Talk:Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

Additions to the "Campaign" section

This should be confined to registered political parties, or, at most, entities registered as third parties with SIPO. Otherwise, what defines relevance? The opinion of a football manager? That of a retired politician? That of a campaign group that has failed to comply with and, in fact, has refused to comply with the relevant Standards in Public Office legislation? (Equally, I don't support adding Doctors for Choice, Lawyers for Choice, Catholics for Choice, Termination For Medical Reasons group, the current and former Masters of the Rotunda and Holles Street maternity hospitals, or the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If a figure/group is prominent in Irish public life, include them. More people know Brutal Bruton then some fringe nazi party but for some reason you want to exclude the former but not the latter. Odd that. Any connections you want to confess?James blythe (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Me, no. How about you? Any previous accounts we should know about? On topic: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

So surely then we should include prominent figures in Irish public life.Sokopoko (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding Harte is a bit excessive tho on reflection.James blythe (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok then let's dump Mickey Harte then but include Brutal Bruton. What do ye think, Bastun?James blythe (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think not. I think we use agreed, well-defined inclusion criteria that can be equally applied to both sides of the argument, and that I'll be seeking wider input than just that of two editors with less than 170 edits total, between them, and myself, to see where the consensus lies. As I have proposed above, I believe that inclusion should be confined to registered political parties, or, at most, entities registered as third parties with SIPO Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun, the list should be confined to political parties and registered groups. Not anyone who has ever issued an opinion on the subject. Spleodrach (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Endorsements are Endorsements. put those back on the page. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Leftwinguy92. Compare Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016: we listed any notable endorsements, and standard practice in Wikipedia is that an endorsement is notable if the endorser is notable (i.e. has their own article). Bondegezou (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ditto Endorsements in the Italian constitutional referendum, 2016. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016, List of Ted Cruz presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 and List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016.Leftwinguy92 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

John Bruton is very notable he is the former Prime Minster of Ireland. that's pretty notable to me. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff exists, sure. It doesn't effect this article, though. Bruton is indeed notable. So is the current Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, who is pro-choice. Should we list him too? So is the current Minister for Health, Simon Harris. So he should go in. The opinion of Rhona Mahony, Master of Holles Street Maternity Hospital (pro-choice) is notable and should go in - even though she doesn't have her own article... Nor does Peter Boylan. But they're certainly notable when it comes to the topic of abortion in Ireland and their endorsements should carry more weight than that of a retired politician... So should that of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists... See the way this goes? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article fundamentally different from other referendum articles? We were able to work out the problems you raise and determine which were the notable endorsements in these other cases, so I don't see it as being unsolvable here. The standard approach is that an endorsement is notable if the endorser is notable, i.e. has their own article. But, sure, there may be exceptions to that rule if editors feel that other endorsements are, in this context, of particular note, following WP:RS. We can work that out like we work out all articles: through editing and discussion. That this might take some working out is not a reason to avoid the entire endeavour.

It's now four to two in favour of showing more endorsements, so I suggest we get on with the task. Let's restore the additional endorsements, add more as they're found, and we can always spin this section off into its own article if it gets too large. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What's this 4 to 2 nonsense? Sokopoko and James blythe are (blocked) sockpuppets. So its 2 to 2 if anyone is counting and we are not, because it's about consensus! Spleodrach (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was unaware those two were blocked socks -- noted. A headcount can be a useful way of gauging mood on the way to finding a consensus.

Perhaps then we could seek further input via a WikiProject? Bondegezou (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've asked at WikiProject Elections for more input. Bondegezou (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Process gripe: I object to a blanket reversion, especially to a version which includes the false information that Fine Gael is neutral. Is the assumption that, once this Talk:section started, no change will be made to the article section until this Talk:section is concluded? I think there are several uncontroversial changes that can be made even before a comprehensive inclusion policy is agreed (if ever). jnestorius^(talk) 19:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Substantive issue: I begin by replacing "Endorsements" with "Positions", and "Neutral" with "Other". A "Neutral Endorsement" does not make sense. "Positions" is not a great title either, though; we can't really settle on a title until the scope is decided. So what is the scope? I guess "organisations [?and individuals?] whose stance (or explicit refusal to take a stance) is noteworthy". So, what makes it noteworthy? Perhaps a minimum of two or three major news outlets have a specific story about it? Or maybe a major news outlet publishes a list of notable Yes/No supporters which includes it? I would err on the side of inclusion for political parties and religious denominations (any policy which excludes the Catholic Church from the No list is egregiously flawed). Reliable sources have said the main Yes group is Together for Yes and the main No groups are Love Both and Save the 8th, so we should certainly mention those and some of their component/member organisations. Which members? Well, at a minimum limit it to those which have Wikipedia articles. However, pace Bondegezou, having an article is not sufficient: the opinion of a celebrity is not worth including if reported in the celebrity gossip section; if the story breaks out to the news section it might become notable. We could have separate pages Together for Yes (Ireland), or Category:Political endorsements articles, which could be more comprehensive without WP:UNDUE. jnestorius^(talk) 19:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I take your point on the process (but in my defence the discussion had already started); yes, "Positions" is better than endorsements. On your substantive points, I can't find myself in agreement. While your addition was indeed neutral and balanced, in my opinion, there are some issues. Why include religious groups? This is not a religious issue (as some of the pro-life campaign have said). If we include one (or two, as you have), then why not all? E.g., the Methodist position, which is - like that of the Church of Ireland - pro-repeal (and, not as you listed, "Other" - the referendum is on repealing the 8th, not on the legislation that follows). Why exclude organisations such as the definitive experts on maternal and foetal health, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, just because they don't have their own WP page? (They're notable enough to have one, just nobody has gotten around to creating one) Why lump all of the various organisations supporting/members of Together For Yes into one paragraph? The TFY website lists just a few of the notable membership organisations and will likely always lag behind events - such as Inclusion Ireland joining yesterday and still doesn't list the various trade union members. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Why include religious groups? Why include political parties? Why have a section at all? To synopsise the information reported in major sources.
  • Lots of newspapers have covered the Catholic bishops, so we can cite that (both the primary source of their statement and the secondary sources that establish its significance). I am sure there are more column inches on the Catholic church's opinion than on Renua's or the Greens.
  • No outside sources have covered the Baptist Blessings Church or the Om Shiva Consciousness Fellowship, so even if their website says "Vote Yes" or "Vote No" we ignore them.
• This is not a religious issue Heh. We don't have to state "this is a religious issue", though I daresay we can find reliable sources that correlate No-voting with Catholic. But if lots of newspapers are writing about bishops, we should be able to incorporate that in a way that doesnt have confused readers asking themselves "why is Wikipedia telling me what some bishop thinks?"
• the referendum is on repealing the 8th, not on the legislation that follows
  • That is an excellent point, though not comprehensive. From a legal view, the two issues are indeed separate (not unrelated, of course, since the legislation depends on the amendment passing; but nevertheless clearly separate) and it's plausible that Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland and Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 will be separate articles.
  • ...however, from the practical political view, the issues are intertwined: the citizen's assembly and Oireachtas committee both considered the constitutional issue alongside the legislation; the government deliberately published the heads of legislation before the referendum; and most importantly advocates and journalists have referred to the legislation in the course of the debate.
• the Church of Ireland [is] pro-repeal and, not as you listed, "Other"
  • The Church of Ireland is not pro-repeal, and the amendment is not a repeal; the Church of Ireland is pro a certain type of replacement and the amendment is a certain type of replacement.
  • The Church of Ireland has not said "vote yes"; it's advised its members to pray. This goes back to the previous point — the interplay between the amendment and the legislation. There are people who want to replace the current disposition with something more liberal but not as liberal as the heads of legislation; it's not clear how such people will vote or indeed how they would be advised to vote.
• Why exclude ... the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists? I for one included them.
• Why lump all of the various organisations supporting/members of Together For Yes into one paragraph? A paragraph is more compact than bullet points. I didn't list all of the members and wouldn't propose to.
• The TFY website lists just a few of the notable membership organisations Great, that initial cull gives us a head start in our deeper cull.
• still doesn't list the various trade union members it listed SIPTU

jnestorius^(talk) 12:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I support Jnestorius here. I still no reason why the usual approach to endorsements on other Wikipedia articles cannot work here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters, I would see the fact that Jnestorius reads the CoI position as not being pro-Repeal and I read it and the Methodist position as completely the opposite is exactly why we shouldn't include anything beyond political parties. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If difficulty agreeing on what an article should say was a reason not to have content, then Wikipedia wouldn't have any articles on abortion or politics at all! The solution to that disagreement is to discuss it here, referring back to RS reports, not to ban coverage of endorsements. Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Bastun and I disagree over the CofI position is not an argument for excluding all mention of bodies whose positions are any way nuanced; it is an argument for not simplifying everything into "Yes" and "No" lists, and for relying on secondary sources rather than trying to interpret primary sources. (I don't think our differing interpretations are "completely the opposite" of each other, but I presume that was a rhetorical flourish.) jnestorius^(talk) 16:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This page should give as broad an impression of the campaign as we can, comprehensive if not exhaustive. It is surely relevant to understanding this debate that an array of people and organisations have expressed views on this, as well as there being official stances of the registered political parties. Whether former taoisigh, medical institutes or religious bodies, they give an impression of the debate. Especially as this campaign will probably not focus on political parties anyway. It might need some curation and organisation into logical sections, but why can't it work on the same basis as many other campaigns with articles on Wikipedia. There's nothing sui generis about this referendum that means we should confine ourselves to political parties. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If it works on the same basis as other campaigns with articles on Wikipedia, then it'd include minor bands memorable for a couple of hits, 20 years ago; people who've started companies but otherwise made no significant contribution to public life in Ireland; minor organisations, publications, "celebrities", etc... most of whom are somewhat to very notable in their own sphere. But what has that got to do with an abortion referendum? Again, A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the examples given at WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply here. WP:NPOV, WP:RS & WP:NOTPAPER do all apply. If reliable sources are reporting an endorsement as relevant, then we should follow their lead. It's not up to you or me to judge what's relevant to an abortion referendum. That's up to reliable sources.

If you are concerned that particular additions are trivial, then you can discuss them here. Picking extreme examples is not a good argument for the total ban you are currently pushing. Clearly there are many bodies whose opinion is very obviously very relevant. The Catholic Church for example. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"Extreme" examples? The ones I quoted are all included in the article that was recommended to me as an example of what this article could become (as if that was a good thing). Right Said Fred's opinion on Brexit is, frankly, irrelevant. A GAA manager's opinion on the referendum is likewise irrelevant (but someone had added just that, here). Paper doesn't refuse ink, so there were indeed citations. That's not the issue. WP:NOTABLE and WP:UNDUE apply, as does WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood WP:INDISCRIMINATE, NOTABLE and UNDUE. If you wish to argue against specific examples, you are free to do so. None of that is a reason to exclude, for example, the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. Bondegezou (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes political parties of all organisations in civil society special? Why would the readers of Wikipedia care about their views in particular only? It can be broad without being exhaustive. I'd be more inclined towards institutions rather than cultural figures, so include churches and medical institutes, but not every cultural figure and band. And if a church makes a statement that is not equivocally on one side or the other, let's note that too. There should be a space for newspaper endorsements in time for those who make them as well, as is usual in electoral contests on Wikipedia.

I also think we're coming close to a consensus that there should at least be something more than political parties here. Maybe we can use this discussion page to vote on whether particular categories should or should not be included after that. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I concede the consensus is for more than just political parties. I'd be willing to compromise and go more or less with Iveagh Gardens' suggestion, somewhat adapted: registered political parties, registered third party/civil society organisations, churches (with nuances noted, probably best kept to an "Other" section), medical institutes, etc.: Yes. Unregistered political parties, unregistered third party/civil society organisations, private companies that call themselves Institutes: No. "Cultural figures" is undefined and I would strongly oppose including individuals, celebrities, bands, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. We have consensus on all those you list and can get to adding them. Nuances absolutely to be noted! Prose often better than bald lists to clarify anything that needs clarifying.

We remain undecided on individuals: I continue to be of the view that individuals, when considered notable by reliable source coverage, should also be included. Perhaps consideration of some specific cases in due course will help spur a consensus in the future there. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I continue to be opposed to including individuals. It may be in order to include their positions on their own pages, but not here. Earlier we had an addition of five GAA-associated people, three of whom were redlinks, one of whom has a stub article, none of whom are noted for their medical, health, human rights or ethical work. Nonetheless, I've restored much of what Jnestorius had previously added. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with excluding redlink individuals unless strong reasons are given why they are relevant and notable in this context. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added a note on the GAA's professed neutrality, which I think suffices in alluding to the individuals. I agree that the opinion of a celebrity ought not to matter, but whether it actually does matter depends on how media report it and how voters digest those reports. The fact that media have reported the GAA's neutrality but not, say, the FAI's, does say something about the campaign. jnestorius^(talk) 19:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

So I don't get it What is the bloodedly decision on the endorsements. this page needs to be in Line with other pages Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016, List of Ted Cruz presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 and List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016.: we listed any notable endorsements, and standard practice in Wikipedia is that an endorsement is notable if the endorser is notable (i.e. has their own article). Leftwinguy92 (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include something here. The consensus thus far is to include: registered political parties, registered third party/civil society organisations, churches (with nuances noted, probably best kept to an "Other" section), medical institutes, etc., and to exclude unregistered political parties, unregistered third party/civil society organisations, and private companies. There is no consensus to include individuals. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone who had wiki experience in an editing/inclusion debate on a controversial issue last year (the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey article), I found that most editors' concerns were addressed when a separate endorsements page was created, such as Endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey and others mentioned above. That way "agreed, well-defined inclusion criteria that can be equally applied to both sides of the argument" (as Bastun says) can be included on the main page and any other notable endorsements can be added to the endorsements page. Prominent individuals who have their own wiki articles are very likely to put forward their own view and have it reported by media. Just my two cents. Jono52795 (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to decide to create a separate page or not based on the size of the article, rather than to settle an editing dispute.

The article continues to improve, due to the good work of many editors. We have made progress here on deciding what to include. It is helpful to have additional input from others. We currently don't have any consensus here on including individuals, but several editors do support adding at least some individuals. I think only Bastun objects to all individuals. Personally, I support taking the approach used with other Wikipedia articles, which is an approach based on following what reliable sources deem significant. Are there specific cases it would be useful to discuss? Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

While I don't like the WP:Other_stuff_exists argument, I'd tend to agree that this is the best way to settle this dispute. A short and sweet section on the main article on *registered* party support with mention of the most notable campaigns on both sides, with an extensive "endorsements" page for everyone else. Doing this will require WP:Consensus on what will be allowed before it's created though. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry's comment for/against as an endorsement, of course. --Avitus27 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if another endorsements page is created, I will argue as strongly there that the opinion of a sportsball manager who lives outside the jurisdiction is as irrelevant to the issue at hand as that of a band with a couple of hits from 30 years ago. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't about the relevance of their opinion but that it is notable and of public record and public interest. --Avitus27 (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

we shouldn't care about Bastun thinks. that sportsball manager is a famous and well know man in the nation and if his relevant to have his own page then his endorsement is relevant as well. I like that idea of having a other page. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's mature. The man lives and works in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not having an abortion referendum. His opinion on all things GAA is notable and should by all means be included in his article. His opinion on parking fines, global warming, Trump's presidency or the price of a pint of plain aren't relevant to this article or his own BLP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

They may live in Northern Ireland but whether we want to be ultra-partitionists or not, his endorsement still holds a lot of sway acrosss Ireland, given the sport is played in the 32 Counties. Why not include him given he's Irish? Foreign endorsements I can understand excluding though. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Because ultimately the personal opinion of an individual, notable for being a football manager, is irrelevant, compared to the professional medical opinion of, for example, the current and former masters of Ireland's maternity hospitals. Simple as that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how his public endorsement is any less relevant than the Catholic Bishops conference's endorsement. Irishpolitical (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Catholic Bishop's conference statement should also be excluded, but consensus was to include churches. And in fairness to those saying to include churches, I can see how a conference of Catholic bishops speaking about abortion is a lot more relevant to the debate than the opinion of a football manager. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Instead of arguing among ourselves as to whether something is relevant, we should look to what reliable sources say. We follow their lead. This football manager, what reliable source coverage of his views has there been? If there has been lots, we should cover it. If there was a passing mention in something, I'm not bothered that we don't. Bondegezou (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There's been some, probably about as much coverage as the actor who said today we should be supporting a Yes vote. I oppose including his opinion too, as he's equally as unqualified to inform the debate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether someone is qualified or not in your view to pass an opinion on the matter is wholly irrelevant under Wikipedia policy. Imposing that requirement violates OR and NPOV. What matters is whether the endorsement is notable to a (paper-less) encyclopaedia. If an endorsement gets lots of reliable secondary source coverage, then it is notable, even if it is the stupidest opinion ever given. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Define "lots". I mean, you could send a press release tonight to the Indo, journal.ie and breakingnews.ie newsdesks announcing the launch of Wikipedians for No or Wikipedians for Choice and I'm pretty sure it'd be covered by at least one of them... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As Wikipedians for No or Choice would not be a notable organisation, then the standard rule-of-thumb -- an endorsement is notable if the endorser is notable -- would rule out its inclusion anyway.

Defining "lots" is difficult, but we can use the principles in WP:WEIGHT. If someone would like to add a particular endorsement, they can present the RS coverage for it in their edit or here, and then we can make a decision. Bondegezou (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems fair. That's the basis I had for removing the various groups added by the SPA yesterday (little coverage, no campaign) and moving Inclusion Ireland up to the TFY bullet point this morning. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed the minor GAA players and John Bruton again as there is still no consensus for inclusion. In the same vein, I'm proposing we don't add Saoirse Ronan, Liam Cunningham, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor, Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson, Amy Huberman, and Caitriona Balfe, despite coverage. Nor should we add U2 or Margaret Atwood. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But maybe Marina Sirtis... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

National Party

Should the National Party be represented on this list? Seven of the political parties on the list have representation in the Oireachtas. The Workers' Party and Renua Ireland are both represented in local politics. The National Party has absolutely no representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.38.146 (talk)

Given the close ties between the NP and Barrett's "Abortion Never" campaign, there are grounds for inclusion. Though the fact that they're unregistered is also something to consider... Hmm. Yeah, on balance, possibly best to exclude and limit to registered political parties. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say This page is So biased. some people have deleted party's and other people's endorsements for the NO side but have all the Yes endorsement. biased page.Leftwinguy92 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a discussion above what endorsements in general should be included or excluded, please feel free to partake. But in this specific situation, the National Party have not run in any elections, have no elected officials, and have not even registered yet as a political party. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Abortion Never==the National Party, by all accounts, therefore shouldn't be included? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that non-registered political parties (or their front organisations) should not be included. Spleodrach (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we're listing parties, not fronts, where appropriate. (ROSA, of the SP, isn't listed for example) Given that NP isn't a registered party, there's no precedent to list them. Additionally, the only evidence for adding them is their own website. We lean on reliable third-party sources for documenting notable non-party groups (TFY has extensive press coverage for example). So unless they have a notable campaign, they won't appear in the list --Avitus27 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO I don't see a problem with including the National Party, but to appropriate level of detail. ____Ebelular (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain why? Given that the National Party is unregistered, has very little support, has not contested any elections, or has any elected reps at any level. It's a fringe group. Spleodrach (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Abortion Never are a registered campaign for this referendum. While yes it obviously has close National Party links, it's still a registered campaign with SIPO for the purposes of the referendum. Therefore it makes sense to list it here. Also, I'd be inclined to list the National Party as a No party too. For the reason that really only two parties are actually endorsing a No vote - Renua and the National Party. There are multiple sources which detail their support of the No side. Due to the small number opposed and the fact the NP are actually campaigning against it, it would make sense to list them despite not being on the electoral register of political parties (which is a register which is relevant to elections, not referenda). Irishpolitical (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've no objection to Abortion Never being included if Barrett has registered it with SIPO. Your arguments for including the fringe National Party make no sense. To make the No side look bigger?! The register of political parties is the register of political parties, not a register for elections. Textbook case of WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright then we'll Abortion Never to the No endorsements. My point isn't to make the No side look bigger, but because of the limited number of parties supporting No it would make sense to include all those who do. A political party is still a party even if it isn't registered with the Dáil Clerk's office, it's just an unregistered political party. We could include the National Party in the list of No parties but just have it read "National Party (unregistered)" to differentiate it, it should be included especially given there are multiple sources which document their opposition to abortion and to a repeal of the 8th amendment. Also, the natonal party is registered with SIPO to contest the referendum. Irishpolitical (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You've just said "My point isn't to make the No point look bigger, it's to make the No side look bigger." No. Consensus is to include registered political parties. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, put it this way, my point is that The National Party is registered with SIPO to contest this referendum. Therefore it makes sense to include them in the article. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the Register of Third Parties; not a Register of Third Parties to "Contest" the 36th Amendment. Right 2 Water, Cóir and Save Navan Hospital are not participating, for example. It seems the fringe National Party still haven't mustered the numbers to register as an actual political party. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Registering with the actual Referendum Commission requires 300 members... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think including the National Party / Abortion Never / Barrett on the same line makes sense. The main thing to avoid is the inclusion of astro-turf campaigns and empty websites which have little or no substance beyond a press release. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The website of "Doctors For Life" gives a fake postcode, lists no events and and gives a Twitter handle that doesn't exist. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

ICTU and trades unions

Given the ICTU press release and subsequent coverage of actual campaigning (as opposed to just a press release), should ICTU and members Unite, Mandate, Communications Workers' Union, Connect and SIPTU get a bullet point? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support that, yes. And thanks for re-organising the Talk page: it's clearer this way. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cherish all the Children Equally

I'd suggest including "Cherish all the Children Equally". They're registered as a third party with Sipo, they've produced some election litrature, and have held a few events (1 & 2). Peadar Toibin TD is not listed on their website but he spoke at one of their events. Carol Nolan TD is listed. In addition to the above links to articles in The Journal, the Derry Journal and Spirit Radio, there are reports in the Irish News, and the Irish Catholic. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the sourcing on this one - the Derry Journal and Irish News are UK publications, Spirit Radio and The Irish Catholic are obviously not neutral sources - but I'd support inclusion on the basis of the SIPO registration and Journal source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it clearly has strong Northern Irish backing, which as you correctly point out is a part of the UK. Spirit Radio and the Irish Catholic are fairly obviously anti-repeal media, but that doesn't mean that not reliable sources. Are you seriously suggesting Peadar Toibin didn't appear the the event? Or that the Irish Catholic would just make stuff up? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer neutral sources where at all possible. And there is one, and I included them :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Bishops' Conference & Presbyterian Church

We should remove the Catholic Bishops Conference from the No campaigns. It isn't registered with SIPO as it isn't a proper campaign, it just made a statement - and honestly I fail to see how their opinion is relevant enough to be included. But it should be removed from the campaigns section. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

And it also had letters read at every church advocating a No vote. Even though every diocese is a registered charity and charities aren't supposed to support political activities, e.g. the Project Arts Centre and the Maser Repeal logo mural. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 05:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it as a religious organisation is opposed to Abortion. But just by that fact it shouldn't be included in the article as a campaign, the same with the Presbyterian Church. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Has its position been covered by reliable secondary sources as significant? Yes. So it should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

To repeat myself from earlier sections, mere coverage by RSS shouldn't be grounds for inclusion. The active campaigning by the CBC (in the form of letters being read out at masses, for example) and the coverage that has received is what would get them included. But on the main issue, suggesting that we don't mention the Catholic church (membership between several hundred thousand and a couple of million) while at the same time mentioning the National Party (membership not large enough to register as a political party) would just be bizarre! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Irish Republican Socialist Party

Removed, as not a registered political party, per the official register. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polling graph

this page should have poll graphs.Leftwinguy92 (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Hello? anybody can we have a poll graphs. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

yes what. this page should have graphs of the polls.Leftwinguy92 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

So what's stopping you? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've a pair of graphs made from Excel, I'll upload them to commons once I get back from work --Avitus27 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Maith an fear. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pro choice orgs

If its the case that all pro-life orgs not registered with the SIPO should be excluded then surely it should also be the case for all pro-choice groups. Let's be consistent lads. 80.111.230.60 (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Being registered with Sipo is not the only criterion. Campaigns and stances by notable organisations (many of which are exempt from having to register with Sipo) qualify for inclusion as well. Positions of the Catholic Church, ICTU and the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are clearly both relevant and notable. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists" does not even have its own wikipedia page which seems like an obvious to me that it aint notable lad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.230.60 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey "lad", the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists know what they are talking about, unlike you. Articles (or lack thereof) on Wikipedia is not how we decide inclusion criteria. Spleodrach (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well what counts as notable then lad?80.111.230.60 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Go away Apollo! Spleodrach (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

How are Fine Gael listed as being Neutral when they are a member of the Together 4 Yes campaign?Irishpolitical (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If you were following the debate at all, you would know that FG like FF are split and are on both sides of the debate at once. Spleodrach (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Polls on 12 week limit

While I was trying to correct a misreported poll, I discovered that how the poll question handles the 12-week limit can cut the lead by up to 12 points. Per WP:WORKINPROGRESS, I've tried to address the issue with citations and footnotes, etc, but I'm not sure this is the best solution to the various complications: Some polls automatically include the limit, some have it as a separate question, some can't easily be checked because of Paywalls, and so on. And I doubt if I'm the best person to try a better fix, for reasons too numerous to bore you with, so I currently prefer to leave it to other editors, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The referendum is on changing the text of Article 40,3,3 to "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy", not about legislations surrounding that. While I agree that the nuances of the line of questioning in some polls is of note (why are polls asking about the 12 week rule when we're not voting on that?) I don't believe your edits have WP:NPOV (why is there a need to capitalize "NOT" in the footnotes?)

My recommendation would be to revert the edits for the time being until we come to WP:CON in talk about whether/how to include that information. --Avitus27 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The capitalisation of NOT is simply an attempt to make it easier for the reader to visually distinguish between the first two footnotes at a glance. As for the subject matter, per WP:UNDUE we are supposed to report what the Reliable Sources are saying. Failure to do so does a disservice to our readers. How best to report it is a separate question, but is quite different from choosing not to report it at all until if and when some perfect solution is agreed (per WP:WORKINPROGRESS, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc). Meanwhile our article quite rightly already mentions the surrounding legislation, just as the Reliable Sources do. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That said, I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of some of our sources, including The Irish Daily Mail - the Daily Mail, at least in its English incarnation, is banned as an unreliable source, while it's seemingly mainly the Irish Daily Mail which includes the 12 week limit in its polls, which we have then been reporting here up to now as if it were the same as other polls. Also I corrected the bit attributed to the UK Independent (added by an IP address editor) to say what it actually said, but maybe what it says about Ireland is not reliable, at least in this case (the Sunday Business Post's Paywall prevented me from comparing the two sources). I've also added Donegal Now's report of the latest Sunday Independent/Millward Brown poll, but that may need correcting when the Indo writes that up. And it's possible that removing (or perhaps flagging in some other way) such questionable sources might make footnotes about the 12 week limit unnecessary, tho other approaches (such as having a separate table regarding the 12 week limit?) might be preferable. Also part of our format is problematic - I cited the Sunday Independent/Millward Brown poll and its Donegal Now source in the sensible way that we do for 'Next Irish general election', which makes it easy for the reader to see the cited source without having to actually go there, as well as providing a useful wikilink to the Sindo, but that has since been changed back to the format we are using here, where it's harder for the reader to check, and where there's also no wikilink. And, having said all that, I think I should probably now withdraw, and leave such decision(s) to other editors.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

(It turns out that Donegal Now was in fact reliable, though I've now replaced it with the Indo's own far more detailed and informative article now that it has become available).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no denying that those are leading questions to ask, especially when a Yes vote won't immediately pass the proposed legislation. It's only been proposed. Fitzgerald, Cormac. "Concerns over mystery Facebook ads claiming to offer 'unbiased facts' on Eighth Referendum". TheJournal.ie. If the referendum passes, legislation will be decided afterwards. Simple as. The line of questioning in the mentioned surveys is misleading, and by giving those results the same context as other (more represntative of the actual referendum) surveys does the readers of the article a disservice. I'm proposing a seperate table where the 12 week question is asked. It is evidently significant to peoples' views on the referendum, though not what is being asked in the text of the referendum. -- Avitus27 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd also support separate tables. "Will you vote to repeal or retain the 8th amendment?" is a very different question to "Do you support the proposed 12-week legislation?" Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Also support separate tables. On 25 May, voters will be asked if they want to delete or keep Article 40.3.3. They are not being asked about 12 week limit. Spleodrach (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of jumping the gun on WP:CON I'm gonna WP:BB and do that. -- Avitus27 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Avitus, many of the 'lead' figures in the table you split off didn't match the polling numbers you listed. I fixed them according to those numbers, but did not confirm that the poll numbers themselves were correct. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a mil for that, I was rushing off to get a bus and missed that one! -- Avitus27 (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you didn't get it 100% right first time, per WP:WORKINPROGRESS, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and you've done an excellent job creating the new table, for which many thanks, Avitus27. And you were quite right to 'risk jumping the gun on WP:CON', for basically the same reason (plus WP:BOLD, which you already mentioned). I may or may not add a minor tweak or two later (such as a footnote saying the Indo's 53% is 42% about right + 11% not far enough) - that's how this work-in-progress works. Thanks again, and regards.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(Above tweak now added, maybe more to follow later).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Electorate figure

Does anyone know the total national electorate figure and electorate figure for each constituency? The results tab I've added has the figures based on the 2016 general election, but they'll have grown slightly in that time. Have tried to find a source for it but not been successful. Jono52795 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We should expect those figures from RTÉ as part of their coverage. --Avitus27 (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Any Polls conducted on just female voters?

I've found a curious lack of polling done on female voters?

What do the women of all of Ireland think? Boundarylayer (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

B & A, and RedC polls have geneder breakdowns in the source, but that would be too much detail to include here IMHO --Avitus27 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Katherine Astbury

How come Doctor Katherine Astbury is left out of the background section? After all she was the doctor that failed to diagnose Savitas blood clot. Mobile mundo (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's totally relevant? This is an article about an upcoming referendum. There already is an article about the death of Savita Halappanavar. Talking about who did or didn't diagnose something in Savita's case is a little too detailed for this article IMO ____Ebelular (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Exit polls

Should we include the exit polls on the page? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that they will very quickly become irrelevant, as real results become known. I see little point. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is a massive discrepancy between the exit pools and actual results and reliable sources have discussed the discrepancy I don’t see much of a reason to include.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not in favour of having the two exit polls in the same table as opinion polls. They're different things, and measure different things. "How will you vote?" "Yes/No/I'm not saying/I don't know, still undecided (over 20%)" versus "How did you vote?" "Yes/No." But include their results in prose. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A poll is a poll. Put them in a separate table if you want, but a lot of referendum / election articles include the actual results in the opinion poll table for comparison purposes. For example see: 2016 Irish General Election and Brexit referendum. If we include actual results why not the exit polls as well? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Influencers poll

According to this poll A woman's right to choose was the biggest influence on the vote. Should it be included in the article?

References

Mobile mundo (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

According to what poll? I could not find what you are suggesting is in that link. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Rte changed the image that was in the article. It gave readers a graph of reasons what the biggest influence on the way they vote. (Mobile mundo (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC))

What's the point of opinion polls now?

We have the actual result now. I see no point in the article containing opinion polls. Historians and the public will be paying no attention to them in very short time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, people will be looking at opinion poll results to work out how and why the actual result was so different to the polls. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Only the people who run and publish them will be interested in that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

When one look up the page on a past referendum or election, one question that is interesting to find an answer to is whether the result was well anticipated or a surprise. Having the polls here is useful. --Aréat (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polls are kept for every election and referendum. They will remain in this one. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's just an invalid appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What purpose do the opinion polls serve? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Being interesting content that we will be keeping, per consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 05:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You used sloppy English to say "people will be looking..." How many people? Which people? Typical Wikipedia readers? Would the people wanting to do that kind of research really look at Wikipedia? I would hope not. Wikipedia should never be trusted that much. OK, I know I'm challenging something here that seems normal (I do that a lot), but do try to come up with valid reasons for keeping this stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

They serve as a point of comparison, particularly given the nottable discrepancy b/w their figures and the actual result of the referendum. This goes to context; one could infer with some degree of confidence that the mood for change grew over time and with each poll. They are reputable, scientific polls and their relevance to a referendum/campaign is the reason why they exist on so many wiki election articles. Even more so when their findings differ from the outcome. You couldn't talk about the 2016 US Presidential Election without mentioning the consternation about the results of national and state polls visa vi the surprise outcome. To do so would be to ignore critical context and content, similar to this referendum. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not some sort of catchall designed to prevent similar styles being used for election/referenda articles. As it points out, the "other stuff exists" argument can be valid or invalid depending on the context. In this case, where the consensus (with the notable exception of yourself) seems to be keep at least some opinion polls in this article, I would submit they should stay. Jono52795 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. There is some valid reasoning there. The problem is that none of what you just wrote is reflected in the article. The opinion polls just stand there isolated, like a shag on a rock, with no hint to the reader as to their significance. Maybe if some of those words were packaged around the poll figures, their retention would make more sense. Right now, they prove little. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Readers are capable of working out their significance themselves, depending on what exactly interests them, by using their brains and/or by looking up the related citations, and/or by then using Google to find out more about them. But we would merely be wasting editors' time on adding pointless waffle if we added text trying to selectively summarize what Reliable Sources said about selected polls, a profoundly arbitrary exercise when there are vast numbers of far more useful and important things for editors to be spending their time on.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Then my point about shags on rocks stands. As you can tell from this thread, I for one couldn't see the point of the figures. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So... you won a debate on the internet? 'Grats? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't see the point of opinion polls regarding Irish views on repealing an Amendment to their constitution in an article discussing the political/electoral process governing that repeal? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest most readers and editors can. Jono52795 (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That claim would need a source. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, dude... there's a 5:1 majority here saying they're in favour of retention. They'll be staying. Stop wasting your and our time on this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

5:1 in favour of retention. Any objections to this section being hatted now? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hat it! I've worked on numerous election articles. We've always kept the opinion poll data in. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Make it 6:1 for retention. And I'd also add that a "shag on the rocks" sounds like either a painful experience or a great drink name. But that's neither here nor there.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

New sections possibly needed

• We may or may not need some or all of the following new sections (with some or all of the suggested content, and/or other content):
  • Reactions, domestic (statements by various groups, etc), Northern Ireland, and international (for instance the BBC reports Theresa May phoned Varadkar to congratulate him, UK Labour calling for Westminster to impose change on Northern Ireland, editorials by the likes of The Observer claiming wider international significance, reported use made of the result in other abortion debates (Northern Ireland, Australia, USA, etc), statements by groups like Amnesty International, perhaps UN Human Rights bodies, the Vatican's Osservatore Romano, etc)
  • Consequences - proposed legislative timetable, reported effect on timetable of Pope Francis's visit in August, calls for timetable to be speeded up, etc. Perhaps also something about when the referendum text gets inserted into the Constitution (if things haven't changed since previous referendums, there's now a pause to allow time for people to challenge the result in court, which, if the Divorce and Same-Sex Marriage precedents get repeated, will delay things by a few months before the courts reject the challenges after various lawyers have got nice little earners out of them).
  • Analysis of the result by region, age, gender, urban-rural, etc. I put these figures in a footnote to the Irish Times exit poll (plus one missing figure supplied from RTE's exit poll), but it got removed (here) by an anonymous IP address from Swords with only 4 edits who stated, perhaps correctly, that this was a copyright violation, so I'm not too clear about what can and cannot be said. The actual regional results (Dublin, Rest of Leinster, Munster, Connact/Ulster) are now available from RTE (here), among other sources.
  • Perhaps other sections that I haven't thought of.
• I may or may not try to add some of this myself eventually, but not just yet, and possibly not at all (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO), and there are probably other editors who can do a better job of it than I can.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree on the inclusion of all of those sections, and I'll help over the next few days. I'd reinsert that item that got removed - the anon IP is wrong, it's not a breach of copyright to quote figures (and the article has now been protected). It'd be a valuable addition. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bastun. I can't be sure, but I think I'll probably start doing some work on it myself sometime over the next couple of days or so. Meanwhile, are you sure about the copyright situation, or could we use a few more opinions on the matter (hopefully supporting ones)? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly got the ball rolling with a section specifically on reactions in Northern Ireland, which has been a big news item in the UK these last few days. Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou, given the above from Tlhslobus and me, I'd invite you to revert. Whatever about Trudeau, definitely for the Theresa May quote, not least seeing as her government relies on DUP support to stay in power. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added the May May quote, but feel free to revert me yourself when you feel it's appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not all that bothered myself about routine congratulations, but my impression here is that Trudeau is worth mentioning because he seems rare, and therefore not routine; I may be misinformed, but so far he and May are the only Heads of Government that I know to have publicly praised the result, so if it really is rare then I think it should be mentioned. Meanwhile I'll hopefully soon be looking to add some sort of qualifiers regarding May (she has been criticized for being slow, and she has also said she won't be imposing change on NI, and has presumably been criticized for that too), etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Far from being routine, Trudeau's congratulations may be unique, both because there are only 3 others (May + Estonia + Luxemburg) publicly reporting messages to Varadkar (which aren't explicitly described as congrats, possibly for 'non-interference' reasons), but also because he had reportedly urged Varadkar to liberalise our law as a human rights issue last year (which would arguably normally be seen as unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of another country), so all that seems pretty non-routine and deserving to be mentioned, which I've now done.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any further opinions either way on the copyright issue, I've now gone along with Bastun's view of the matter, while adding in supporting summary text just in case some copyright expert later decides that some of the details are somehow too much (though I'm not expecting that).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I originally mentioned effects, in among other places, Australia. I was thinking of this article in the Irish Times, which, if I remember right, had some Tasmanian politician using our vote as a reason to call for abortion reform in Tasmania (and, I think, other conservative Australian states with tight restrictions). However I am now unable to access the article (I've probably accessed more Irish Times articles than I'm allowed), so I'm now unable to read it to decide whether to use it or not. So I thought I'd mention it here in case somebody else is still able to check it out.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Tlhslobus raises some interesting points about why Trudeau's comments are not run-of-the-mill and are encyclopaedically noteworthy. I support including content in those circumstances (where a secondary source has noted why the comments matter; we can't fall foul of WP:OR) and think we should include the context, the explanation of why the comments given are of significance. Discussion of why things matter based on secondary sources, yes; bare lists of people and quoting platitudes, no. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR involved. We are simply reporting what is being reported in a WP:RS, no more and no less. One could equally pseudo-logically claim that it was WP:OR to assume they were platitudes when no RS has said they are platitudes. Neither is OR unless we state in the article that it is especially significant or especially insignificient, and we're not doing either.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that OR had been violated, just parenthetically cautioning that we may need to be careful of OR in future edits. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry about that.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody know when the time for court challenges runs out?

collapsing my own lengthy contributions, as I've ended up answering my own question at excessive length.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Two of the above 3 suggested sections seem reasonably well in hand, but the consequences section (which at present should probably basically just be a legislative timetable) hasn't yet been started. There's quite a bit online about the proposed Dail timetable. But I've been unable to find anything online about when the President gets to sign the new referendum text into the constitution, except that in previous referendums it got delayed by court challenges which had to be lodged within a certain period of time. What I'd like to be able to say is whether that is still the case now, under the terms of what law, and when that period of time runs out. So far I've failed to find what I was looking for using Google. Can anybody help, please? Tlhslobus (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Of course if we don't have the info, we can perhaps say that it's awaiting the President's signature, and that on previous occasions A and B it got delayed by X and Y weeks after the referendum due to unsuccessful court challenges, but that'd perhaps be a very questionable approach. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Actually I've now managed to make progress on this myself: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/12/section/42/enacted/en/html#sec42 (2) A referendum petition in relation to a provisional referendum certificate shall not be presented to the High Court unless that court, on application made to it in that behalf by or on behalf of the person proposing to present it not later than seven days after the publication in Iris Oifigiúil of the certificate, by order grants leave to the person to do so. http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir290518.pdf (page 768) 768 IRIS OIFIGIÚIL, MAY 29th, 2018 ACHT AN REIFRINN 1994 - REFERENDUM ACT 1994 Reifreann Bunreachta - Constitutional Referendum Deimhniú Reifrinn Sealadach ina luaitear toradh na vótála sa reifreann a tógadh an 25ú lá de Bealtaine 2018 faoi Acht an Reifrinn 1994, arna ullmhú ag ceann comhairimh an reifrinn ó na tuarascálacha a fuair an t-oifigeach sin ó na cinn chomhairimh áitiúla ar leith sna dáilcheantair uile. 1. Déantar an líon vótaí a caitheadh sa reifreann i ngach dáilcheantar ar leith i bhfabhar an togra, agus i gcoinne an togra, atá sa Bhille dar teideal - Provisional Referendum Certificate stating the result of the voting in the referendum taken on the 25th day of May 2018 under the Referendum Act 1994, prepared by the referendum returning officer from the reports furnished to the said officer by the several local returning officers in all the constituencies. ... (referendum details) The foregoing provisional referendum certificate will become final and incapable of being questioned when I am informed by the Master of the High Court either that no referendum petition has been duly presented in respect thereof or that every such petition so presented has become null and void. Dáta: 28 Bealtaine 2018 Date: 28 May 2018 BARRY RYAN Ceann Comhairimh an Reifrinn Referendum Returning Officer It's in the Iris Oifiguil on 29 May 2018, so they have 7 days (up to 5th of June) to submit a petition. Unfortunately the Referendum Act 1994 has been amended in 1998 and 2001 and there's no consolidated text to make it clear that the 7 day limit still applies. I think it does, but that's OR, so I need a RS that says it's 7 days from May 29. But at least that's now something I can start Googling. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Here's the needed RS: http://whatsnew.citizensinformation.ie/2018/05/30/referendum-what-happens-next/ Referendum – what happens next? This news item was posted on May 30, 2018 In the referendum held on 25 May 2018, a majority of voters approved a proposal to replace Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution with the text “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy”. A provisional certificate stating the referendum result was published in Iris Oifigiúil (pdf) (the State Gazette) on 29 May 2018. If no petition challenging the result is presented to the High Court within 7 days of its publication, the certificate becomes final. The President will then sign the Bill to change the Constitution and the Constitution will be amended. The amendment will allow the Oireachtas to pass laws regulating the termination of pregnancy. The Government has published an outline of the legislation that it plans to introduce (pdf). Until new legislation is enacted, there is no change to the current legal situation. Abortion remains illegal in Ireland, except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. I'm off on other business now. If nobody has added this to the article I'll probably do so myself later, but please feel free to do so yourselves before I do. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Above now added to article, and I've hatted my own lengthy monologue, but more still needed on legislation.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A court challenge has been initiated. [1]. Spleodrach (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

My source (Wikipedia) is as Follows per percentage of Catholicism per capita on the Emerald Isle

Follow us concerning percentage of Catholicism as opposed to “Church of Ireland,” per capita on the Emerald Isle, link here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland FoxFactChechChick (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, what has the above got to do with this article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Savita Halappanavar mural, Dublin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)