2011 Irish presidential election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should we not reconsider the use of the word "Confirmed" in the title of this section - none of these candidates will, as yet, appear on the ballot. Perhaps "Confirmed Candidates seeking nomination" and then once confirmed "Candidates" ? Sissco ( talk) 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Should Norris not be under the Labour Party?-- Foxtrot Romeo 13:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
as discussion on the general election page, Adams is not a MP in Ireland and thus a moot case right now anways, if and when he becoems MP then it can be put on( Lihaas ( talk) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)).
Gerry Adams has never expressed a wish to be elected as President. There is no link supplied which contadicts this. Its pure media speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.234.98 ( talk) 09:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I heard that Senator Martin McAleese, the first gentleman, performed well in a poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.219.113 ( talk) 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we redesign this page to look like this User:Sissco/Sandbox , more along the US style, see Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sissco ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that she has ever expressed any interest in the presidency? The only ref we have is a rather speculative article by Fionnan Sheehan which also includes Bertie Ahern, Emily O'Reilly and a couple of Green Party ex-TDs, none of whom appear to be remotely in the running (and consequently don't appear in the article).
I've googled around the place and can't find any other source for this speculation. I would say we can probably remove her.
Thoughts? Lozleader ( talk) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed Michael D. from the infobox. The election isn't declared as yet, so he's just the nominee from one party. Candidates should only be added when the election is declared and they've been officially nominated. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I just was trying to put this citation in for the use of instant runoff voting (e.g, preferential voting) for election, but must be making some mistake in formatting. Here's what I was trying to put in:
Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
RRichie (
talk) 13:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the nominations period opens and closes? - Rrius ( talk) 08:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
so don't let's start an edit war, okay? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0917/breaking6.html
I am going forward as Martin McGuinness in my own right, I'm not going forward as a representative of Sinn Féin
I'm not a representative of Sinn Féin in the election – I stand in my right, just as the other candidates will be appealing to voters from all around the country and through all political parties.
What is the legal definition here? -- Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 14:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
We also have this article Irish nationality law Lozleader ( talk) 19:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Could we get an opinion polls section up? I'm now sure how to go about it, but could compile some newspaper links? Filastin ( talk) 15:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Polls published AFTER the nominations are in should be added. Lozleader ( talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Poll | G Byrne | M D Higgins | G Mitchell | D Norris | M Davis | S Gallagher | M O Muircheartaigh | E O Cuiv | B Crowley |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Paddy Power/Red C 8 September 2011 [3] | N/A | 36 | 24 | N/A | 19 | 21 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Sunday Independent/Millward Brown Lansdowne 4 September 2011 [4] | N/A | 32 | 24 | 18 | 13 | 11 | 6 | N/A | N/A |
Paddy Power/Red C 11 August 2011 [5] | 28 | 21 | 13 | N/A | 7 | 12 | N/A | N/A | 13 |
Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI 20 July 2011 [6] | N/A | 18 | 21 | 25 | 12 | 13 | N/A | 11 | N/A |
As you can see, these figures tell us very little Lozleader ( talk) 11:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering the page is already pretty hefty, should we create a separate page for the nominations period. We could reduce the nominations section on this page to a paragraph and a link to the relevant page, to allow us to expand on what will likely be a fairly lively campaign proper. Similar to how the US primary pages are separate from the actual presidential election page. aE787564 ( talk) 14:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The infobox states that Martin McGuinness is an independent candidate for the election. Is this true as I was under the assumption he was a Sinn Féin candidate having been nominated by Sinn Féin and a few independents? Mac Tíre Cowag 15:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Are we allowed to point it out here? Is there something to hide? Why do my very relevant edits keep getting vandalized? It's public knowledge (in Dublin anyway) that Norris was a landlord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not trivia. It's a fact about the candidate. The public like to know all the facts, including all former occupations of candidates. Let's have a neutral article with all the facts we can get for a richer, deeper, wikipedia.
It IS interesting for the electorate that e.g. Martin Mansergh has a herd number, now that you mention it! For some it would help them to relate to him (would you believe he's a farmer like us?). For others it may be a negative thing. But it's a fact either way, not really trivia like what's his favourite color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 ( talk) 20:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Another miserable deletion! What's the point! The political campaigns have their own websites where they can 100% control the content. Let's respect the rules of wikipedia here. Please don't feel that you're protecting David Norris by deleting my contribution that he was a landlord in North Great Georges Street. You aren't. I know it must be fun and exiting to be officially or unofficially part of an election campaign, but do your spinning on your own web-sites please. This is wikipedia, for the public, for ***everybody***. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 ( talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I just removed a Sunday Indo/Quantum poll from the list. The reason is that Quantum Research are not a reputable polling company: they do not publish their methodology, nor do they have a website. This is in stark contrast with the likes of RED C and Ipsos MRBI. It is in fact hard to discover if they really exist.
This is consistent with the article Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2011. When the Sunday Independent did use a real polling company (Millward Brown Lansdowne) the results were included, but the Quantum ones like this one [7] from 9 January 2011 were not. Lozleader ( talk) 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realise there was a question over Quantum. The poll was widely reported so I felt it should be included but am happy to defer to the consensus. Re Snappy's assertion "ringing their family and friends in order to get the correct result!" they didn't do that very well as I doubt the Sindo will be backing Michael D!! -- Gramscis cousin Talk Stalk 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've restored yesterday's Sunday Indo poll. The idea that that the Indo is producing "fake" polling data (per this comment) is simply bizarre. The Sunday Indo - while heavily biased at times, like all Sunday newspapers - is a broadsheet and the largest selling Sunday newspaper in Ireland. Quantum Research is the their in-house research polling division. It is no more or less reliable a polling organisation than contracting commercial agencies like MRBI.
If anyone is genuinely concerned that the Indo is producing fake news stories, the appropriate venue to take these concerns is the described here. -- RA ( talk) 11:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this on a couple of occasions, but rather than cause an edit war I have decided to take this to the talk page where consensus can be reached. The problematic sentence reads as follows:
While I am in no way a fan of Martin McGuinness, I believe the sentence indirectly implies Martin McGuinness had a role in the killing of the Irish soldier in question by linking the words "IRA" and "commander" (incorrect timeframe) with Martin McGuinness in the context of the tragedy that occurred. There is no proof that McGuinness was involved, and only scant controversial evidence supplied by some authors that McGuinness was in the IRA at the time of the murder. If we use the old proverb "innocent until proven guilty" then the link between McGuinness, the event in question and the IRA should not be made as is currently implied. The sentence, together with surrounding context, should be readable as a standalone print version and not subject the content to ambiguity. Personally, I believe that anyone who reads that sentence (including the references, one of which mentions nothing about the event in question) without any knowledge of McGuinness, the IRA, the Troubles, etc. will instantly assume McGuinness was directly involved and that he was a commander in the IRA at the time. Mac Tíre Cowag 14:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Does WP:BLP allow the for the allegations about Dana's family to be repeated here? Snappy ( talk) 18:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I recommend locking down this article so only registered users can edit. I hate the idea of this, as I'm sure there are many anonymous IPs which could contribute much needed and welcome information. However, at present there seems to be an undue amount of vandalism occurring on this article. Thoughts or suggestions? Mac Tíre Cowag 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree the people need to know that Gallagher is Fianna Fail, most of what is on Wikipedia is left-wing liberal baloney, Gallagher and Davis need to be exposed for what they are Fianna Fail cronie hacks, get a life dudes, get a way from the computer, get layed or whatever, even boards.ie maybe looking for FF scum like ye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.150.222 ( talk) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it surprising that there is virtually no mention of Sean Gallagher in the article especially in light of recent events. Could anyone make a contribution? Exiledone ( talk) 08:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this Newstalk poll from the Opinion polls table. The methodology is unclear from the webpage cited. It used the phrase "the listener vote"; Newstalk listeners are not representative of the electorate in general so the data are not comparable with the other polls in the table. jnestorius( talk) 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor removed the references in the lead to the referendum , stating that they showed no relevance . I returned them as they give background evidence ,the referendum on the Constitution of Ireland on the same day which were voted on at the same time as the Presidential election . I then looked into Lihaas and he had edited into the Queens visit to Ireland a SNP Scottish election victory and Scottish independence this.Now one of these is relevant the other not . I am actuallly trying to be civil but I am struggling . Does anybody believe that the referendum should NOT be mentoned in this article ? Murry1975 ( talk) 08:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
anyone know why Norris was eliminated separately, when Norris, McGuinness and Mitchell could all have been eliminated together without materially affecting the outcome? RodCrosby ( talk) 12:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
receives in excess of one quarter of the quota may seek reimbursement of expenses – the lesser of actual expenses or €200,000."
together where the sum of their votes is less than the votes of the next lowest candidate and where there is no scope for a candidate to exceed one quarter of the quota if candidates were to be excluded individually. "
From the article as of 2011-10-30 @ 0030 Norris mentioned on radio that he had been "collecting apologies in the newspapers" and that they "told the truth in the end". It has been removed accordingly, as I can't find a source for that assertion. 83.70.243.129 ( talk) 23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there any need for the large, distracting and aesthetically unpleasing infobox in the top right hand corner of the page? All the information, except the pictures, can be found elsewhere in the articles. The pictures can be put in a 'gallery.' Angrybeerman ( talk) 11:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
This is expressed as a total of all votes cast (i.e. whether the candidate made the quota or not). Non-effective and non-transferable votes do not get discounted. While somewhat similar in format, this is not run-off voting, it is STV, and voters who express a preference for neither of the last two candidates do not have their votes discounted, merely they do not transfer. Cripipper ( talk) 14:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Several sections of this article are Overcited. For example does the last sentence really need four cites ? Higgins received a hero's welcome at a victory reception on 30 October at Eyre Square, Galway; approximately 5,000 people turned out to welcome him home.[199][200][201][202] Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Grandiose ( talk · contribs) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Will be doing a thorough read through. I've identified one grammar mistake. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead needs to provide a much better summary of the article. Missing are:
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | #9 needs changing - a proper reference to the particularly report and a source for the suggestion the Irish version prevails (possibly in that report, I don't know). Otherwise seems fine. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | SHame we have no free photo for Dana Rosemary Scallon, but there's not much we can do about that. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Waiting on the lead and one reference change (that's all I can see, I may find more to bring up). On hold for 7 days. |
Failing now as issues haven't been addressed in two weeks. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Noleander ( talk · contribs) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this. -- Noleander ( talk) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DrKiernan ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources included for Norris/Nawi, O'Callaghan/McGuinness. Voting section moved below announcement of candidates. The candidates section simply lists the final seven candidates, while the nomination campaign section includes all the other possibilities (Pat Cox, Avril Doyle, Mairead McGuinness, Fergus Finlay, Kathleen O'Meara, Brian Crowley, Éamon Ó Cuív, Mary White, Mary Hanafin, Niall O'Dowd, Justin Kilcullen, Robert Ballagh, Gay Byrne and whoever else there was) so not really a duplicate at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.204.15 ( talk) 00:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish presidential 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
2011 Irish presidential election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should we not reconsider the use of the word "Confirmed" in the title of this section - none of these candidates will, as yet, appear on the ballot. Perhaps "Confirmed Candidates seeking nomination" and then once confirmed "Candidates" ? Sissco ( talk) 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Should Norris not be under the Labour Party?-- Foxtrot Romeo 13:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
as discussion on the general election page, Adams is not a MP in Ireland and thus a moot case right now anways, if and when he becoems MP then it can be put on( Lihaas ( talk) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)).
Gerry Adams has never expressed a wish to be elected as President. There is no link supplied which contadicts this. Its pure media speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.234.98 ( talk) 09:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I heard that Senator Martin McAleese, the first gentleman, performed well in a poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.219.113 ( talk) 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we redesign this page to look like this User:Sissco/Sandbox , more along the US style, see Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sissco ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that she has ever expressed any interest in the presidency? The only ref we have is a rather speculative article by Fionnan Sheehan which also includes Bertie Ahern, Emily O'Reilly and a couple of Green Party ex-TDs, none of whom appear to be remotely in the running (and consequently don't appear in the article).
I've googled around the place and can't find any other source for this speculation. I would say we can probably remove her.
Thoughts? Lozleader ( talk) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed Michael D. from the infobox. The election isn't declared as yet, so he's just the nominee from one party. Candidates should only be added when the election is declared and they've been officially nominated. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I just was trying to put this citation in for the use of instant runoff voting (e.g, preferential voting) for election, but must be making some mistake in formatting. Here's what I was trying to put in:
Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
RRichie (
talk) 13:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the nominations period opens and closes? - Rrius ( talk) 08:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
so don't let's start an edit war, okay? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0917/breaking6.html
I am going forward as Martin McGuinness in my own right, I'm not going forward as a representative of Sinn Féin
I'm not a representative of Sinn Féin in the election – I stand in my right, just as the other candidates will be appealing to voters from all around the country and through all political parties.
What is the legal definition here? -- Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 14:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
We also have this article Irish nationality law Lozleader ( talk) 19:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Could we get an opinion polls section up? I'm now sure how to go about it, but could compile some newspaper links? Filastin ( talk) 15:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Polls published AFTER the nominations are in should be added. Lozleader ( talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Poll | G Byrne | M D Higgins | G Mitchell | D Norris | M Davis | S Gallagher | M O Muircheartaigh | E O Cuiv | B Crowley |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Paddy Power/Red C 8 September 2011 [3] | N/A | 36 | 24 | N/A | 19 | 21 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Sunday Independent/Millward Brown Lansdowne 4 September 2011 [4] | N/A | 32 | 24 | 18 | 13 | 11 | 6 | N/A | N/A |
Paddy Power/Red C 11 August 2011 [5] | 28 | 21 | 13 | N/A | 7 | 12 | N/A | N/A | 13 |
Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI 20 July 2011 [6] | N/A | 18 | 21 | 25 | 12 | 13 | N/A | 11 | N/A |
As you can see, these figures tell us very little Lozleader ( talk) 11:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering the page is already pretty hefty, should we create a separate page for the nominations period. We could reduce the nominations section on this page to a paragraph and a link to the relevant page, to allow us to expand on what will likely be a fairly lively campaign proper. Similar to how the US primary pages are separate from the actual presidential election page. aE787564 ( talk) 14:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The infobox states that Martin McGuinness is an independent candidate for the election. Is this true as I was under the assumption he was a Sinn Féin candidate having been nominated by Sinn Féin and a few independents? Mac Tíre Cowag 15:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Are we allowed to point it out here? Is there something to hide? Why do my very relevant edits keep getting vandalized? It's public knowledge (in Dublin anyway) that Norris was a landlord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not trivia. It's a fact about the candidate. The public like to know all the facts, including all former occupations of candidates. Let's have a neutral article with all the facts we can get for a richer, deeper, wikipedia.
It IS interesting for the electorate that e.g. Martin Mansergh has a herd number, now that you mention it! For some it would help them to relate to him (would you believe he's a farmer like us?). For others it may be a negative thing. But it's a fact either way, not really trivia like what's his favourite color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 ( talk) 20:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Another miserable deletion! What's the point! The political campaigns have their own websites where they can 100% control the content. Let's respect the rules of wikipedia here. Please don't feel that you're protecting David Norris by deleting my contribution that he was a landlord in North Great Georges Street. You aren't. I know it must be fun and exiting to be officially or unofficially part of an election campaign, but do your spinning on your own web-sites please. This is wikipedia, for the public, for ***everybody***. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.24.115 ( talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I just removed a Sunday Indo/Quantum poll from the list. The reason is that Quantum Research are not a reputable polling company: they do not publish their methodology, nor do they have a website. This is in stark contrast with the likes of RED C and Ipsos MRBI. It is in fact hard to discover if they really exist.
This is consistent with the article Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2011. When the Sunday Independent did use a real polling company (Millward Brown Lansdowne) the results were included, but the Quantum ones like this one [7] from 9 January 2011 were not. Lozleader ( talk) 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realise there was a question over Quantum. The poll was widely reported so I felt it should be included but am happy to defer to the consensus. Re Snappy's assertion "ringing their family and friends in order to get the correct result!" they didn't do that very well as I doubt the Sindo will be backing Michael D!! -- Gramscis cousin Talk Stalk 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've restored yesterday's Sunday Indo poll. The idea that that the Indo is producing "fake" polling data (per this comment) is simply bizarre. The Sunday Indo - while heavily biased at times, like all Sunday newspapers - is a broadsheet and the largest selling Sunday newspaper in Ireland. Quantum Research is the their in-house research polling division. It is no more or less reliable a polling organisation than contracting commercial agencies like MRBI.
If anyone is genuinely concerned that the Indo is producing fake news stories, the appropriate venue to take these concerns is the described here. -- RA ( talk) 11:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this on a couple of occasions, but rather than cause an edit war I have decided to take this to the talk page where consensus can be reached. The problematic sentence reads as follows:
While I am in no way a fan of Martin McGuinness, I believe the sentence indirectly implies Martin McGuinness had a role in the killing of the Irish soldier in question by linking the words "IRA" and "commander" (incorrect timeframe) with Martin McGuinness in the context of the tragedy that occurred. There is no proof that McGuinness was involved, and only scant controversial evidence supplied by some authors that McGuinness was in the IRA at the time of the murder. If we use the old proverb "innocent until proven guilty" then the link between McGuinness, the event in question and the IRA should not be made as is currently implied. The sentence, together with surrounding context, should be readable as a standalone print version and not subject the content to ambiguity. Personally, I believe that anyone who reads that sentence (including the references, one of which mentions nothing about the event in question) without any knowledge of McGuinness, the IRA, the Troubles, etc. will instantly assume McGuinness was directly involved and that he was a commander in the IRA at the time. Mac Tíre Cowag 14:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Does WP:BLP allow the for the allegations about Dana's family to be repeated here? Snappy ( talk) 18:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I recommend locking down this article so only registered users can edit. I hate the idea of this, as I'm sure there are many anonymous IPs which could contribute much needed and welcome information. However, at present there seems to be an undue amount of vandalism occurring on this article. Thoughts or suggestions? Mac Tíre Cowag 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree the people need to know that Gallagher is Fianna Fail, most of what is on Wikipedia is left-wing liberal baloney, Gallagher and Davis need to be exposed for what they are Fianna Fail cronie hacks, get a life dudes, get a way from the computer, get layed or whatever, even boards.ie maybe looking for FF scum like ye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.150.222 ( talk) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it surprising that there is virtually no mention of Sean Gallagher in the article especially in light of recent events. Could anyone make a contribution? Exiledone ( talk) 08:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this Newstalk poll from the Opinion polls table. The methodology is unclear from the webpage cited. It used the phrase "the listener vote"; Newstalk listeners are not representative of the electorate in general so the data are not comparable with the other polls in the table. jnestorius( talk) 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor removed the references in the lead to the referendum , stating that they showed no relevance . I returned them as they give background evidence ,the referendum on the Constitution of Ireland on the same day which were voted on at the same time as the Presidential election . I then looked into Lihaas and he had edited into the Queens visit to Ireland a SNP Scottish election victory and Scottish independence this.Now one of these is relevant the other not . I am actuallly trying to be civil but I am struggling . Does anybody believe that the referendum should NOT be mentoned in this article ? Murry1975 ( talk) 08:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
anyone know why Norris was eliminated separately, when Norris, McGuinness and Mitchell could all have been eliminated together without materially affecting the outcome? RodCrosby ( talk) 12:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
receives in excess of one quarter of the quota may seek reimbursement of expenses – the lesser of actual expenses or €200,000."
together where the sum of their votes is less than the votes of the next lowest candidate and where there is no scope for a candidate to exceed one quarter of the quota if candidates were to be excluded individually. "
From the article as of 2011-10-30 @ 0030 Norris mentioned on radio that he had been "collecting apologies in the newspapers" and that they "told the truth in the end". It has been removed accordingly, as I can't find a source for that assertion. 83.70.243.129 ( talk) 23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there any need for the large, distracting and aesthetically unpleasing infobox in the top right hand corner of the page? All the information, except the pictures, can be found elsewhere in the articles. The pictures can be put in a 'gallery.' Angrybeerman ( talk) 11:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
This is expressed as a total of all votes cast (i.e. whether the candidate made the quota or not). Non-effective and non-transferable votes do not get discounted. While somewhat similar in format, this is not run-off voting, it is STV, and voters who express a preference for neither of the last two candidates do not have their votes discounted, merely they do not transfer. Cripipper ( talk) 14:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Several sections of this article are Overcited. For example does the last sentence really need four cites ? Higgins received a hero's welcome at a victory reception on 30 October at Eyre Square, Galway; approximately 5,000 people turned out to welcome him home.[199][200][201][202] Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Grandiose ( talk · contribs) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Will be doing a thorough read through. I've identified one grammar mistake. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead needs to provide a much better summary of the article. Missing are:
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | #9 needs changing - a proper reference to the particularly report and a source for the suggestion the Irish version prevails (possibly in that report, I don't know). Otherwise seems fine. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | SHame we have no free photo for Dana Rosemary Scallon, but there's not much we can do about that. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Waiting on the lead and one reference change (that's all I can see, I may find more to bring up). On hold for 7 days. |
Failing now as issues haven't been addressed in two weeks. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Noleander ( talk · contribs) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this. -- Noleander ( talk) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DrKiernan ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources included for Norris/Nawi, O'Callaghan/McGuinness. Voting section moved below announcement of candidates. The candidates section simply lists the final seven candidates, while the nomination campaign section includes all the other possibilities (Pat Cox, Avril Doyle, Mairead McGuinness, Fergus Finlay, Kathleen O'Meara, Brian Crowley, Éamon Ó Cuív, Mary White, Mary Hanafin, Niall O'Dowd, Justin Kilcullen, Robert Ballagh, Gay Byrne and whoever else there was) so not really a duplicate at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.204.15 ( talk) 00:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish presidential 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)