Talk:2011 Irish general election

Adams

I cite Irish_general_election,_1987, and from my home country, Canadian federal election, 2008, as examples that the seat that the leader is contesting, not the seat they currently hold, should go in this slot. Regardless, I've removed Adams' NI seat as he ho longer holds it. Nickjbor (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Support this for the same reason that the N. Ireland and British elections are irrelevant to Ireland.Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This field is supposed to show the current seat of the party leader. In this case, it is complicated because Gerry Adams, is an UK MP and an NI MLA but he is also the leader of an All-Ireland party, one of the few parties that contest elections on both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, so it is highly relevant that his seat is in Northern Ireland and that he is contesting a seat in the Republic of Ireland. Since you are not Irish, I will allow for the fact that you don't understand the complexities of Irish politics, but please don't remove this information again, as it aids understanding and adds background to the article, and puts Adams' candidacy in its proper context. As anyone who has edited Irish and Northern Irish articles on wikipedia knows, Northern Ireland can't be sliced off the rest of the island like its a totally separate entity; there are links, it's entangled, it's messy and it's complicated. Snappy (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Lihaas that Adams' seats should not be displayed - it should say something like "Not currently a TD", with a footnote about his other seats. I also think that patronising Lihaas because he is not Irish is a little out of order; an editor's nationality does not preclude knowledge on a topic, and my views here also refute your last point. Anyway, for consistency, I do not believe the Socialist Party leader seat should be in the template either. Number 57 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to patronise anyone, just this editor has never edited on Irish politics before (well in my 5 years here anyway), so just explaining a thing or two; of course lots of people can't be told anything, so they rush to condemn it as patronising. Anyway, where does it say that the leaders seat has to be one of the body for which he/she is standing for election to? The documentation on the infobox simply states: The seat the Leader represents. So, taking that at face value, its perfectly valid to put in Adams' seats' in there. Also it acknowledges the unique Irish cross border aspect of this. Snappy (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say it anywhere, but it also doesn't say you can include any type of seat (i.e. those not being contested in the election), otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. I wouldn't expect to see any kind of seat except the ones being contested in the election (for instance council wards for candidates who are councillors but not yet MPs). Number 57 09:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry... I removed the NI/UK seats without realising there was a conversation here. I daresay someone will reverse it, but it seemed to be anomolous. When I think about, it makes more sense for Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin to be in there, seeing as he the party's leader in the Dáil (presumamably to be deposed if Adams holds Louth for SF).Lozleader (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why it is anomalous? He is an elected politician to two assemblies and is standing for a third. These are facts. Do we now exclude arbitrary facts from infoboxes? These facts are mentioned in the text of the article, so why can't they go in the infobox? It doesn't say anywhere in the infobox documentation that these CAN'T be included. Snappy (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

TBH it looks like there is a clear majority in favour of not including these in the infobox, so I will remove them. Number 57 09:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now listed as TD for Dublin West??? WTF??? Lozleader (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and Joe Higgins is now in the infobox, but nobody is listing his Euro constutuency.Lozleader (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem in the infobox coding; if the field is left totally blank, it takes the information from the column to the right. This can be resolved by using the {{0}} function. However, I have also removed "Dublin West", as this is the EU seat for Joe Higgins (not a Dail seat). Number 57 11:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Dublin West was his old Dáil seat he lost in 2007. Dublin is the euro seat, so it was doubly wrong!Lozleader (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I deplore the manner in which Number 57 tried to close this discussion claiming that a majority are in favour of his argument. I asked a simply question as to why info in the article is left out of the infobox, which was conveniently ignored. I suppose if you can't back up your own arguments then closing down the debate before a consensus is reached is the best thing to do. Also, wikipedia is not a democracy, its about reaching consensus not voting, and consensus definitely wasn't reached here. I going add that Adams is not a TD and a footnote for his other seats. This information is in the article (and nobody objects to it) but when its added to the infobox (which is supposed to be a at a glance summary), the very same info is deemed unsuitable. How bizzare! Snappy (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because everyone else in this discussion did agree to it. Furthermore, as Lozleader asserts that the parliamentary leader is not Adams. the leader of a party is not listed on the election pages (but the pary page), the leader of the parliament as aforementioned should be put on. At least till Adams wins.Lihaas (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The box says Leader, not Parliamentary Leader. I think it misleading to an outsider to list Ó Caoláin rather than Adams as leader. It will be Adams, not Ó Caoláin, who will act as party leader during the campaign, whether in debates or anything else. --William Quill (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is the party leader that goes in the infobox not the parliamentary leader. Gerry Adams has been in the Irish general election, 2007 infobox, for over two years with no objections. In the last election it was Gerry Adams who debated with McDowell in the Tanaiste debate, even though Ó Caoláin was a sitting TD and parliamentary leader then, and Adams wasn't even standing for election to the Oireachtas. This was because Adams was the party leader. Snappy (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WE CAN then add a note for Adams and the differentiation? Don't think thats objectionable is it? pretty nice accomodation as this is a special case where its often the parliamentary leader.Lihaas (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection to a note stating that Adams is the party leader and that Ó Caoláin is the parliamentary leader. Snappy (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

and closed.Lihaas (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (not controversial so discussion not needed). Number 57 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Irish general election, 2011|Its been confirmed now that the govt. has falled and a new election has been called for [1]

Next Irish general election → Irish general election, 2011 — Its been confirmed now that the govt. has falled and a new election has been called for [2] Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of election

The exact date of the election is currently unknown. It may be January but could well be February or March, as stated in the Irish Times, see here. The budget vote on 7 December, is only one part of the process (usually concerned with alcohol taxes). The Finance bill is usually passed in February. It could be passed in January in 2011, but then add 3 weeks for an election campaign and that means February. Anyway, the date is not yet known, which is why I put in early 2011, to cover all bases. Snappy (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The general election may be held before the end of 2010, as the government does not currently have the numbers to pass the budget.86.45.11.12 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's quite true. Maybe this page has been moved (and updated) with indecent haste! If the budget is not passed, then an election could happen at the end of December. Snappy (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"last_election" field in infobox

Can anyone figure out why the seat nos and percentages in this field are not being displayed for FF/Fg/Lab but do show up for the other parties. I can't seem to fix it. Or maybe it's just my browser (firefox)?Lozleader (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

working nowLozleader (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Parties in infobox

Errr.. I'm trying to understand the rationale for including the Socialist Party (who have no seats in current Dáil) in the infobox. This is presumably because someone thinks it likely that they might get a seat or tow in the election? In which case People Before Profit ought to be there too. Looks like a breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL.Lozleader (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It should contain all parties standing in the election but the infobox has a limit of six. Snappy (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. Six is a bit of a squeeze! Lozleader (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to replace the Socialist Party with the "United Left Alliance" as this is the label they will be running under along with PBP and WUAG [3].Lozleader (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be appropriate. We also need to create an article for this United Left Alliance grouping. Snappy (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Seymour Crawford

According to politics.ie, Seymour Crawford (FG, Cavan-Monaghan) is standing down. So whenever a reliable source appears he needs to added to the "retiring incumbents".Lozleader (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed by Irish Times and added Lozleader (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Incumbents retiring

The Irish Times story re retirement of Seymour Crawford [4] states "at least 11 sitting TDs will not be contesting the poll". We have only 9 in our list.Lozleader (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

10 now... Lozleader (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

11! Lozleader (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

14.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pádraic McCormack (FG, Galway West) seems to be bowing out, against his will... [5] There is a possibility that he could still run, even as an Independent, I suppose, but worth keeping an eye on. Lozleader (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

McCormack not running [6]Lozleader (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

think we need some diversification of sources. probably would naturally happen with the campaign coming along, but thought id say it here.Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

party coverage

in order to both avoid POV/undue coverage and a list of the parties, would it be possible for someone to put into prose perhaps in the campaign section the parties running adn some mention of platform/intention. Right now only the new alliance is in there. We need Gael, Fail (although some is in the background), Sinn Fein (in general, not just Adams), Labour, and Greens (again some mention in the abckground already, but need more). This may not be urgent, itll probably come up in the next few weeks.Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits explained

This edit:

1. The lead was changed where as the WP:Lead is supposed paraphrase the article, and the first section deal directly with the bailout background. The first word is changed to conformity on electoral articles, more in like with getting things set to only change tense after the election.
2. The quote was removed citing it as irrelevant and not connected to the article, however reading the section it is drawn with parallels directly relations to the election. Perhaps a media reaction subsection would accomodate?
3. The tag was removed withot any discussion, which is against the point of a tag to garner discussion and there are already enough tables on the article (with more to follow when the result is out)
4. and the dating is seeming unencycolpaedic where this is not a chronoligical list of events.Lihaas (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You added a serious factual error in the lead saying the Taoiseach is selected when he is elected by a vote in the Dail. The Taoiseach is appointed by the President upon the nomination of the Dáil. The bailout is a factor in the election but one of many, not the only cause. The others include the ever dwindling govt. majority, low support in the opinion polls for the greens (and FF), wavering support from independent TDs and govt. backbenchers, etc, to make the bailout to be the only factor is synthesis and OR. The quote was removed because Madame Kennedy's pontificating aside, the quote relates to the bailout and not to the general election, it would be better served in an article about the bailout like 2008–2010 Irish financial crisis. The format for opinion poll table is standard, see Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010 for another example. Snappy (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay with the first then. The second part on the bailout is cited as the primary reason for the election ahead of time. No other reason was cited, if there is then mention that duly. The other factors are not sourced, and the election was called ironically just the following day. Its quite clearly the main reason where the others are unsourced synthesis. The relevant section entitled background just does taht where the bailout is sourced to RS as a prime reaction. Per the dates WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid excuse to discussion. the dates i was referrng to were for the campaign section. (see the edit)

The point of a tag is to generate more discussion so we dont get bogged down in "you vs. me" you promptly changed everything without time enough for consensus, please we need that. And also cited "correct factual error - the Taoiseach is elected by a vote in the Dail" as a reason for everything which clearly deceptive.I've restored them duly.Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The general election has not even been called yet. It will only be called when the Taoiseach goes to the Aras to ask the Mary McAleese for a dissolution. Also, the Green Party are now rowing back on their January call and asking for more legislation, which means the election may not happen until April or May. The other stuff you keep adding back in for some unknown reason, even though its been outlined above quite clearly why they should be removed. Also, Gerry Adams is the party leader of Sinn Fein, another factual error on your part. There was no consensus to change the infobox. The infobox does not say parliamentary leader. Snappy (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Statements towards an early election were still made the day after and hance a direct correlation. If the case about the greens is cited to RS then by all means add them.

Waht do you mean unknown reason? did you read my comments, i duly described why the other information was added in and you did not want to discuss them.

Gerry Adams' comment was made above without any opposition to it. If you feel otherwise then add to that conversation in an effort to consensus instead of reverting.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Every singly one of my edits were in fact duly explained on talk and you have not answered the query about the SF leader, the tag, or the dates. please discuss these issues. So far only the quote has been discussed and we have not made consensus, and wont without tags. ive removed them in the interim to focus on discussion.Lihaas (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

POV/OR statement left in intro, tag left in pending discussion, though look at 2007 for how the table will end up. No reason given for long winded irrelevant quote going to this article rather than bailout article. No reason given for removal of useful dates, how is it unencycolpaedic to give a date when an event happened?. Reason for inclusion of Adams given in separate discussion above. Snappy (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the intro and I'm sure you will agree its much better now. The table for retiring TDs makes it easy to read, whereas a prose section would be much less readable. What have you against tables? Anyway, its going to morph into an even bigger table, as per previous Irish general elections, when successor TDs are added in, there is no alternative but to have a table. Snappy (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

alright, i guess the prose would be awkward, but can we move it to a different section as the current ection is rather blank without any prose.

what do you mean no reason for the quote. Read the statement above, ive duly given the reason thereof.

The date removal as unencyclopaedic was because its turning into a chronological list. It doesnt matter here when it happened, just that it did.

adams discussion above.Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said the quote is better suited to a bailout article, the quote does not mention an election. I see your point about the dates but see no harming in having them in. Snappy (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

the quote is not overemphasises in the lead or elsewhere (where ti would be undue), its int he background that provided context for the election call (which is pretty undisputed that the bailout precipitated it) and from a major outlet not some WP:FRINGE theory.Lihaas (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

okay well, since you dont want to discuss it and you have been online then i guess thre is no objection. Ill reinsert, if you want it to removed the onus is now on you to discuss. We cant sit and wait for you to decude when what goes. That said we have come to agreement on almost everything.(Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

As I have already said, its irrelevant to this article because the quote is about the bailout, and would be better suited to that article. It doesn't mention the election and it doesn't provide background, it is just extraneous prose, which is not needed and adds nothing to this article. The onus is on you to prove its relevance. To date all I see is evidence of WP:OWN. Snappy (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it does provide background context as it shows why the incumbent party is non-favoured. Scroll down to the polls and you will see how its fading.

Its also the onus on you to discuss the matter. Which waited for several days, you came online you edited but you ignored discussion. if you want to ignore disusussion then you cant cite your view against the grain of discussion. you also dont WP:OWN the article that editors should wait for your grace and approval that heaven-forbid you only discuss when you see something on the page you dont like.

In order to end this once and for all ive asked for a 3rd person to come in and give his insight. Can we agree to except his view regardless (hes an admin so i should hope neutral enough to accept)? To show im not trying any undue advantage you can see my request at User talk:Number 57#3O. One more at User talk:Lozleader#Irish general election, 2011since he too was a contributor to the above discussion.(Lihaas (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

It doesn't provide relevant background at all. FF were totally not in favour well before the bailout, they only lost a couple of points in the polls since actually. I have discussed this matter repeatedly with you, so I don't know what you mean by that. If you think I didn't discuss it, then you're wrong. Also no other editor has bothered to comment on this squabble, so its only you that wants the quote in and me that wants it removed. A 3rd party is a good idea but definitely not Number57, I had dealings with them before and they are biased against. I refuse to accept Number57's input. Snappy (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was going to say the quote is unnecessary (I am not a fan of using them in articles in the blockquote format), but perhaps this is just my "bias" shining through. Number 57 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, hoisted by my own petard! Anyway, back to you Lihaas. You requested Number57's opinion, he has given it. Snappy (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as my name was dropped... I think the quote can go for all of the above. If we have to have a quote it should be more relevant, maybe something from Gormley's statement [7] although it's not terribly "quotable".

Incidentally, reading through both the lead and background section it doesn't mention that the Green Party is 1.) the junior coalition party and 2.) that they triggered the election. It just says that the Green Party called for an election (I'm sure we could say that FG , Lab and SF or even Jim McDaid have also called for one). The Greens' participation in the present government is not mentioned until the Opinion Polls section. Should be pointed out earlier for the sake of clarity. Cheers Lozleader (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lozleader you name wasn't so much dropped more like canvassed which isn't the same thing. Anyway, there seems to be a growing consensus against the inclusion of the Irish Times quote. Gormley's statement does actually mention the general election but as you say its not very quotable. On your other point, you're right, the lead should state that the Green Party are the junior coalition partner and that they called for an election. They haven't "triggered" one yet as it will not be officially under way until such time as Biffo hauls his arse to the Aras. Snappy (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassed? please, i wasnt begging him to come and support me, i asked 2 editors who were involved int his page (and would presumably know more ont he subject). Come on, youve had your cake now eat it too.

Anyhoo, case closed

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say canvassing was a bad thing, I just said you did it, as it says on WP:Cancassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Btw, what would you do with cake but eat it? Snappy (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it, countless times discussed the futility of that saying. See we have a lot in common.(Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

Superfluous?

At the moment the article reads:

The electorate will choose the members of the 31st Dáil who will assemble shortly afterwards to elect a Taoiseach in the 31st Dáil.

The use of "31st Dail" twice in the same sentence seems very clumsy... can't we just manage with:

The electorate will choose the members of the 31st Dáil, which will assemble shortly afterwards to elect a Taoiseach.

or similar? Lozleader (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed. Snappy (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

query, needs source

is there any source that affirms that Sinn Fein are most likely to beenfit from Fail's failure (no pun intended)? The poll does suggest it soemwhat, but some text would be nice to add to perhaps the campaign section expanded.Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding candidates to constituency articles

I guess we should be doing this.... (if they can be reliably sourced), there have been a rash of selection conventions in the last few days. Lozleader (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

bailout terms

"was in effect forced " was reverted. although i believe i wrote that, i think the editor who changed it is right as theres no way they can be "forced." Persuaded perhaps (and more reasonable), but decided was more accurate than the status quo term.(Lihaas (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

Maybe "forced" is too strong but "persuaded" is hardly accurate! Persuaded while a gun was being held to the governments head, more like! Snappy (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you tone down the shouty caps in edit comments, and don't accuse other editors of lying in edit comments either, that's very bad form. Snappy (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

open to other suggestion without forces. although id afree with you on "persuaded" but that was indicative of theri own decision.(Lihaas (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).

[8] is not a "minor" "copy edit" but theres no point warring over it. Only thing is the banking crisis link that is replicated in the very nect section(Lihaas (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).

Firstly, can we stick to English as the language of communication here, as I am having difficulty in understanding alot of the above comments. As for the diff you linked, the comment was copyedit but it was not marked as minor, so I don't see the problem. There is no duplication of banking crisis link, please read the article properly! The first link is to the 2008–2011 Irish financial crisis, the link in the next section is to the 2008–2011 Irish banking crisis. These are two different articles. Snappy (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

GE Candidates for ULA

This releates to the election infoboxes on candidates in their respective constituencies. Should ULA candidates be considered members of the ULA or members of their respective parties. ElectionsIreland is making a bit of a cockup in their info on the candidates by designating people who've ran in previous elections by the party they ran under (e.g. Richard Boyd Barrett and Joe Higgins) and others, such as WUAG member Seamus Healey and members of the SP and PbP who havnt previously contested the election such as running for the ULA.

An example of this is on the page for Dublin North Central where the candidate as a Socialist Party candidate. Should it be ULA for the sake of convenience? Exiledone (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think listing candidates as "United Left Alliance" is the better option. Compare the similar use of "Conservatives and Unionists" for Ulster Unionist Party candidates in the 2010 UK general election (for example, here).--Kwekubo (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

An Chomhdáil Phobail

The sentence in the campaign section "A new party called An Chomhdáil Phobail – The People's Convention, was established in Cork in December 2010. It intends to run candidates in Cork constituencies." is supported by a single reference in the Cork Independent, and on Googling the group the only hits are versions of the single news report and this article. To quote the news report "The new group is hoping to gain members and momentum at its Cork launch next week." (December 2010). I suggest that they got neither and do not in fact exist. Unless anyone objects I will remove them.Lozleader (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove 193.1.209.103 (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun a bit, according to yesterday's Irish Times they are running one or two candidates. Still not sure that they merit a para here, though. Lozleader (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh someone took it out already. Fair enough. Lozleader (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Democracy Now

Is there any rationale for Democracy Now having it's own section in the article? Maybe it should be included as a subsection on new political groupings as part of the campaign section. Exiledone (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that... the campaign section is in serious need of work in any case. We might also mention this "New Vision" independent group that are actually contesting the election (not to be confused with "Fís Nua" who are running as independents as they aren't registerted as a party!)Lozleader (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it in at the start of the Campaign section and I'll try and find info on other parties. Tbh though a good few of them are cranks and no-hopers. Exiledone (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh if anyone is reading the Irish Times election coverage or RTE put up any good bits on the campaign section. Exiledone (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with moving the 'Democracy not Now maybe later' section, basically a bunch of commentators who talked about forming a group but when push came to shove, they decided to do nothing. Snappy (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seat projections

A news report suggested that Fine Gael's position on cuts may be too incompatible with Labour for a coalition. That got me thinking about what sort of chance FG has to rule on its own, either as a majority or a minority. Of course, I looked to their share of the vote, but I don't know Irish elections well enough to have a sense of what national share is likely to result in a majority. That all lead me to wonder whether there are commonly used seat projection models for Ireland as there are for Canada and the UK. Does anyone know of any and have any thoughts on including the projections? -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There are various approaches taken to projecting based on opinion polls, such as here [9]. I'm not sure there is much point including details of such projections. Once the election is over, the trends of opinion polls may be of continuing interest as a record of how the election campaign went, but I dont think a record of seat projections would be of any particular use. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How soon can we say who has won?

Ignorant American question--how soon can we say who the next government will be? An RTE exit poll is already reporting that Fine Gael is winning going away, and the BBC and the Guardian have both quoted that poll in saying Kenny will form the next government. Blueboy96 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unofficially we know FG/Lab have won, but we'll have to wait til tonight (Irish time) at the earliest for most official results. I'm slowly making a results map for the page but I doubt it will be complete today, there's a lot of counting to be done. - JandK87 (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Was wondering because here in the States we make election calls right on election night--from what I've been reading, Fianna Fail needs to pull a rabbit out of its hat to pull this one out, so I initially thought we could say Fine Gael has won. Wasn't sure what to do, so thought I'd ask here. Blueboy96 14:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If FG are not able to obtain a majority, then it will be many days or weeks until the formation of a new coalition government is agreed. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Intro

"Caucus", "have the inside track" ... ? Are these usual phrases is Irish politics? Is there any alternative phrases we could use to de-Americanise the opening sections?

The left

Looking at the results from outside Ireland, is it not a little confusing to have the United Left Alliance and New Vision listed as parties in the tables? My understanding is that the United Left Alliance candidates were officially described as Socialist Party, People Before Profit Alliance or Independent, and that New Vision candidates were described as Independent also, presumably because the Alliance and New Vision were not registered as political parties. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is quite messy. I've created a results map for this page, same as the maps for the previous elections, though I'm waiting for the final seats to be filled before uploading it. I have a seperate map each for FG, Labour, FF, SF, ULA and then Independents/Others, where I included Luke Flanagan, but I marked him as being of the New Vision Alliance. My rationale for giving the ULA their own map is that they are the fifth biggest grouping in the new Dáil and that's how these maps work. But the infobox just looks untidy. Maybe remove the Greens? I'll leave it to someone with more authority on this page's layout.

As for grouping the ULA as the ULA, that's the banner these groups are going under now so I say so be it. But again I'll wait for consensus. JandK87 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1927-1932 elections

I'm sorry I just don't get this. FF were the largest in 1932, but not the largest in 1927, so how can the intro state it is the first time since the 1932 election that they are not the largest? RodCrosby (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my doing! You're right, I interpreted it wrongly. Changing it now. - JandK87 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RodCrosby (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sligo - North Leitrim

The constituency map for independents/minor parties shows one independent in Sligo-North Leitrim. It should show none. There were two FG and one SF elected but no independents. --User:Boreas74 ^Talk 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how I made that mistake. Thank you for noticing! Correcting it now. - JandK87 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New Vision

Do we really have to list New Vision as a party? I haven't once heard Ming mention New Vision since he was elected. It wasn't on the ballot, it was an electoral alliance, and in a few months few of us will be that conscious of it. Worth mentioning in the text, but I don't think in the tables and introductory infoboxes. Even Fís Nua managed to be registered as a party, if too late. The page for Irish general election, 2002 doesn't mention the similar Independent Health Alliance. --William Quill (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The ULA technically was an electoral alliance. Why not remove them? Fact of the matter is that N.V. took part in the 2011 election and hence should remain in the infobox.

Exiledone (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead and finances

Just reading article to get insight on election and a) seems like all that distracting "who expected to get what vote" from the lead could go, since results are now in and b) a better explanation in lead of what the elected parties/individuals promised to do about the financial crisis different that lead to victory. It took me a couple quick read throughs to find it clearly expressed in reactions. 2008–2010_Irish_financial_crisis needs to have some update info added to. Just in case someone's looking for something to do, based on comments by wiki editor dropping by on this Blessed Day! Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead should be trimmed a bit though I wouldn't get rid of the predictions article. If anything the campaign section should be improved and expanded.

Exiledone (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Replace electoral pacts with parties

There is little precedent for including Irish electoral pacts in infoboxes. Political parties, which actually appeared on the ballot paper, are meaningful and informative entities. The Register of Political Parties contains all the details for actual parties contesting the election. In practice, no-one gave a care whether Ming said he was in New Vision or Fís Nua or Hash-Smoking Turf-Cutters For Better Facial Hair; much less the ballot paper, which describes independents/non-party candidates as such. There is no evidence that New Vision as such made any impact on the public debate, much less that there was anything in common among candidates as different as Ming and John McGuirk. I tried to fix this, but someone reverted it without explaining themselves. I will change it again shortly if no actual reason is given. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Its less to do with Ming and New Vision and more to do with the ULA. The ULA campaigned under one banner though technically 3 separate parties. This is the issue at question. Are we going on pure technicalities like which was the registered party or practicalities like which parties actually stood for election together? Snappy (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not as simple as saying that they campaigned under one banner. Campaign literature suggests that they campaigned as separate parties in an alliance while preserving their own identities, e.g. references to the Socialist Party here, here and here, PBPA branding strongly dominant over ULA mentions here, here and here, and Seamus Healy mentioning "Independent" and "WUAG" but not "ULA" on any material here. "Technicalities" v "practicalities" is rhetoric rather than an argument itself; each ought to matter, and it seems that in practical terms, the individual party brands were very important to the United Left Alliance parties. Ireland has had plenty of pre-election alliances that didn't get classified as united groups in their results, e.g. FG-PD in 1989, FG-Lab in 2007; though the ULA was more co-operative in not fielding multiple candidates in most of their constituencies, this was partly due to their small size compared to those parties. The way to solve this problem is to categorise the table of results by party, as RTÉ's comprehensive results coverage does, and to summarise the United Left Alliance results below this table. This is what I did in my edit. This also allows us to treat New Vision as a sub-group within the group of Independents. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have provided enough evidence to satisfy the criticism that was raised. I will amend the article in the next couple of days if there are no further objections.AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sry the group sought to become recognized on the ballot paper as the ULA (i.e. as a political party). During the election campaign they campaigned jointly. Also you are being entirely selective in the literature you provided. If you look through here [10] most candidates gave a mention to the ULA in their literature and the fact that since they were only recognized as PbP or SP it would've made little sense in order to change the format of their election literature.

If anything is changed without reaching consensus I will revert it myself ok? Exiledone (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, I have no problem waiting for consensus if there are meaningful objections. However, consensus cannot be a fig leaf for keeping the status quo. My commitment requires reciprocal, meaningful engagement on the part of objectors, such as debate about my responses. If that does not happen, I will consider consensus to have been reached. 1. The ULA may have sought recognition on the ballot paper, but they did not get it. As of June 2011, they are still not a registered political party and their candidates would still appear as Socialist, PBPA, WUAG, etc. So perhaps their efforts to seek recognition were not all that serious. Indeed, it seems that the Socialist Party in particular is in no hurry to create or join a single umbrella group. This is a necessary step to achieve ballot recognition. 2. The literature illustrates that the parties advertise both their individual identities and the alliance in which they participate. In the case of one group, WUAG, they made no mention of the ULA in their literature. This suggests that they were not simply fighting a single campaign, but rather that they were still different parties though allied; we could compare this to past electoral alliances, like FG-PD, FF-PD or FG-Lab. 3. The fact that they were only recognised as PBPA or SP by the register is strong evidence that we ought to do the same, not evidence against it. As I see it, if they register as a single political party, and behave as a single political party, we ought to treat them as a single political party. As they have not registered, and are not behaving in that way, we ought to treat them as separate political parties, as RTÉ Elections does, and mention the United Left Alliance total result prominently, after the main results box. I think this is better than presenting a single ULA result that ignores the legal and logistical realities behind this complicated political alliance. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, New Vision was at no time a registered political party, whereas WUAG, the Socialists and PBP were all registered parties at the time of the election. I see no compelling reason why a New Vision alliance ought to be accorded greater prominence in the infobox than other independent TDs. --Kwekubo (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:AtSwimTwoBirds' proposal but the details of the ULA are in the article text. Let's not get too focused on the infobox alone. Snappy (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

At what point is it reasonable for me to edit this article in line with this discussion? I am eager to do so. There has been no further criticism of the idea to separate the parties in the ULA since May. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Be bold! Snappy (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)109.255.167.200 (talk)

Too many parties in the Info Box

Having 8 Parties in the info box looks extremely messy. I feel it should be reduced to just 6 as has been the case for articles on previous Irish elections. The two most obvious ways of doing this are either 1 Cut out the WUAG and Green Party. The WUAG only won one seat and its nonsensical to include them and a party that won not a single seat in the info box or 2 Replace the Socialist Party, PBPA and WUAG with the ULA. I agree that the parties should be septate in the summary table and I know there has been a lot of discussion over the parties designation as their candidates did not appear as ULA on the ballet. Yet perhaps it should be considered given that the Green Party did win a significant portion of FPV to warrant their inclusion in the info box. Personally I'd prefer to exclude the WUAG and Greens, but given the ULA have a map of their results it would make sense to have these 3 parties listed as ULA for the purposes of the info box with a possible note giving the details of the parties and even Declan Bree separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGlennonB (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I have reverted to the consensus version. Why is 6 ok but 8 too many? Snappy (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should the WUAG and Greens even be included? The WUAG is not a political party, it only organises in South Tipperary and its sole TD, Seamus Healy, is listed as an Independent on the members database http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=29&MemberID=1750&ConstID=172

As for the Green Party seeing how they failed to win any seats at all it does not make any sense for them to be included as well. I'd also like to see the removal of these two "Parties" from the page for the next General Election

This is an encyclopaedia, we give out the facts, we do not limit ourselves to arbitrary numbers because some anon editor thinks 6 is ok but 8 is too many. WUAG IS a registered political party, check the register, true they only contest South Tipperary and they have 1 TD but that does not make them any less valid than any other political party. The oireachtas db also lists Healy as Workers and Unemployed Action Group. The Green Party is very significant because they had 6 seats (including 2 senior ministers), were part of the previous government and they lost all their seats. I don't see why you think it is ok to include this information in the article but to excise it from the infobox. It seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Snappy (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll concede that the Green Party and WUAG should be included.SGlennonB (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Same topic as above

I do not see a consensus in this question. Just above User:SGlennonB has proposed to present ULA condensed in the infobox. And it looks like back in May, you (Snappy) yourself defended the position of presenting the ULA as one in the infobox, while explaining the actual relationship of the parties in detail in the article's main text. At least, User:Exiledone seems to have taken this position, as well. So you cannot speek of a consensus. And there are still (in my opinion very valid) arguments: the infobox can never be complete and show all details. It has to simplify. Now, it makes a rather unclear and confusing impression with showing eight parties. As the three parties made an alliance and campaigned together, condensing them into one (only for the infobox) almost seems the thing to do. I would be glad if you could deal with the arguments instead of just pointing to some (dubious) consensus. --RJFF (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus, feel free to disagree with it but there is one. As I already said this is an encyclopaedia, we give out the facts, we do not limit ourselves to arbitrary numbers because some editor thinks 6 is ok but 8 is too many. It certainly does NOT have to simplify. While the ULA campaigned together, they are and remain 3 separate parties. Why is it confusing and unclear to show 8 parties but reduce it to 6 and somehow it magically becomes crystal? That's a strange proposition. Snappy (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, consensus means general agreement. If only you agree with yourself and I disagree, there is no general agreement. The infobox is meant to provide an overview at a first glance, not to inform about all details, that is what the rest of the article is for. This is what I meant when I said 'The infobox has to simplify.' There is a common result map for the ULA, too. There is a section of the ULA's summarised result in the article's body, too. How can you accept that if they are '3 seperate parties?' I cannot really comprehend your argumentation. Have the 'separate' parties of ULA competed against each other in any constituency? --RJFF (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

SGlennonB changed his position and and agreed with me. Read the Talk:Irish_general_election,_2011#Replace electoral pacts with parties section in which AtSwimTwoBirds sets out detailed reasons for parties over electoral pacts. Also, the results summary show all individual parties not the ULA. Furthermore, I did not defend the position of presenting the ULA as one in the infobox in May, I argued the opposite. Snappy (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Constituency Results

Constituency results can be found here(Coachtripfan (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

Pure PR and Constituency-PR (non STV)

If the results were based on pure PR the seats awarded to the parties would be: Fine Gael 60 Labour 29 Finna Fail 29 Sinn Fein 16 Others 29

Even using the existing 3-5 seats, if seats were based on First-Prefence only the seats awarded would be: Fine Gael 75 Labour 36 Finna Fail 29 Sinn Fein 16 Others 15 Election Results, Ireland 2011

Small 3-5 seats benefit the largest party and on this occasion preference voting affecting Finna Fail most (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

If If If? What's all this original research about? Snappy (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of parties in infobox

For the number of parties in the infobox, where does it specify a maximum number in Wikipedia rules/guidelines? It's been discussed before (see above) with no conclusion. Why do not limit ourselves to arbitrary numbers because some editors thinks so? Snappy (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your title to this section and your phrasing of the question demonstrates why you have entirely missed the point. This is not about arbitrary numbers, it is about being consistent accross wikipedia, it is also about the summary box being just that; a summary. These articles always have full results tables lower down, to include every single party as a rule would violate the wikipedia policy against duplication. I have made reference to other articles whereby this argument has been done to death, for example please see the archived pages of Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 and Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) amongst others. Basically, its not about setting numerical limits, it is about including parties whose result is of signifgicance to the outcome. 1 seat is not significant, arguably 5 seats is not significant but depending on the circumstances and the previous result, potentially it could have been. Thanks 2.98.38.127 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I do not see why you have continued to edit war and claimed to have "restored consensus" - what consensus? You have not properly challenged the consensus that already exists for how info boxes should and should not be used. Please do not continue to edit war. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not missed the point. I asked where the guidelines for limiting the number of parties in the infobox. You have not provided any, so it appears there are none. A discussion on another article talk page, does not mean it applies elsewhere, it only applies to that article. For it to apply in general, it would become a guideline, which appears not to be the case. User:2.98.38.127 thinks there should be a limit on the number, and that is their opinion, not Wikipedia policy. Also, can 2.98.38.127 stop edit warring while this issue is under discussion, I have restored the consensus version.

Also, Spanish general election, 2015 has 6 parties, United Kingdom general election, 2015 has 4 parties, Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015 has 6, and Scottish Parliament election, 2016 has 5. It appears there is no consensus on this issue, so stop trying to force one, where it doesn't exist. Snappy (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Myself and User:New User Person have been restoring the consensus version, please stop edit-warring or you may be blocked. Snappy (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The number of seats that a party has is also arbitrary. 3 seats in a 600 seat house may not be significant but 3 in a 150 seat chamber can hold the balance of power. Anyway, who decides what party goes in or not? If they have seats in parliament, then they should be in the infobox. This is a fact. At Wikipedia, we present facts to the readers. Snappy (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You clearly have not read any of those talk pages. They are not my own opinion and your statement appears to be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent things. a) no one is trying to "limit" party numbers,it is about the info box being a summary. b) it was discussed on those talk pages that this would be the standard criteria for election info boxes and that is where there is a consensus, you have presented no consensus. c) My edit only made this articlemore consistent with other articles already on wikipedia. d) May i suggest you actually read the links you asked forinstead of continuing to edit war 2.98.38.127 (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Spanish general election, 2015 has 6 parties, United Kingdom general election, 2015 has 4 parties, Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015 has 6, and Scottish Parliament election, 2016 has 5. It appears there is no consensus on this issue, so stop trying to force one, where it doesn't exist. Snappy (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your above answer is yet another example that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the argument as you are bringing arbitrary numbers into it and that is not what this is about. It is simply about the election box being a summary, not a breakdown of the full result which would be a violation of wikipedias policy on duplicate content 2.98.38.127 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion in one place? I will reply only on Talk:Next_Irish_general_election from now on. Snappy (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes from now on I will keep this on the other page but it was you that started this on several pages, I was concerned that if I didn't respond here it would get missed by others and this was concerning to me considering that your argument is largely based on misrepresenting my point. Also, I am having to track your edit history to find out where exactly you have put what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.38.127 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This article, alone of all the Irish election articles, uses the "slimmed down" infobox. It should really go back to the old style. As for the number of parties, two lines is sufficient. That means a maximum of 6 parties. The article on the 2015 UK election only gives 4, and in doing so ignores the party that got the 3rd largest number of votes! An infobox is surely only meant to be a quick visual aid at the top of the page, with the full results given in the body of the article. 86.147.208.85 (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The change was an improvement and I think should be reinstated. Number 57 16:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Btw, this discussion is being had across too many different talk pages! Snappy (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Original research

The "Opinion polls" section contains a lot of analysis of the polls that isn't referenced. Please add citations to ensure that the conclusions are attributable to reliable sources rather than the judgements of the editors. —howcheng {chat} 09:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Irish general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119033516/http://www.constituency-commission.ie/docs/con2007.pdf to http://www.constituency-commission.ie/docs%5Ccon2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121024030/http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0120/politics.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0120/politics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721130628/http://www.southernstar.ie/article.php?id=2346 to http://www.southernstar.ie/article.php?id=2346
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211115335/http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0208/leeg.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0208/leeg.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.independent.ie/national-news/veteran-fianna-fail-td-sean-ardagh-to-quit-politics-2455812.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.independent.ie/national-news/browne-to-apologise-for-silly-suggestion-of-kenny-suicide-2363468.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227222417/http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0226/election_count_live_saturday.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0226/election_count_live_saturday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209030609/http://www.galwaynews.ie/16438-mccormack-%E2%80%98won%E2%80%99t-consider%E2%80%99-being-added-fg-ticket to http://www.galwaynews.ie/16438-mccormack-%E2%80%98won%E2%80%99t-consider%E2%80%99-being-added-fg-ticket
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903011006/http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/results/index.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/results/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014163110/http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf to http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.herald.ie/national-news/ff-turn-on-each-other-over-scraps-2556172.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://election.fiannafail.ie/page/-/images/Election%202011/FF-RealPlan-RealFuture.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307001558/http://vote.greenparty.ie/downloads/manifesto.pdf to http://vote.greenparty.ie/downloads/manifesto.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229135130/http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/green_party_calls_for_new_year_election to http://greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/green_party_calls_for_new_year_election
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127022836/http://galwaynews.ie/16274-galway-east-td-ulick-burke-announces-his-retirement to http://www.galwaynews.ie/16274-galway-east-td-ulick-burke-announces-his-retirement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219061825/http://www.guthanphobail.net/pobalbhreitheanna.htm to http://www.guthanphobail.net/pobalbhreitheanna.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203013916/http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0201/politics_poll.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0201/politics_poll.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1024/poll.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0514/poll.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)