Talk:2011 Irish presidential election

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confirmed Candidates 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What's a first gentleman? Btw, is Dustin running this time? I hope so! Snappy (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Husband of the President, not sure if Ireland uses the term. IrishTV (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin McAleese 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page Redesign 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mary O'Rourke 

message: 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

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

message: Does anyone know when the nominations period opens and closes? -Rrius (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Now vwe have our answer: 28 September is the date for close of nominations.  Lozleader (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination period

message: 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". 
:This is in line with statements given by him in the press: 
* 
*
*also the video on SF's site here  where Gerry Adams states McGuiness will not be a Sinn Féin candidate.
:Lozleader (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: the Sinn Feinn candidate HAS enough support

message: What is the legal definition here?  --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citizen of the State? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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                          	N/A    	36         	24        	N/A     	19     	21         	N/A               	N/A     	N/A
Sunday Independent/Millward Brown Lansdowne 4 September 2011	N/A    	32         	24        	18      	13     	11         	6                 	N/A     	N/A
Paddy Power/Red C 11 August 2011                            	28     	21         	13        	N/A     	7      	12         	N/A               	N/A     	13
Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI 20 July 2011                         	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)
thread_title:  Opinion Polling 

message: 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)
thread_title: Separate Nomination Page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you love it when anon trolls start lecturing you on the rules of wikipedia. Snappy (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: WP:UNDUE seems particularly appropriate. -Rrius (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Norris as landlord in North Great Georges Street 

message: Does WP:BLP allow the for the allegations about Dana's family to be repeated here? Snappy (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dana allegations 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: (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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page lockdown - semi-protect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Ill add to it when I've time over the weekend. That's true allright. Exiledone (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sean Gallagher

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Newstalk poll 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Norris "collecting apologies in the newspapers" is not accurately cited 

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Overcited 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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