus. JandK87 ( talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I just don't get this. FF were the largest in 1932, but not the largest in 1927, so how can the intro state it is the first time since the 1932 election that they are not the largest? RodCrosby ( talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The constituency map for independents/minor parties shows one independent in Sligo-North Leitrim. It should show none. There were two FG and one SF elected but no independents. -- User:Boreas74 Talk 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we really have to list New Vision as a party? I haven't once heard Ming mention New Vision since he was elected. It wasn't on the ballot, it was an electoral alliance, and in a few months few of us will be that conscious of it. Worth mentioning in the text, but I don't think in the tables and introductory infoboxes. Even Fís Nua managed to be registered as a party, if too late. The page for Irish general election, 2002 doesn't mention the similar Independent Health Alliance. -- William Quill ( talk) 11:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Exiledone ( talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just reading article to get insight on election and a) seems like all that distracting "who expected to get what vote" from the lead could go, since results are now in and b) a better explanation in lead of what the elected parties/individuals promised to do about the financial crisis different that lead to victory. It took me a couple quick read throughs to find it clearly expressed in reactions. 2008–2010_Irish_financial_crisis needs to have some update info added to. Just in case someone's looking for something to do, based on comments by wiki editor dropping by on this Blessed Day! Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Exiledone ( talk) 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There is little precedent for including Irish electoral pacts in infoboxes. Political parties, which actually appeared on the ballot paper, are meaningful and informative entities. The Register of Political Parties contains all the details for actual parties contesting the election. In practice, no-one gave a care whether Ming said he was in New Vision or Fís Nua or Hash-Smoking Turf-Cutters For Better Facial Hair; much less the ballot paper, which describes independents/non-party candidates as such. There is no evidence that New Vision as such made any impact on the public debate, much less that there was anything in common among candidates as different as Ming and John McGuirk. I tried to fix this, but someone reverted it without explaining themselves. I will change it again shortly if no actual reason is given. AtSwimTwoBirds ( talk) 20:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Objectively speaking, New Vision was at no time a registered political party, whereas WUAG, the Socialists and PBP were all registered parties at the time of the election. I see no compelling reason why a New Vision alliance ought to be accorded greater prominence in the infobox than other independent TDs. -- Kwekubo ( talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
At what point is it reasonable for me to edit this article in line with this discussion? I am eager to do so. There has been no further criticism of the idea to separate the parties in the ULA since May. AtSwimTwoBirds ( talk) 13:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) 109.255.167.200 ( talk)
Having 8 Parties in the info box looks extremely messy. I feel it should be reduced to just 6 as has been the case for articles on previous Irish elections. The two most obvious ways of doing this are either 1 Cut out the WUAG and Green Party. The WUAG only won one seat and its nonsensical to include them and a party that won not a single seat in the info box or 2 Replace the Socialist Party, PBPA and WUAG with the ULA. I agree that the parties should be septate in the summary table and I know there has been a lot of discussion over the parties designation as their candidates did not appear as ULA on the ballet. Yet perhaps it should be considered given that the Green Party did win a significant portion of FPV to warrant their inclusion in the info box. Personally I'd prefer to exclude the WUAG and Greens, but given the ULA have a map of their results it would make sense to have these 3 parties listed as ULA for the purposes of the info box with a possible note giving the details of the parties and even Declan Bree separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGlennonB ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should the WUAG and Greens even be included? The WUAG is not a political party, it only organises in South Tipperary and its sole TD, Seamus Healy, is listed as an Independent on the members database http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=29&MemberID=1750&ConstID=172
As for the Green Party seeing how they failed to win any seats at all it does not make any sense for them to be included as well. I'd also like to see the removal of these two "Parties" from the page for the next General Election
Fair enough, I'll concede that the Green Party and WUAG should be included. SGlennonB ( talk) 18:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus in this question. Just above User:SGlennonB has proposed to present ULA condensed in the infobox. And it looks like back in May, you (Snappy) yourself defended the position of presenting the ULA as one in the infobox, while explaining the actual relationship of the parties in detail in the article's main text. At least, User:Exiledone seems to have taken this position, as well. So you cannot speek of a consensus. And there are still (in my opinion very valid) arguments: the infobox can never be complete and show all details. It has to simplify. Now, it makes a rather unclear and confusing impression with showing eight parties. As the three parties made an alliance and campaigned together, condensing them into one (only for the infobox) almost seems the thing to do. I would be glad if you could deal with the arguments instead of just pointing to some (dubious) consensus. -- RJFF ( talk) 17:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Constituency results can be found here( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
If the results were based on pure PR the seats awarded to the parties would be: Fine Gael 60 Labour 29 Finna Fail 29 Sinn Fein 16 Others 29
Even using the existing 3-5 seats, if seats were based on First-Prefence only the seats awarded would be: Fine Gael 75 Labour 36 Finna Fail 29 Sinn Fein 16 Others 15 Election Results, Ireland 2011
Small 3-5 seats benefit the largest party and on this occasion preference voting affecting Finna Fail most ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
For the number of parties in the infobox, where does it specify a maximum number in Wikipedia rules/guidelines? It's been discussed before (see above) with no conclusion. Why do not limit ourselves to arbitrary numbers because some editors thinks so? Snappy ( talk) 18:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This article, alone of all the Irish election articles, uses the "slimmed down" infobox. It should really go back to the old style. As for the number of parties, two lines is sufficient. That means a maximum of 6 parties. The article on the 2015 UK election only gives 4, and in doing so ignores the party that got the 3rd largest number of votes! An infobox is surely only meant to be a quick visual aid at the top of the page, with the full results given in the body of the article. 86.147.208.85 ( talk) 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Opinion polls" section contains a lot of analysis of the polls that isn't referenced. Please add citations to ensure that the conclusions are attributable to reliable sources rather than the judgements of the editors. — howcheng { chat} 09:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/veteran-fianna-fail-td-sean-ardagh-to-quit-politics-2455812.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/browne-to-apologise-for-silly-suggestion-of-kenny-suicide-2363468.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/ff-turn-on-each-other-over-scraps-2556172.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://election.fiannafail.ie/page/-/images/Election%202011/FF-RealPlan-RealFuture.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1024/poll.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0514/poll.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving 2011 Irish general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 February 2011. | ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 25, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cite Irish_general_election,_1987, and from my home country, Canadian federal election, 2008, as examples that the seat that the leader is contesting, not the seat they currently hold, should go in this slot. Regardless, I've removed Adams' NI seat as he ho longer holds it. Nickjbor ( talk) 00:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The box says Leader, not Parliamentary Leader. I think it misleading to an outsider to list Ó Caoláin rather than Adams as leader. It will be Adams, not Ó Caoláin, who will act as party leader during the campaign, whether in debates or anything else. -- William Quill ( talk) 13:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved (not controversial so discussion not needed). Number 5 7 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Irish general election, 2011|Its been confirmed now that the govt. has falled and a new election has been called for [1]
Next Irish general election → Irish general election, 2011 — Its been confirmed now that the govt. has falled and a new election has been called for [2] Lihaas ( talk) 20:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.The exact date of the election is currently unknown. It may be January but could well be February or March, as stated in the Irish Times, see here. The budget vote on 7 December, is only one part of the process (usually concerned with alcohol taxes). The Finance bill is usually passed in February. It could be passed in January in 2011, but then add 3 weeks for an election campaign and that means February. Anyway, the date is not yet known, which is why I put in early 2011, to cover all bases. Snappy ( talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why the seat nos and percentages in this field are not being displayed for FF/Fg/Lab but do show up for the other parties. I can't seem to fix it. Or maybe it's just my browser (firefox)? Lozleader ( talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Errr.. I'm trying to understand the rationale for including the Socialist Party (who have no seats in current Dáil) in the infobox. This is presumably because someone thinks it likely that they might get a seat or tow in the election? In which case People Before Profit ought to be there too. Looks like a breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Lozleader ( talk) 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
According to politics.ie, Seymour Crawford (FG, Cavan-Monaghan) is standing down. So whenever a reliable source appears he needs to added to the "retiring incumbents". Lozleader ( talk) 13:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The Irish Times story re retirement of Seymour Crawford [4] states "at least 11 sitting TDs will not be contesting the poll". We have only 9 in our list. Lozleader ( talk) 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Pádraic McCormack (FG, Galway West) seems to be bowing out, against his will... [5] There is a possibility that he could still run, even as an Independent, I suppose, but worth keeping an eye on. Lozleader ( talk) 14:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
think we need some diversification of sources. probably would naturally happen with the campaign coming along, but thought id say it here. Lihaas ( talk) 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
in order to both avoid POV/undue coverage and a list of the parties, would it be possible for someone to put into prose perhaps in the campaign section the parties running adn some mention of platform/intention. Right now only the new alliance is in there. We need Gael, Fail (although some is in the background), Sinn Fein (in general, not just Adams), Labour, and Greens (again some mention in the abckground already, but need more). This may not be urgent, itll probably come up in the next few weeks. Lihaas ( talk) 13:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I was going to say the quote is unnecessary (I am not a fan of using them in articles in the blockquote format), but perhaps this is just my "bias" shining through. Number 5 7 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
At the moment the article reads:
The electorate will choose the members of the 31st Dáil who will assemble shortly afterwards to elect a Taoiseach in the 31st Dáil.
The use of "31st Dail" twice in the same sentence seems very clumsy... can't we just manage with:
The electorate will choose the members of the 31st Dáil, which will assemble shortly afterwards to elect a Taoiseach.
or similar? Lozleader ( talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
is there any source that affirms that Sinn Fein are most likely to beenfit from Fail's failure (no pun intended)? The poll does suggest it soemwhat, but some text would be nice to add to perhaps the campaign section expanded. Lihaas ( talk) 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess we should be doing this.... (if they can be reliably sourced), there have been a rash of selection conventions in the last few days. Lozleader ( talk) 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
"was in effect forced " was reverted. although i believe i wrote that, i think the editor who changed it is right as theres no way they can be "forced." Persuaded perhaps (and more reasonable), but decided was more accurate than the status quo term.( Lihaas ( talk) 12:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).
This releates to the election infoboxes on candidates in their respective constituencies. Should ULA candidates be considered members of the ULA or members of their respective parties. ElectionsIreland is making a bit of a cockup in their info on the candidates by designating people who've ran in previous elections by the party they ran under (e.g. Richard Boyd Barrett and Joe Higgins) and others, such as WUAG member Seamus Healey and members of the SP and PbP who havnt previously contested the election such as running for the ULA.
An example of this is on the page for Dublin North Central where the candidate as a Socialist Party candidate. Should it be ULA for the sake of convenience? Exiledone ( talk) 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in the campaign section "A new party called An Chomhdáil Phobail – The People's Convention, was established in Cork in December 2010. It intends to run candidates in Cork constituencies." is supported by a single reference in the Cork Independent, and on Googling the group the only hits are versions of the single news report and this article. To quote the news report "The new group is hoping to gain members and momentum at its Cork launch next week." (December 2010). I suggest that they got neither and do not in fact exist. Unless anyone objects I will remove them. Lozleader ( talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there any rationale for Democracy Now having it's own section in the article? Maybe it should be included as a subsection on new political groupings as part of the campaign section. Exiledone ( talk) 13:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A news report suggested that Fine Gael's position on cuts may be too incompatible with Labour for a coalition. That got me thinking about what sort of chance FG has to rule on its own, either as a majority or a minority. Of course, I looked to their share of the vote, but I don't know Irish elections well enough to have a sense of what national share is likely to result in a majority. That all lead me to wonder whether there are commonly used seat projection models for Ireland as there are for Canada and the UK. Does anyone know of any and have any thoughts on including the projections? - Rrius ( talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ignorant American question--how soon can we say who the next government will be? An RTE exit poll is already reporting that Fine Gael is winning going away, and the BBC and the Guardian have both quoted that poll in saying Kenny will form the next government. Blueboy 96 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"Caucus", "have the inside track" ... ? Are these usual phrases is Irish politics? Is there any alternative phrases we could use to de-Americanise the opening sections?
Looking at the results from outside Ireland, is it not a little confusing to have the United Left Alliance and New Vision listed as parties in the tables? My understanding is that the United Left Alliance candidates were officially described as Socialist Party, People Before Profit Alliance or Independent, and that New Vision candidates were described as Independent also, presumably because the Alliance and New Vision were not registered as political parties. Skinsmoke ( talk) 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As for grouping the ULA as the ULA, that's the banner these groups are going under now so I say so be it. But again I'll wait for consensus. JandK87 ( talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I just don't get this. FF were the largest in 1932, but not the largest in 1927, so how can the intro state it is the first time since the 1932 election that they are not the largest? RodCrosby ( talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The constituency map for independents/minor parties shows one independent in Sligo-North Leitrim. It should show none. There were two FG and one SF elected but no independents. -- User:Boreas74 Talk 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we really have to list New Vision as a party? I haven't once heard Ming mention New Vision since he was elected. It wasn't on the ballot, it was an electoral alliance, and in a few months few of us will be that conscious of it. Worth mentioning in the text, but I don't think in the tables and introductory infoboxes. Even Fís Nua managed to be registered as a party, if too late. The page for Irish general election, 2002 doesn't mention the similar Independent Health Alliance. -- William Quill ( talk) 11:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Exiledone ( talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just reading article to get insight on election and a) seems like all that distracting "who expected to get what vote" from the lead could go, since results are now in and b) a better explanation in lead of what the elected parties/individuals promised to do about the financial crisis different that lead to victory. It took me a couple quick read throughs to find it clearly expressed in reactions. 2008–2010_Irish_financial_crisis needs to have some update info added to. Just in case someone's looking for something to do, based on comments by wiki editor dropping by on this Blessed Day! Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Exiledone ( talk) 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There is little precedent for including Irish electoral pacts in infoboxes. Political parties, which actually appeared on the ballot paper, are meaningful and informative entities. The Register of Political Parties contains all the details for actual parties contesting the election. In practice, no-one gave a care whether Ming said he was in New Vision or Fís Nua or Hash-Smoking Turf-Cutters For Better Facial Hair; much less the ballot paper, which describes independents/non-party candidates as such. There is no evidence that New Vision as such made any impact on the public debate, much less that there was anything in common among candidates as different as Ming and John McGuirk. I tried to fix this, but someone reverted it without explaining themselves. I will change it again shortly if no actual reason is given. AtSwimTwoBirds ( talk) 20:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Objectively speaking, New Vision was at no time a registered political party, whereas WUAG, the Socialists and PBP were all registered parties at the time of the election. I see no compelling reason why a New Vision alliance ought to be accorded greater prominence in the infobox than other independent TDs. -- Kwekubo ( talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
At what point is it reasonable for me to edit this article in line with this discussion? I am eager to do so. There has been no further criticism of the idea to separate the parties in the ULA since May. AtSwimTwoBirds ( talk) 13:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) 109.255.167.200 ( talk)
Having 8 Parties in the info box looks extremely messy. I feel it should be reduced to just 6 as has been the case for articles on previous Irish elections. The two most obvious ways of doing this are either 1 Cut out the WUAG and Green Party. The WUAG only won one seat and its nonsensical to include them and a party that won not a single seat in the info box or 2 Replace the Socialist Party, PBPA and WUAG with the ULA. I agree that the parties should be septate in the summary table and I know there has been a lot of discussion over the parties designation as their candidates did not appear as ULA on the ballet. Yet perhaps it should be considered given that the Green Party did win a significant portion of FPV to warrant their inclusion in the info box. Personally I'd prefer to exclude the WUAG and Greens, but given the ULA have a map of their results it would make sense to have these 3 parties listed as ULA for the purposes of the info box with a possible note giving the details of the parties and even Declan Bree separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGlennonB ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should the WUAG and Greens even be included? The WUAG is not a political party, it only organises in South Tipperary and its sole TD, Seamus Healy, is listed as an Independent on the members database http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=29&MemberID=1750&ConstID=172
As for the Green Party seeing how they failed to win any seats at all it does not make any sense for them to be included as well. I'd also like to see the removal of these two "Parties" from the page for the next General Election
Fair enough, I'll concede that the Green Party and WUAG should be included. SGlennonB ( talk) 18:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus in this question. Just above User:SGlennonB has proposed to present ULA condensed in the infobox. And it looks like back in May, you (Snappy) yourself defended the position of presenting the ULA as one in the infobox, while explaining the actual relationship of the parties in detail in the article's main text. At least, User:Exiledone seems to have taken this position, as well. So you cannot speek of a consensus. And there are still (in my opinion very valid) arguments: the infobox can never be complete and show all details. It has to simplify. Now, it makes a rather unclear and confusing impression with showing eight parties. As the three parties made an alliance and campaigned together, condensing them into one (only for the infobox) almost seems the thing to do. I would be glad if you could deal with the arguments instead of just pointing to some (dubious) consensus. -- RJFF ( talk) 17:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Constituency results can be found here( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
If the results were based on pure PR the seats awarded to the parties would be: Fine Gael 60 Labour 29 Finna Fail 29 Sinn Fein 16 Others 29
Even using the existing 3-5 seats, if seats were based on First-Prefence only the seats awarded would be: Fine Gael 75 Labour 36 Finna Fail 29 Sinn Fein 16 Others 15 Election Results, Ireland 2011
Small 3-5 seats benefit the largest party and on this occasion preference voting affecting Finna Fail most ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
For the number of parties in the infobox, where does it specify a maximum number in Wikipedia rules/guidelines? It's been discussed before (see above) with no conclusion. Why do not limit ourselves to arbitrary numbers because some editors thinks so? Snappy ( talk) 18:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This article, alone of all the Irish election articles, uses the "slimmed down" infobox. It should really go back to the old style. As for the number of parties, two lines is sufficient. That means a maximum of 6 parties. The article on the 2015 UK election only gives 4, and in doing so ignores the party that got the 3rd largest number of votes! An infobox is surely only meant to be a quick visual aid at the top of the page, with the full results given in the body of the article. 86.147.208.85 ( talk) 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Opinion polls" section contains a lot of analysis of the polls that isn't referenced. Please add citations to ensure that the conclusions are attributable to reliable sources rather than the judgements of the editors. — howcheng { chat} 09:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/veteran-fianna-fail-td-sean-ardagh-to-quit-politics-2455812.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/browne-to-apologise-for-silly-suggestion-of-kenny-suicide-2363468.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/ff-turn-on-each-other-over-scraps-2556172.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://election.fiannafail.ie/page/-/images/Election%202011/FF-RealPlan-RealFuture.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish general election, 2011. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1024/poll.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0514/poll.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)