Talk:2018 Irish presidential election

Gerry Adams
I've placed a 'citation needed' beside Gerry Adams, after removing a citation that made no mention of the Presidency of Ireland (as distinct from the Presidency of Sinn Fein). I don't know how long the claim should be left there while somebody looks for a citation from a Reliable Source (as our rules seemed a bit self-contradictory on the 'how long?' question last time I looked), but probably not too long, as the idea seems pretty implausible these days since he and everybody in Sinn Fein would know that he had no chance of winning but an excellent chance of damaging the party's chances of distancing itself from past IRA violence in the eyes of the voters, which is of course why he handed over to Mary Lou. (Admittedly that's just my opinion, but the more relevant point is that our article currently seems to be reporting somebody else's now unsourced (and previously wrongly sourced) questionable opinion as if it were some kind of fact, contrary to WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and much else that Wikipedia supposedly stands for). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately it turns out that Mary Lou had already rendered the question of how long to wait somewhat academic .Tlhslobus (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Michael D. Higgins second term?
Does anyone have a confirmed source on whether or not Michael D. Higgins is intending to seek a second term for the presidency in 2018? If so could it please be provided. All the sources purporting such a claim are actually rather unconfirmed. It's a bit of an open secret apparently, for that reason should we include him as a de facto declared candidate? Irishpolitical (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, let's wait til he makes an official announcement in a week or two. Spleodrach (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of irrelevant candidates
Should we really be including irrelevant candidates such as Patrick Feeney or Marie Goretti Moylan? If neither of them are relevant enough to have their own wikipedia articles already, should they really be included in this article? Maybe a side note about "other candidates include:", but having them in the same box as genuine candidates such as senators and those with significant public profile seems to be a mistake to me. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm all for WP:NPOV and at a stretch could see an argument for including them up until such time as nominations close (Feeney, at least, has run for office and did address one council so far). Once nominations close I doubt they'd even merit a "Others seeking inclusion on the ballot included..." sentence. But I'd lose no sleep if they were removed now. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see any harm in including them (Feeney at least) until nominations close, assuming we'll be getting rid of the "Declared Interest" box altogether. I note Bastun mentioned the fact Feeney has actually addressed a council so far, and maybe we might set that as the bar for adding them to the box, rather than adding everyone under the sun who submits a letter asking for time to a county council? Kh1326 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, these no-hopers should be removed from the table and get a brief mention in the text. Spleodrach (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Once we have nominations, we could divide the Candidates Section as follows:
 * first the candidates table, those who have reached the requirement for nomination.
 * then a subsection for Oireachtas nominations. That may just be Sinn Féin, or may be one of the independents currently going the council route. No need for a table here, unless we want to list all of Freeman's nominees, for example.
 * then a subsection for local authority nominations. Here I would suggest a table, as soon as any council nominates, as there is on Irish presidential election, 2011. One sentence at the end "Others seeking inclusion on the ballot include ..." for those who have no nominations so far. Anyone who doesn't get a nomination from any council stays in that sentence only. If they have an article, any information about their campaign can go there, but they're of little relevance to the actual election. So as soon as a single candidate nominates anyone, scrap the Seeking nomination table, replacing it with that sentence. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My preference here would be to include the actual confirmed candidates (namely Higgins and those who have receive a nomination through Local Authorities or the Oireachtas) in the election infobox. Then in the article specifically have a subsection on each confirmed candidate. We can have a subsection as well dedicated to the former candidates who withdrew (e.g. Craughwell) or who failed to get a nomination (i.e. half of the current shower). We can scrap all the tables then. The main candidate overview will be the infobox, with specific sections on the confirmed candidates elaborated on further in the article. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Colours for independent candidates
I'd project there could be up to 5 candidates, of whom only one will be nominated by a party. Should we designate colours for Higgins, Gallagher, Duffy and Freeman, if they are indeed nominated, so that bar charts or constituency result backgrounds aren't just a lot of grey? We could add a note that there's no significance to the colours, and use colours like purple not associated with current Irish parties (see from Category:Ireland political party colour templates. Perhaps keeping red for Higgins, while making it clear that he nominated himself this time, if just to make comparison with last time easier across pages. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd no idea we had so many parties! The SocDems have claimed purple, though. Let's wait until we see who is actually nominated. It's possible the SF nominee will be external to the party. She or he will be an Oireachtas nomination, meaning a max of 7 other canidates, mathematically, but realistically only 3 stand any chance of being nominated, so potentially 5 candidates in total. When we know who they are, we can decide on colours (or retaining shades of grey for independents). Likely when they start with the dreaded posters, colours will be claimed anyway... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd wait till 26 September before assigning colours, just thought I'd flag it now! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We should wait and see what colour the respective candidates use in their materials, websites, posters, etc. before deciding on them now. Irishpolitical (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Occupation
Let's discuss Sarah Louise Mulligan's occupation rather than edit warring via (lack of) edit summary. Anon IP, yes, there are three references in three different sources describing her variously as a singer, a Marilyn Monroe impersonator and an entertainer. (There was also an IMDB reference to someone of that name being an actress, but even if IMDB were a WP:RS and it's the same Sarah Mulligan, she's no credits in the last 6 years. "Entertainer" covers all of the above, and should serve for the next couple of weeks until her entry is either reduced to a namecheck in a sentence for those who don't receive a nomination to stand; or she receives a nomination, in which case clarity as to her occupation(s) will no doubt emerge. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is "shameless attention seeker" a valid occupation description? ;-) Spleodrach (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment! :-D Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Marilyn Monroe impersonator" is just a bizarrely specific label. The hefty list of candidates is already risible enough without that label. "Entertainer" is the best description of her occupation for now. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the day soon this conversation will become very irrelevant! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

John Finucane as an SF nominee?
After writing up that there were only 2 SF nominees one of whom had withdrawn, based on a normal understanding of what the SF website seems to be saying, I later discovered 2 sources [ref name=IrishExaminer2018-09-11a>[/ref][ref name=Boylesports2018-09-13a>[/ref] implying that Belfast solicitor John Finucane was another nominee (and the Examiner seemed to 'understand' there were also many other nominees, but these would be ignored), though only Boylesports seemed to give Finucane a chance. Perhaps unwisely, I added these citations to Liadh Ni Riada's bio and removed the 'only remaining nominee' wording there (leaving 'Ni Riada is expected to be nominated ...'). But other nominees (if there really are others, contrary to what SF seems to be saying) can be ignored there a lot more justifiably than here, so I'm not sure how we should handle that here, beyond bringing the matter to the attention of other editors, as I have now done.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Maybe a footnote might be added, such as 'despite what SF said at its website, the Irish Examiner said that ... and Boylesports said that...'? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC) I note that Paddy Power currently has Ni Riada at 8/1 and Finucane at 200/1, which seems to suggest that they too see him as a nominee, albeit a very remote one (or maybe not - they also have Gerry Adams at 200/1 and Mary Lou McDonald at 250/1).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither Boylesports or Paddypower are reliable sources. Spleodrach (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, thanks. I've now removed the Boylesports cite from the Liadh Ni Riada bio. But the Irish Examiner is normally a RS, tho perhaps not in this case? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Irish Examiner is considered an RS. Spleodrach (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCRYSTAL, anyone? Seriously. There's no rush. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this isn't about CRYSTAL (which is about the unknown future) but about WP:VERIFY in relation to what we are currently saying about the current SF nomination process. VERIFY says that where reliable sources differ we're supposed to report them all (though giving appropriate weight, etc - "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."). Here we are only reporting the SF version that there were only 2 nominees, with only 1 left, despite having a RS (and at least one non-RS, tho that hardly matters, except perhaps as possibly useful background info for us editors) that suggests there were many nominees, including 3 (and now seemingly 2) whom SF were supposedly taking seriously. So I currently think we have the following possible choices:
 * a) Mention the Examiner version in a footnote (which I currently think is best).
 * b) Ignore the Examiner as arguably not a reliable source in this case (and/or per WP:IAR, except that I doubt if this actually improves the encyclopedia so I doubt that IAR is appropriate).
 * c) Give the Examiner version as the main RS version, with the SF version as a footnote as SF is arguably not a RS, or at best a primary source, whereas the Examiner is a secondary source which would normally be preferred (tho I currently think that's too POV in this instance).
 * d) Try to find other RSs that deal with the subject.
 * e) Suppress all mention of nominees, seemingly contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED.
 * f) Other options that I haven't thought of.
 * g) Possible combinations of two or more of the above.
 * As already mentioned I currently think option (a) is best, and I will probably try to implement it eventually if I don't hear any better suggestions (and assuming I don't lose interest, and also assuming I don't alternatively try it anyway per WP:BOLD, and that I don't find other options myself, perhaps through finding other RSs).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection I've decided to try to save time all round per WP:BOLD by adding the footnote mentioned in option (a).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bastun, wait til Sunday when they announce their candidate. You have spent alot of time on a minor issue, fair play, but most of us can't do that. Spleodrach (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. I guess we may just have to agree to differ in our understanding of what constitutes a minor issue (and thus also on what constitutes a lot of time in relation to it).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

2011 vote figures
What excatly is the point of added 2011 voting figures? Ni Riada, Freeman and Duffy were not candidates then, and Higgins ran as the Labour candidate. Not comparing like with like as in a general election. Spleodrach (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is comparing approximately like with approximately like, which is all such comparisons can ever do in any election. In this case the top 2 candidates are running again, and the third party is also running. Indeed these two elections are in many ways far more comparable than many general elections in many countries. Removing the figures just deprives our readers of useful encyclopedic info to which they are entitled. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also the claim in the edit description removing those figures that 'people don't vote on party lines any way' is almost certainly at least partly untrue in the case of SF, and probably partly untrue and partly irrelevant in the case of the top 2 candidates. And either way it's prophesying the future contrary to WP:CRYSTAL since we don't know how people will vote, let alone why, which seems a very poor reason to deprive our readers of useful standard encyclopedic info, contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED and contrary to the normal way that Wikipedia deals with such elections when they are broadly comparable. And once the figures are in, we can be pretty sure that many RSs will be making precisely such comparisons in relation to the top 3 candidates.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also the most sensible and most conventional way to order the main candidates.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had the same instinct as at first, but on reflection, it is useful information, especially as there are two candidates in common. Footnotes should do to explain differences in a candidate or who nominated them. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Iveagh Gardens, and thanks also for your excellent improvements to the SF nomination section.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. It'd be a weird combination of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and downright incorrect information to include voting numbers for people who did not run in 2011. Liadh Ní Riada is not Martin McGuinness. The WP:NOTCENSORED argument is frankly ridiculous. The exact figures for every candidate in the 2011 election are available on the 2011 election article page. Which, you'll note, doesn't include figures from the prior contested election. None of our presidential election articles do, for obvious reasons. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm totally opposed to including previous vote figures. There are only two repeat candidates. This is just not applicable to this type of election and should be removed post haste. Irishpolitical (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree, for many reasons, some of them already stated above. But I couldn't be bothered putting the matter to an RFC (tho any other editor doing so would have my support - but please let me know if you do, as I'll probably be taking this page off my watchlist to try to avoid getting sucked into wasting more time on it). However since we are deeming past figures irrelevant (they aren't, but that's not really the point), there is now no longer any justification for what has now become the current POV/OR/SYNTH ordering of the candidates. We presumably logically should (and perhaps will) now have a long time-wasting argument about whether they should be ordered alphabetically, or in order of nomination, or in their order in opinion polls or Google searches or whatever, and whether Michael D should nevertheless come first or merely take his place in the queue. I hope to stay out of such an argument, beyond saying here that in my view, the logical order is the current one, based on last election and then order of nomination (so the next candidate, if any, automatically comes in at the back), but that this makes no sense if we insist on removing past figures (which is only one of several reasons, some already mentioned, why I think they should be put back in, preferably in the form left by Iveagh Gardens, which can be seen here, but obviously with Ni Riada and any later candidates added). That said, I've wasted enough time on this already, so I hope to avoid any further part in this discussion. Kind regards to all, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the strong resistance to this. The fact that it's not in use for other presidential elections isn't in itself an argument; Wikipedia is a constantly evolving project, and maybe we should consider it for earlier ones too. Isn't it of interest to compare de Valera between 1959 and 1966, or O'Higgins between 1966 and 1973, even if the other candidate isn't the same? Sure, a reader can easily click on the 2011 page, but by that measure why include 2011 results on the 2016 general election page. Yes, presidential elections are different, candidates are nominated in a different way, and they aren't fought by parties in the same way. That doesn't mean they can't be compared election to election. I don't see how it falls into the realm of original research to include thesr figures from the past election. It's useful information, why remove it? That said, if no one else is swayed by this, it's not a hill I'm going to die on. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * by that measure why include 2011 results on the 2016 general election page - well, precisely - we shouldn't. It's not useful information because we have different candidates (bar 2). Martin McGuinness is not Liadh Ní Riada. Higgins was not the incumbent last time. It's apples and oranges.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Higgins was Labour last time and is Independent this time, and Fine Gael are not running a candidate this time. It's a totally different election. The figures for what Higgins and Gallagher got in 2011 to 2018 can if needed be compared in text, but putting them in the infobox is both wrong and pointless clutter. Spleodrach (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Gavin Duffy photo?
Anyone able to find a suitable usable image for Gavin Duffy? The only CC-by-SA photo I could find on flickr has a "no derivatives" clause, which I would take to mean no cropping. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit to add: a suitable non-copyrighted usable image! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

- you can't copy a photo from gavinduffy.ie and upload it to Wikipedia or WP Commons. That's a copyright violation. If you want to add a photo, it needs to be available under public domain or a Wikipedia-compatible CC-by-SA licence. Them's the rules. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Retiring vs incumbent president
The style I had used for Higgins's nomination in the results table was "Himself as retiring president". I know incumbent sounds better, as he is not retiring if seeking re-election, but that is the term used on the nomination form, and in the legislation and the Constitution. Of course, we're not bound by the style used in such official contexts in how we describe matters here, but I would have a preference for maintaining that terminology. Though "Own nomination as retiring President" would have been the most true to the official form. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you said we are not bound to use official terminology, especially where as in this case it is confusing. Maybe just use 'Self-nomination' instead. Spleodrach (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Spoilt / Invalid Votes
Hello. Where is the total voter turnout reconciled to actual results? I note a total for first preference votes but that cannot be the total turnout as there are spoilt / invalid votes. Where are the invalid votes recorded?
 * They're in the source used for the big table in the process of being completed. They will be added when it's all finished in the smaller table. Look up its code, or the previous election page to see how it will end up. --Aréat (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN Quality issues outstanding
This article is ITNR, meaning it will be posted at ITN if it's deemed of sufficient quality (and hasn't gone stale). Currently feedback from WP:ITNC re quality is as follows:


 * Quality-wise for the election, there is no prose about the electoral campaign or debates. The article jumps from candidates to results, with a few tables in between.
 * There needs to be more prose throughout, and some of what is there doesn't belong (e.g. the procedure section belongs in an article about Irish presidential elections generally).

I've no plans to try to fix it myself (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO), but I thought I might mention it here, just in case anybody here wants to have a go.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional reasons given by other editors since then:

Tlhslobus (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A brief summary of the debates or other events is needed.
 * It needs prose, not array of tables of debates, opinion polling results and even whole election results, like a government website.

It's been posted at ITN since 22.35 last night. Thanks, everybody. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)