Talk:2011 Irish presidential election

Confirmed Candidates

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)

Norris

Should Norris not be under the Labour Party?--Foxtrot Romeo 13:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, David Norris is an independent politician, he is not a member of the Labour Party. See refs here and here. Snappy (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

adams status

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)).

Wrong, Adams is an MP, the member of parliament for Belfast West in the Westminster parliament. If he is elected as a TD, the honorific suffix can be changed then, otherwise for now the suffix remains as per Gerry Adams article. Snappy (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, this is not the adams article. As discussed on the general election article, that is not relevant to the IRISH presidential election. He is an MP to the british parliament and hence noteworthy on his page and the uk election page. That article also states he is resigning his post.

Secontly, "for now the suffix remains as per" is a discussion statement that you will have it your way or the way, which is irrelevant per WP:OWN

Hopefully better now, and added his mla status.(Lihaas (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

This is also not the Irish general election, 2011 article and that discussion was about the leaders seat in the infobox, which is not what is being discussed here. As per wikipedia convention, a member of a parliament has the appropriate honorific suffix added after their name, so there is Bertie Ahern, TD as he is a member of Dáil Éireann; and Mairead McGuinness, MEP who is a member of the European Parliament and Gerry Adams, MP, who is a member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. I have put the further clarification in a footnote. Snappy (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Irish_general_election,_2011#Adams deals with his status as a MP in that his seat somewhere is no relevant. he's not prefixed by MP on that page for much the same reason, now on a NI election page it would be relevant. the TD and MEP parts are elected by and for related constituencies and bodies. for much the same reason as its not relevant there, its not relevant here. Not im not citing that as a reason thereof not to include it, its similar logic here as well seperate from that.

You seem to be missing the point. A member of parliament has a suffix (not prefix as you say above). The suffix is not related to the page the person is mentioned on, its their suffix regardless of what article it is. Snappy (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

btw- should we include the NI banner page on this? its sort related?(Lihaas (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

No, the President of Ireland has no jurisdiction in the North. Snappy (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

MP's a prefix (or in someplaces anyways). Why is it relevant to the presidential election in Ireland and not the general election in Ireland? I should think it the other way round.

Should we have 2 more 30?

Okay, fair enough. done with that.(Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

MP's a suffix, it goes after the person's name, or more properly an Initialism. If you don't understand the terminology then this discussion is pointless. Again, you miss the point, a suffix has no relevance to a particular article, it goes after the member of parliaments name. The fact that is isn't on the Irish election page for Adams, is because if I put it in, you'd revert it. "Should we have 2 more 30?" - I have no idea what this means. Snappy (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So a note would be an accomodation then? we agreed last time.(Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

So what exactly are you proposing then? Snappy (talk) 22:36, 30 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)

Martin McAleese

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)

A very unscientific radio text poll where his name was inserted by the programme's production staff. There is no evidence that he is any notion of standing (probably sick of the house in the park after 14 years). No doubt if they had added Dustin the Turkey to the poll he would have done well too. Lozleader (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's a first gentleman? Btw, is Dustin running this time? I hope so! Snappy (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Husband of the President, not sure if Ireland uses the term. IrishTV (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Redesign

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)

Interesting idea, it might overcomplicate things for this article, but it does differentiate nicely the different types of candidates. Snappy (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary O'Rourke

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)

Remove her, that piece by Sheehan was rather waffly and included a whole host of names, some of which has no interest in running. But also, the page could be re-organised along the lines suggesting in the previous section. Snappy (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Citation

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: RRichie (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Added to article. The reference name should not includes space. Snappy (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a space is acceptable if the name is in inverted commas: e.g., name="ACE Project". -Rrius (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination period

Does anyone know when the nominations period opens and closes? -Rrius (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question. As far as I can see the election order has not been made yet (just searched Iris Oifigúil where it has to be published and found the order for 2004 but not 2011). So we shall have to wait and see. Lozleader (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, just looking at the 2004 order: it was made on 13 September, the date for close of nominations was 1 October and the date ffor the poll (if any) was set for 22 October. There was of course only one candidate, so no poll was held. So taking this as the model we can expect the order to made at the end of September. Which makes sense of the timetables that FF and SF have for deciding whether to nominate.Lozleader (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Now vwe have our answer: 28 September is the date for close of nominations. [1] Lozleader (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

the Sinn Feinn candidate HAS enough support

so don't let's start an edit war, okay? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0917/breaking6.html

Appears to be running as an independent with SF support/nominations. No mention of SF on his webpage, no SF colours and using the slogan "The People's President". "Martin McGuiness. Uachatarán na Daoine. The People's President". Retrieved 24 September 2011.

This is in line with statements given by him in the press:

• "Victims' feelings 'whipped up' claims Martin McGuinness". BBC News. 19 September 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2011. I am going forward as Martin McGuinness in my own right, I'm not going forward as a representative of Sinn Féin
• "McGuinness backed by IRA victims". UTV. 19 September 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2011. 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.
• also the video on SF's site here [2] where Gerry Adams states McGuiness will not be a Sinn Féin candidate.

Lozleader (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Citizen of the State?

What is the legal definition here? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Per articles 2 and 12.4.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann:

• It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland.
• Every citizen who has reached his thirty-fifth year of age is eligible for election to the office of President.

We also have this article Irish nationality lawLozleader (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

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)

I think it should probably be left until we actually know who the candidates are (next week). There have been any number of polls published but they have included people such as Gay Byrne, E. O Cuiv, B. Crowley, Dana, Mickey Harte and various other people who will not be on the ballot so making them pretty useless for the sake of comparison. Norris has been in some and not in others and we still don't know if he'll get the numbers to run or not.

Polls published AFTER the nominations are in should be added.Lozleader (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to illustrate my point, I found 4 polls via Google:

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)

Separate Nomination Page

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)

Martin McGuinness

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)

I agree that this should be changed. To be precise, there is no party affiliation on the ballot paper, or in the nomination process. Therefore, it is perfectly valid to say that he is not a Sinn Féin candidate. However, it is equally valid to say that Michael D. Higgins is not a Labour candidate, for example. We should either classify candidates by their party membership (with McGuinness, a Sinn Féin member, being listed as Sinn Féin), or we should not classify candidates at all, and mention their affiliations in the article. Either way, Martin McGuinness should not be listed as "Independent". I think the point about a lack of party affiliation is important, and we should consider it. Is there any existing Wikipedia protocol on such elections? AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that parties do nominate candidates even though no party labels appear on the ballot. If that is so and SF didn't nominate McGuinness, he should be listed as independent. -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We should classify them by who they were nominated by AND their current party membership. So, Higgins is a member of the Labour Party and nominated by Labour; McGuinness is a member of Sinn Fein and nominated by Sinn Fein and independents; Mitchell is a Fine Gael member nominated by Fine Gael; Gallagher/Davis/Norris/Scanlon are independents/non-party nominated by local councils. Snappy (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine for the body of the article, but the infobox isn't flexible enough for that. Has he explicitly invoked his party while campaigning? Is the media coverage exclusively referring to him as a Sinn Fein member? If so, Sinn Fein should go in the infobox; if not, he should be listed as an independent. In either case, there should be a footnote after his name explaining the situation. -Rrius (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There should be a footnote in the infobox anyway. He is campaigning as "independent", the media seems to refer to him as the SF candidate. Snappy (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And he was, of course, nominated by all the SF Oireachtas members. The infobox is about party affiliation, not some ephemeral "I'm contesting this as an independent even though I'm a member of X party" desire of any candidate. The body can contain that, but the infobox shouldn't. I'm going to re-add it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the infobox can be extended to mention both nominators and party affiliation. --Kwekubo (talk)

Not sure really, but in terms of precedent I note that in Irish presidential election, 1990 Mary Robinson is listed as an independent. She was nommed by Labour/Workers Party and had been a Labour senator.

That said we now have notes in the text about the SF/Ind situation so iit's reasonably well covered.

The other option, if there are no parties as such listed on the ballot paper, is to just remove the party labels from the infobox altogether. Lozleader (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Robinson had left the Labour Party some years earlier but they nominated her anyway, in part because they were desperate for a credible controllable candidate and the main interest had come from Noel Browne. Adi Roche in 1997 was also an independent backed by Labour, Democratic Left and the Greens; she had no recent political record within the party. Both situations are rather different from McGuinness, a key part of modern SF and emerged as a candidate from within. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

David Norris as landlord in North Great Georges Street

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)

So what if he was? It's trivia. We don't mention that one of the candidates has a herd number, either. This was already explained to you on his article talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:42, 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)

I'm not a farmer. Martin Mansergh isn't a presidential candidate. Nor, according to his article, is he a farmer. If you can find a verifiable source saying he is, by all means add it to his article, where it may be relevant. Norris being a former landlord isn't notable for this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 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'm part of noone's campaign. Will you please respect the rules of Wikipedia? You can start by reading WP:5. The links you'll be especially be interested in are WP:V and WP:NOR. Others include WP:NOT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't you love it when anon trolls start lecturing you on the rules of wikipedia. Snappy (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE seems particularly appropriate. -Rrius (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Quantum/Sunday Independent polls

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 see it was re-added. Took it away again. This is an interesting link: "Political Opinion Polls" (PDF). Spotlight. Oireachtas Library and Research Service. 2009. Retrieved 3 October 2011..

"There are three main polling companies in Ireland commissioned by newspapers to conduct political opinion polls; TNS MRBI - Irish Times; RED C – Sunday Business Post; Millward Brown IMS – Independent Newspapers. All use a sample of around 1000 people selected to fit various demographic quotas, after that they vary in terms of how interviews are conducted and how results are weighted to remove bias."

Quantum doesn't feature. The quantum polls appear to be phone interviews conducted by the newspaper's staff ringing random numbers. The sample used is therefore probably not representative as weighting for demographics etc. is not applied, they just talk to people with landlines who can be bothered to answer the questions.

I suggest we limit ourselves to IPSOS MRBI, RedC and Millward Browne Lansdowne. Lozleader (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the assertion that Quantum polling is not a reliable polling company and therefore its findings should not be included. As for this: "The quantum polls appear to be phone interviews conducted by the newspaper's staff ringing random numbers", no more like ringing their family and friends in order to get the correct result! Snappy (talk) 17:17, 3 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)

Just removed it for the third time. Have put a commented out note that will hopefully stop this happening again. Yes the Sindo/Indo do manage to get their "polls" widely reported but has more to do with deadlines, lazy "journalism" and news values. Lozleader (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

17 October

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)

"Quantum Research is the their in-house research polling division." Is it? I can't find any information about it?

"It is no more or less reliable a polling organisation than contracting commercial agencies like MRBI." Respectfully disagree. RED C publish pages of data on how they conduct their polls, MRBI also give lots of background info. Quantum polls just appear, perfectly formed.

Not going to get into a revert war about this however, but would invite comment... Lozleader (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wider comment would be good. If there is a genuine concern over Sunday Independent polls then they should not be used on any article like this. I doubt that, however. And other newspapers have their bias also. We should not be selective about which newspaper's polls we show so long as we are happy they are, in the main, reliable.

With respect to RedC, etc. detailing their methods, that's what they are paid for. External agencies charge several thousand euro per question for polls like these. Part of the deliverable in exchange for that money is a detailed description of the method used, something any client would expect after handing over cash like that to an external company. Just because an in-house division doesn't deliver the same package, doesn't mean they don't follow the same method. The basic details of the method used - sample size, sampling method, etc. - are still usually always given, however (as they were yesterday, IIRC). --RA (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any RS (as opposed to politics.ie etc) which casts doubt on the bona fides of "Quantum Research"? If so, perhaps the article could state explicitly (as opposed to in a HTML comment) why these polls are not listed in the table, and cite that source as a reference. jnestorius^(talk) 08:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Here is something (from 2008) in their defence: [8]. Sample size appears to be 500 which gives a bigger margin of error (+/- 4.4% rather than +/- 3.0%) than the other polls of 1,000. Plus they are phone surveys (random numbers?).

"In practice, our survey team need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error. Therefore, a sample size of around 500 is used and would be a typical compromise for a political survey."

"The decision to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, making the participants a non-representative sample."

So what we might be able to do is compare one Quantum poll with another Quantum poll, as they are basically polling the same sample of society, but it's a bit of a stretch to compare them with MRBI/RED C/Millward Brown ones which are a bit broader. Apples and Ornages as it were.

Incidentally the Indo commissioned a poll by Millward Brown Lansdowne on 18 September which was impeccable but before nominations were settled: [9]

"The Sunday Independent/ Millward Brown Lansdowne poll was taken before Sinn Fein signalled the intention of Mr McGuinness to contest the election. On the presidency, that poll found... The subsequent, although less scientific, Sunday Independent/ Quantum Research poll indicates that the candidacy of Mr McGuinness has thrown open the contest..."

So what to do: if Quantum polls are considered acceptable either: 1.) put them in their table with explanation of their methodology/sample size or 2.) stick them in the table with the others, but with a footnote that clearly explains their variance from the others.

Lozleader (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd really favour their removal. Half (at minimum) the sample size of the others, a >33% higher margin of error over the other polls, not independent (no pun intended), and phone polls only... they just lack integrity. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Plus they are phone surveys (random numbers?)." - I wouldn't be surprised if all of these are phone surveys. That is not necessarily a methodological flaw. A sample size of 500 is fine too (although at the lower end). There is nothing in the description of their methods (or the drawbacks of them) that worry me. Similar criticism could be said against all of these surveys. The only authoritative survey will be the one conducted on October 27th.

However, if we are to exclude certain polls, we should do so on the basis of some objective set of criteria (e.g. sample size, sampling method, weighting, etc.) rather than arbitrarily saying that we have less faith in the abilities of one agent.

If the concern here is that we need a minimum sample size (1,000?), sampling methods (random digit dialing for phone sampling?) and adjustment for skewed samples (weighting?) then that would be fine with me. However, for balance, we would need to apply these criteria across the board. Otherwise, we are the once who risk skewing our sample.

I'd suggest that if we do, we should look for wider community input (not only WikiProject Ireland) to decide on a suitable set of criteria for the entire project. --RA (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness in the Campaign section

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:

"On 10 October, former IRA commander[121] Martin McGuinness was confronted in Athlone by the son of a member of the Irish Army killed after Don Tidey's kidnap in Ballinamore in 1983."

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)

It doesnt imply such .You reverted the original copy by another editor , so I added the reference to clarify that he is a former IRA commander . Leaving the first link out would suffice then ? Or is the fact that he was a commander in the organisation that murder this mans father not relevant ? That is why he was confronted , this is relevant to the sentence . It doesnt imply , by the way unlike David Kelly did, that he was a commander at the time . How would you choose to phrase it that will explain why he was confronted without using IRA commander(would leader suit your point better?) and address the incorrect time frame ? As you point out there is no evidence that McGuinness was linked to the action but the fact that he is a former commander is why he was confronted . There is no surrounding context it is a one line sentence about an incedent in the campaign .Why did you imply the sentence was mine (the reference doesn't specify he was a commander at the time of the killing which is what your sentence implies.)? Its the only time in the Irish presidential election, 2011 , it is mentioned , would you prefer a previous reference out of context ? Or the one here where it part of the context ?Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First, my apologies that I assumed the sentence was yours. That was an oversight of mine. Regarding the incident in question - McGuinness was confronted because Mr. Kelly believed that McGuinness was a member of the IRA Council at the time (this much is stated in the second reference). This may be true, though it also may not. The current sentence structure does lead the reader to believe he was - there is no clarification given in the sentence to suggest otherwise, and neither reference makes this clear either. The removal of the initial "IRA commander" part and the insertion of something along the lines of "...who was killed by the IRA during the kidnapping of...". This would allow the reader to see a link between McGuinness and the IRA, why he was confronted, a basic understanding of the perpetrators involved, and all without any ambiguity. In other words, something along the lines of:

"On 10 October, Martin McGuinness was confronted in Athlone by the son of a member of the Irish Army who was killed by the IRA after Don Tidey's kidnap in Ballinamore in 1983.[122]"

How would that suit? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not connect why he was confronted to the IRA part . It could leave the reader think otherwise if they know little about Irish politics . Any ideas how to get that part across? Murry1975 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Whichever wording goes in, use PIRA not IRA. I have amended the sentence to this end. Snappy (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Will add pipe link . Murry1975 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be butting in ahead of you Brian, but just to say with the current reworking and addition of extra material I'm satisfied that my original concerns have now been dealt with, allowing the reader to see the link between MMcG, the Presidency and the PIRA. I can't answer on any other issues that may or may not be at hand as I'm not sure I am best qualified to judge.^Mac Tíre _Cowag 22:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The real issue is that McGuinness' IRA ties became an issue during the campaign. The best way to note this is to note how it came up in the debate(s) attended by other candidates. A good Wikipedia article should not just rebroadcast the claims of family members of IRA victims any more than what hecklers have shouted out to candidates they confront should simply be repeated here in detail. McGuinness' responsibility for any particular act of IRA violence should be better substantiated than that. It would be less problematic to note McGuinness' own words, like his call for death to those who collaborated with security services, or the absence of such words, like an unqualified rejection of and/or apology for IRA violence.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dana allegations

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 wouldn't see why not, if the allegations are referenced. "Dana made a statement claiming there was a campaign to discredit her(*). Wouldn't elaborate. It is being reported by [website] that the statement refers to allegations made in a court case that Dana's brother had molested his niece.[references]" (*) I haven't read the statement as yet. Factual reporting of third parties' statements is permitted by WP:BLP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to check this, it's a grey area to say the least. But as you point out, the allegations are on that website (which anyone that can use a search engine can find) and can be referenced. Snappy (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Page lockdown - semi-protect

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)

Agreed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:33, 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)

If you had any brain cells, you could read Gallagher's article and see that his Fianna Fail connections are mentioned there. However, he was nominated as an independent candidate and being intelligent people with brains this is what put in this article. Thanks for your badly spelt and grammatically incorrect suggestions, we will take this on board, especially in regard to getting "layed". Snappy (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please learn how to use Wikipedia. Your opinions are simply your opinions. We, however, base our material on verifiable facts. Gallagher may or may not be Fianna Fáil. That is completely irrelevant. What you are stating as fact is that Gallagher's name will appear on the ballot paper with the name Fianna Fáil beside him (which it won't) and that he was nominated by Fianna Fáil (which he wasn't). So although you may disagree with us, at least we are living in the real world, and are not some bunch of grudge bearers, unlike yourself. I think you may find Conservapedia more to your taste. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 22:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Have you actually read the Seán Gallagher article?! (post ec) Snappy, well said :-) I disagree though that Gallagher is listed as an independent as he was nominated as an independent - party membership is what counts, hence McGuinness being listed in the infobox as SF. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye, but McGuinness was nominated by Sinn Féin to stand as their candidate, even if he needed the nominations of other Oireachtas members to get on the ballot. Gallagher was not nominated by Fianna Fáil.^Mac Tíre _Cowag 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallager is a former member of FF, when he left is unclear but he is no longer a member and was nominated by councils. McGuiness otoh, is running as an independent but was nominated by SF (+ 4 ind TDs) but remains a member of the SF party. Snappy (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sean Gallagher

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)

Done. The page does seem to have become very quiet in recent days. We could also possibly do with adding Dana's niece's press release, and possibly her tyre sabotage/not-sabotage/Act of God? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ill add to it when I've time over the weekend. That's true allright. Exiledone (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the incorrect Hugh Morgan/Arthur Morgan sibling thing. Ray D'arcy on Today FM this morning said they were brothers, hence me including it, but googling both names gives a Daily Mail article from February where Gerry Adams denies the two Morgans are related. In future I'll not use DJs for sources except in relation to music... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Newstalk poll

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)

Point taken, but I would argue that including a less-then-optimal poll is preferable over not including a poll at all. A lot can change during the final days leading up to an election, and as it seems indeed a lot has been changing, with Gallagher's chances of securing the presidency deemed to be a lot lower since the fundraiser revelation during the Frontline debate. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. esri Ireland is not a polling company, it does geocoding. The sample size is not stated, and the number of ties and round percentages in the county-level figures suggest it was small. It's not even clear what the poll question was: was it "who will you vote for", or "who won the NewsTalk debate". In the absence of any comparable poll, it is better to have none than a non-comparable one. If a lot has been changing, this will be evident in the official result and commented on afterwards by reputable analysts; we can do without a dodgy pseudo-poll to fill that gap in the interim. I would regard the change in bookmakers' odds as a more meaningful metric. jnestorius^(talk) 10:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I would as well, but unless you know a way to translate the bookmakers' odds to per-candidate percentages, they cannot be included in the opinion polls table. The question in the Newstalk poll was: "Following our online debate who will you vote for now?" The voting website used to be located here, but now that the vote is over that page displays a 404 error. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so it was a website-voluntary poll, not a random-ask poll? In that case, it's utterly worthless. I'm surprised the figures it produced were so plausible; but still worthless. jnestorius^(talk) 10:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - it's as unscientific as including a Liveline poll. (I'd also prefer for the Sunday Indo/"Quantum Research" "poll" to be excluded, but it appears to have support for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.esri-ireland.ie/TNS/news-events/news/11-10-24/Newstalk-talk-Presidency-and-use-Esri-s-PollMap-in-their-interactive-debate.aspx - This is the ESRI page "detailing" how it was done , seems just newstalk listeners and viewers on its youtube channel , not a very reliable method to gather information for a poll .Murry1975 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with excluding this poll. Standard practice on other articles is only to include polls using a standard and rigorous methodology. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Referendum

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)

They are relevant. They should be in the lead. Snappy (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange Count

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)

Could be to do with election expenses. If a candidate gets 12.5% of the votes when they are eliminated they are entitled to a refund from the state.Lozleader (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's the expenses [10]

"The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2011 also provides that a candidate who is elected or who

receives in excess of one quarter of the quota may seek reimbursement of expenses – the lesser of actual expenses or €200,000."

" The two or more lowest candidates must be excluded

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. "

There was a possibility that Mitchell could have reached a quarter of a quota (12.5%) and some money back. He didn't, as it happened.Lozleader (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest including this explanation somewhere in the article? I too was puzzling over it.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Norris "collecting apologies in the newspapers" is not accurately cited

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)

Infobox

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)

Final count percentage

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)

With due respect, this doesn't make sense to someone trying to understand the final round outcome of the election. All other candidates have been eliminated, the only active votes are for the two remaining candidates. It's reporting the percentages of the active vote. In some wonky insider account of the race, showing non-transferable ballots can be made, but not in the topline, what-really-happened result.

For example, do you ever see a plurality-vote election reported with the votes of the people who skipped the race? In the USA, we will have a lot of people at the polls for president not vote for a race going on at the same time for something like a U.S. House seat. But we don't report the results as 48% to 44% (with rest voters who skipped race). We just ignore the exhausted ballots and report that at 53% to 48%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.195.76 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be to remove the final % row of values. Notionally, the final % is not reported in the media e.g. see here [11]. Your comparison with a plurality vote is a bit irrelevant really, in the Irish election the non-transferable votes don't "skip the race", they simply cease to be transferable. They still exist as a % of votes at the end of the race, just not allocated to either remaining candidate. As I say if you don't want the final % to be shown as a part of the entire valid poll number, then maybe just remove the final % altogether. Noelfirl (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

While welcoming aboard this anonymous newbie editor, whose sole contribution so far is to keep changing the results of this election, it should be noted that the standard format for Irish elections on wikipedia and elsewhere is that which I originally posted. I have placed a warning on his page about reverting in the absence of consensus and to bring the discussion here before he/she attempts to make further changes, but he/she has not accorded with that. I am going to revert it back to the format that has been used for many years on the pages for the 1990 and 1997 elections. The comparison with the United States is simplistic and erroneous. By votes which 'skip the race' I can only assume you mean invalid votes, which are also discounted from the overall poll in Ireland for the purposes of calculating %. This is not the USA and we run our elections in a different manner. I respectfully suggest you learn to deal with it instead of trying to reformat the results of Irish elections so they look like the results of American ones. Cripipper (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree it's confusing and a mischaracterization of how the STV system works? By that, I mean consider if Higgins had inched over 50% of the __active__ vote in a preceding round when he still had more than one opponent, but his percentage was less than 50% of the first round. This way of reporting the outcome would show the count ending with him having less than 50% of the vote with more than one opponent left. Someone looking at it would say "I don't get it. Why did it stop?" The reason it stopped, of course, is that the winning threshold changes in each round based on the active vote, and he would had more than 50% of the active vote. 108.28.195.76 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The winning threshold does not change - the winning threshold is the quota. To think of it otherwise is to misconceptualize how STV works. A candidate is elected when either they reach the quota; or when they are the only candidate left (in which case it is moot to redistribute the second placed candidate's other preferences); or when the leading candidate's votes are greater than the combined votes of any two or more other remaining candidates, plus any un-transferred surplus (not relevant in presidential or by-elections). You appear to be conceiving of the vote counting to be a process looking at how far ahead of the other candidates the leading candidate can get, when in reality the votes are counted with an eye toward the quota. In no presidential election has the hypothetical scenario you outline ever arisen; nor in any by-election in the past thirty years, if indeed ever.

So to not mention anywhere in the article that Higgins had more than 60% of the active vote and to summarize his final vote based on a percentage of the first round vote confusing. As to the US comparison, the point I am trying to make is not unique to the US. It's factoring in that the number of voters at the polls can differ from the number of people who cast a vote in an election. But those "non-voters" are never reported in the outcome as far as I can tell. If a nation has a referendum on something, for example, where the Yes vote is 51% and the No vote is 49%, but 10% of people at the polls skipped the question, one doesn't report the outcome as "46% to 44%." You report it as 51% to 49%. Wouldn't you agree? And if so, isn't confusing to factor in the inactive vote without even explaining that's what is going on? Perhaps at least this point can be made in the round-by-round outcome? Thanks, and sorry it not following proper Wikipedia process for raising this point -- it just seemed very peculiar to look at the outcome the way you have it. 108.28.195.76 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To go back to the earlier point - that he had 60% of the active vote is irrelevant - the baseline is the quota which is (n/s+1)+1, where n is the total number of valid votes cast, and s is the number of seats to be filled. You need to understand that people whose votes are non-transferable non-effective still voted; Irish STV is not like in Australia, for example, where voters voting 'below the line' must number all candidates in preference for the vote to be valid. Voters who choose not to transfer on a preference have made an active vote/choice not to do so; they are not comparable to people who cast blank ballots (which are not valid). It would be like in the USA calculating the result of an election by excluding any Third Party candidate's votes, and expressing the winner's margin as a % of the total votes just cast for the Dem or Rep. For example, if in the first count Candidate A got 36%, Candidate B got 34%, and Candidate C got 30%, but in the second count none of C's votes were transferable because his voters hold A and B in equally low esteem, A is elected not having received 51.4% of the active vote, but having received 36% of the vote. To Irish eyes to portray the vote in the former fashion would be a distortion of the result, by failing to show that he fell well short of the quota. As I said before, I think this comes from you approaching the count from the American angle "How many votes am I ahead of the next guy", rather than the Irish/STV angle, which is "how many votes am I short of the quota". I hope this makes sense. Ultimately %'s don't really matter in Irish elections, except for calculating whether a candidate gets expenses, but including it in the box gives readers the opportunity to see whether the winner was elected having reached the quota or not, without having to look up what the quota was. Cripipper (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong about the quota not changing during the count. Here's a direct quote from the statute:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0028/print.html#sec50

"The quota. 50.—(1) ...(4) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to some one continuing candidate exceeds the total of all the votes credited to the other continuing candidates, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made."

In other words, the county would stop once a candidate gets more than 50% of continuing votes. Does this change your view at all on what's a sensible way to report the results? 108.28.195.76 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not a description of the quota. The quota is defined in S.50(2) of the Presidential Elections Act. What is referred to in S.50(4) is scenario 3 of the three scenarios that I outlined above. As I stated, this has never happened in a presidential election, or in any of the >30 by-elections that have taken place in Ireland since 1975. Of course the count stops once the combined votes of the remaining candidates are less than the total votes of the leading candidate, because it is clear that the only candidate capable of making the quota is the one in the lead. If (under your hypothetical scenario that has never happened) the result of the last count was Candidate A 45%, Candidate B 23%, Candidate C 20%, why would anyone be confused by the result? Cripipper (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You accept that the number of votes necessary to win gets smaller during the count, but then say "it's not the quota"? Well, it sure is the "effective quota" in that they won't continue rounds of counting once its' reached. ...The fact is the count stops when someone has more than 50% of continuing ballots. You're obviously stubborn about this, so let's not fight over the top-line reporting on it, but I'd like to add the additional piece of info to the article itself. See if it's acceptable. 108.28.195.76 (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear not to fully understand STV. The quota is fixed and unmovable, and defined in law in the section of the Act I referred you to, using the formula I gave. The number of votes necessary to win might get smaller during the count under the scenario you outline but this has never happened. The only reason the count stops under the scenario you outline is because there is only candidate left capable of making the quota. You are trying to shoe-horn STV into the logic of FPTP or IRV/AV and it doesn't work. While in practice single-seat STV elections look like AV elections, the logic of them is different to those taking part, those counting the votes, and those viewing the results.

Can you please answer these two questions to help you understand the point I am trying to make: 1) If (under your hypothetical scenario that has never happened) the result of the last count was Candidate A 45%, Candidate B 23%, Candidate C 20%, why would anyone be confused by the result being expressed in this format? 2) In the format you would like to use, how would you represent the final count figures when there were two seats to be filled, and the last count result was A 37% B 30%, C 17%, D 8%, and A's 3% undistributed surplus? A's surplus are continuing votes - they are still effective. Under your formula you would have to exclude them, which is contrary to the internal logic of your argument. Cripipper (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cripipper, statements like Higgins receiving 61% of the vote make no sense, and should not be added to the article. Anyone trying to add such figures obviously doesn't understand the voting system. Snappy (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Overcited

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)

I agree, for something which is not controversial 1 or at most 2 is enough. 4 is just overkill. Snappy (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review 1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Irish presidential election, 2011/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be conducting the review shortly. Grandiose (me, 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: Candidates and any prominent selection details; Election campaign and debates; The nature of the result and any post-result comments.
	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 Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Irish presidential election, 2011/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this. --Noleander (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Discussion

• IP, I see there was a prior GA review at Talk:Irish presidential election, 2011/GA1, in Dec 2011, and it failed. Can you tell me what specific changes were made to the article since then to bring it up to GA status? --Noleander (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, it looks like you also nominated the article the first time; yet in that first GA, you did not respond to questions posted by the GA reviewer. What was the issue there? --Noleander (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to fail this. The article may meet GA criteria, but the nominator has an obligation to participate in the review process. --Noleander (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• The small number of issues raised look to have been addressed so I guess this should be renominated. --86.40.207.160 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Irish presidential election, 2011/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DrKiernan (talk · contribs) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article describes the voting taking place before the candidates are announced. The candidates section is essentially duplicated in the nomination campaign section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sentence on Norris's alleged links to Ezra Nawi is unsourced, and the follow-on sentence attributes it to a blog. I went to the website at the end of that sentence and just got a blank screen.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The debates section describes libels against Norris and Scallan but doesn't explain what they were. Why O'Callaghan's treatment of McGuiness caused so many complaints is not explicitly explained (though it is implied by "the intense grilling Miriam O'Callaghan meted out" in the preceding section).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nomination on hold while waiting for responses to comments. DrKiernan (talk) 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)

Thank you: passing. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101112053/http://norrisforpresident.ie/ to http://norrisforpresident.ie/

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) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dana Rosemary Scallon, 2004.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)