Talk:Bertie Ahern/Archive 1

Education
This website says he was educated at University College, Dublin. Atorpen 23:30 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC) That page is gone, but this page says both. Niteowlneils 05:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bertie was not educated in/by UCD- attending a few lectures there given by other bodies would be the extent of it. Nor is he a qualified (Chartered,Certified etc) Accountant [unsigned]

The anonymous contributor is correct. Bertie was not educated at UCD. He just attended a few lectures there. (Following his standard, I have visited the Tower of London so obviously I am King of England!). The lies were finally exposed in Ireland some time ago and his website withdrew them, saying it was all a misunderstanding! Yes indeed. Whoever wrote it misunderstood what the truth is! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't know about the UCD claim, but I remember the same question arising with respect to the LSE. It is pretty peculiar to state in someone's biography that they "claim to have been educated at ....". It would be better to remove the "claim" until someone can confirm it is true. There are a number of sources which suggest it is not true, eg. [unsigned]

I think Bertie Ahern was actually born in Cork and family subsequently moved to Dublin. He is therefore a Corkonian.--Ewanduffy 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Info box pic!
What happened to the picture in the info box of our glorious leader? CorkMan
 * Deleted for lack of adequate copyright status information. There's a concerted effort (misplaced, in my opinion) to remove all pictures from Wikipedia which aren't uploaded with an acceptable copyright status (GFDL or public domain or similar), but the deletionists don't seem to be bothering removing references to the pictures they're deleting, which makes Wikipedia look a mess. -- Arwel 11:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
The quotes section would be much enhanced if somebody can locate his famous (to me, anyway) quote from a Hot Press interview (must have been the late 80s) regarding his drinking, wherein he said something along the lines that he would be all right to drive after 8 pints of Bass (his favourite tipple of the time). For a while after Hot Press referred to him as Bertie "Mine's a gallon of Bass" Ahern. Bowsie Jnr 12:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Bertie and the drink
Like all good irishmen , Bertie likes his pints or two. But i though he didn't drink during lent,Ror (talk • contribs) changed it to November when he abstains from the drink. I dont recall where i hearing it, and with a lack of source, i was pretty sure that it was lent, it would make more sense for it to be over lent as opposed to november anyway. Anyhow, i am going to refrain from chaning it back till either i can find a source, or some one backs it up. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Its possible that Bertie doesn't drink during lent as well, but I certainly know he doesn't drink during November, which is a Catholic tradition some people keep "for the Holy Souls". I will try to get a proper source for this from a newspaper (I know the Sunday Business Post mentioned it in a flippant manner this year). However, informally, I can tell you that I happened to have the oppertunity to be in his presence at an event last year and he mentioned it. Not a proper source, I admit.--Ror 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahern abstains both during Lent and in November.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Photo
Does it strike anyone that the photo of Bertie and the randomers in Brazil is a personal ego trip and is neither a good photo nor relevant to the text around it? I propose deleting it in a week if no one objects.


 * Good point, could be worth removing. But it is a classic (just opening a phone booth) photograph of bertie. Djegan 19:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's not encyclopedic Rye1967 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bertie is a nice guy
Post from indefinitely-banned user removed. AnnH ♫ 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to removed post also removed--Rye1967 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Berties Oratory skills
The sentence has been removed as vandalism. I was the one who inserted it, back on Apr 27, 2005. I was accidentially not logged in at the time, but it was not input as vandalism, whatever your POV about it. Personally, I admire the man, don't hate him at all, have no axe to grid. I was simply recording a fact as I see it. Since then one other editor added the 'Bertiespeak' moniker, presumably agreeing with me. Someone added that he stutters, and I removed that. The sentence has survived since Apr 05, presumably been read many times, without anyone feeling the need to remove it.

I meant that his speaking style is not inspirational in the sense of great orators such as Martin Luther King, Jr.. Examples are his speech at the opening of the 2003 Special Olympics and the May 2004 Enlargement of the European Union. Some of this is due to his accent and tone of voice.

Seperately, I was referring to his style of obfuscation, which he regularly uses in debates and discussions when he does not want to get caught in a corner. I was thinking in particular of a general (ie non-Northern Ireland-related) interview which he did with the BBC some years ago where no-one could interpret what his long-winded response to a particular question meant.

Although he hesitates, uses 'Aah', sometimes repeats a starting word, he does not sutter. But those things do detract from his speaking style.

So, I think the sentence should stay, do you now agree? -- Rye1967 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry: I did not mean to imply it was vandalism, and, having forgotten my wording, I almost posted that I had never referred to it as such. I didn't check the history, so I had no idea it was added by an Anon. I removed it on the basis that it seems to be a commentary on his reasons for allegedly avoiding giving straight answers to questions. I am not so familiar with his way of speaking, but presumably he has not admitted to simply skirting awkward questions he does not want to answer, and the implication that he does has little place in an academic encyclopedia article. If it could be re-worded to avoid making any such political accusations, I would have no problem with it being reinstated. elvenscout742 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point and I have revised it to just describe his style and remove references to his motivation.--Rye1967 22:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever so slightly worried query
This is'nt meant to be vandalism or anything like it, but .... seriously: how many of you boys and girls here in Ireland have noticed a strange relationship, both in personality and looks, between the following over the years?



Yours in the Force, Fergananim 21:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)



Ahern, Bertie
Have removed Bertie from. There's nothing in the article to support the claim that he is notably pro-life. Maybe he is, but if so, please provide references. --BrownHairedGirl 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree - the fact that he supported the most recent referendum (which left a lot to be desired irrespective of pro/anti views on abortion, and just part of the pro-life debate) does not warrant inclusion. He is a politician firstly. Djegan 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the category doesn't say anything about the politicians in question campaigning purely or even primarily on a pro-life platform, it's simply for politicians who are pro-life. Ahern is prominent enough to warrant inclusion, and his pro-life beliefs (and that of his party) are well-known. He didn't just support the last referendum, he initiated it. I also thought the category could do with being a little less amerocentric. But now I see that Dana's there representing Ireland, so that's alright then.--Dub8lad1 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references, a large amount of citation tags, and a cleanup needed tag. Tarret 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a qaulified accountant

He is not a qualified accountant and it is appropriate to mention this as he has described himself as an accountant.

Trivia section is totally POV
I think this is obvious. Tayana I understand you disagreed with my edits, which I disagree were "vandalism", and this is not aimed at you, but I would like to be clear about this section before my edits are written off as vandalism. Just look at this: * Ahern is a poor public speaker; his tone and style of delivery is mechanical. When speaking off the cuff, he sometimes speaks haltingly. During debates and interviews, he gives indirect, vague, ambiguous or meaningless responses, a behaviour dubbed "Bertiespeak". In 2004, Joe Higgins TD described Ahern's refusal to answer questions as like playing handball against a hay stack. Your hear a dull thud but the ball never comes back to you[27].

While you are correct in saying that Higgins' description of his elocution is cited, the fact that his public speaking is "poor" is not, and is most certainly an opinion.

* Ahern has few close friends among his political colleagues, but recent revelations [28] show that he has many supposedly non-political friends.

The choice of wording here is clearly trying to make a political point.

* Ahern and the Government '''misjudged the sentiment of the nation in arranging for a State funeral for Charles Haughey, which was largely ignored by the public.'''

Is this "Trivia about Bertie Ahern", or is it more POV pushing?

In the interest of improving the article and WP:BLP. I would like to hear someone else's view on this. Generalmiaow 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with you, and I think a number of the entries should be removed. It's hard to argue with material in a 'trivia' section (how can material be considered irrelevant?), but the choice of items displays a clear bias.


 * Ahern is not an accomplished orator in the grand parliamentry tradition - he tends to speak haltingly, - however he has a skill of successfully avoiding committing himself by giving indirect, vague, ambiguous or meaningless answers to questions by journalists and in the Dáil.


 * is utterly blatant, non-factual bias. I've tried (three times) to excise it, but it's been reverted by (another) anonymous editor. Is there consensus that it should go? --21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no consencus that "trivia" be removed. Much of it has been present from 2005. The Irish radio media refer continually to "Bertigate" and "Bertispeak". Editor "demiurge" seems to delete more than contribute and his edits are negative. He never corrects, just deletes. Of his last 9 posts, 7 are reversions.

From the recent history page we have demiurge edits of Bertie Ahern


 * 1) (cur) (last) 13:54, 5 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (?Trivia - remove unsourced)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 17:16, 4 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (rv unsourced)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 10:07, 4 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (?Trivia - add "devious, most cunning" ref, remove unsourced)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 20:10, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79285962 dated 2006-10-03 17:47:46 by Demiurge using popups)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 17:47, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79268832 dated 2006-10-03 16:16:08 by Demiurge using popups)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 16:16, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79268105 dated 2006-10-03 16:12:00 by Demiurge using popups)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 16:12, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79261426 dated 2006-10-03 15:33:28 by Demiurge using popups)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 15:33, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (rv; WP:LIVING)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 10:08, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (?1990 presidenti

Should demiurge be blocked as an editor?, on the basis that wiki is creative rather than censorious of others' edits? in accord with wiki philosophy. 194.46.173.253 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the media continually refer to "Bertiegate" and "Bertiespeak" then it should be easy for you to find a citation, no? Demiurge 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tayana 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are missing on the philosophy of wiki, which is to colaberatively edit, not to criticise others. Acceptable editing is to improve and expand on the work of others, straight deletion without positive activity is a negation of the editorial principles of wiki. Be positive. Straight deletions will usually attract reversionary attention.
 * Incorrect, you are missing out on Verifiability: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". Demiurge 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Demiurge rightly asserts, your comment is just illogical: "Acceptable editing is to improve and expand on the work of others, straight deletion without positive activity is a negation of the editorial principles of wiki".
 * "Acceptable editing" - as defined by whom? Because your definition sure ain't in accordance with established Wikipedia procedures.
 * "... to improve and expand on the work of others, straight deletion without positive activity...". Deletion is absolutely necessary where the content does not cross the verifiability threshold. We aren't trying to keep people happy, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. If "the work of others" is rubbish, it should be summarily deleted.
 * "...a negation of the editorial principles of wiki". No, it's not. Demiurge outlines why. In addition, there are many wikis. You presumably mean Wikipedia. --18.242.7.128 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Demiurge should be blocked is ridiculous. Specifically, your complaint is that he doesn't act "in accord with wiki philosophy". There is no wiki philosophy. There are Wikipedia procedures, and Demiurge is scrupulously upholding them. The material in the trivia section violates WP:NPOV, and, more pertinently, is un-sourced in many places, violating WP:V. The anonymous editor that continually re-inserts material in the trivia section is in violation of the three-revert rule, and displays general misunderstandings of Wikipedia in many of his other edits (such as by deleting logos). The Bertie Ahern article is greatly improved by Demiurge's involvement. --18.242.7.128 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Split article?
In view of the size of this article, should we have a separate article, something like "Bertie Ahern alleged corruption controversy"? Mustafa Bevi 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes in the Trivia Section
The formatting of the trivia section is pretty atrocious. I've changed the italics to quote marks in an attempt to tidy it up.

The quote in the first entry is simply the title of the article referenced for the entry, so I see no reason to have it there, as it distrupts the flow of the article, and can in any case be found in the reference. If someone wants to add it back in, could they provide justification here? Reveilled 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

can we get rid of the condemn/condone quotes? some obviously put the condemn one in to attack Bertie and the second was comeback..whats the point?, they're hardly important quotes by any stretch of the imaginationplokt 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Don't think the new photo in the info box is a great one of Bertie, to be honest. The old one was much better. Irish goat 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a better one, then. The old one was low resolution, 20 years old, and copyrighted. The new one was taken last month, is high resolution, and is free to use. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dermot Ahern
Should the article make clear that he is NOT related to Dermot? Given the many Aherns that are related (last sentence of 'Early and private life'), it might be clearer to mention that Dermot is not one of them. 134.226.112.12 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish "versions" of names
I urge removal of Irish "versions" of names in general. Firstly, it's meaningless to translate names. A name is a name (though of course an individual is free to call themselves what they like, that's a different issue.) By this logic, anyone called Sean should have an English version of their name. Secondly, Bertie has never ever been known by any Irish name. These comments apply to all uses of Irish "versions" of names, not just the Bertie article. I'm all for encouraging the use of Irish but these names are a misguided gaelgoir's attempt to promote Irish and it looks silly.

I would have to disagree with you on that. I don't see how promoting the Irish language looks silly at all. In fact, Bertie Ahern has worked to get Irish recognized as an official EU language. As for usage of Irish names, on the official website for the Dept of the Taoiseach, there is a button to click for Gaelige, which lists the Irish 'version' of names, Bertie Ahern's name included.

But he never uses the Irish version of his name in reality (as is his right). Who decides which people should have Irish versions of their names supplied? Why not an irish version of Gordon Brown? And then should there be an English version of Eamon (O')Cuiv's name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signor Eclectic (talk • contribs) 22:16, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown is Scottish not Irish so therefore having his name in Irish is rather pointless but on the otherhand Bertie Ahern is Irish and therefore he should have both English and Irish translation of his name. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On TG4 Nuacht (news) they always say Bertie Ahern, i've never heard any of the irish speakers call him anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.147.147.190 (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed that names should be presented in the language form the person actually uses. I noticed that TG4 also observed this practice for the Northern Ireland snooker trophy coverage; the Irish-speaking commentators and presenter consistently used the English version of every player's name (except the Chinese of course; wouldn't make much sense to translate them into Irish, would it?).
 * This practice seems to be observed in media most of the world over (that I've noticed), except in China where they convert foreign names into Chinese pinyin and pick suitable characters, but that's due to the fundamental phonetic inflexibility of that language.
 * In general, it makes a lot of sense to try not to distort or translate names, and to use them in the same way as the name's owner expects to be called.
 * Destynova 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Payment controversy
Rwallirl 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)I have cleaned up some of the text to remove opinion from the text. It is still a relatively one-sided and negative sounding piece, which perhaps would be improved by some balance. Also, is it too long & detailed for the article on Ahern himself, should it be moved to a separate article?

His "seperation" from his wife
There is nothing in the article that says the reason why he and his wife divorced is because he was having an affair with Cecilia Larkin,which contradicts his claims that the money he received was to help him through a difficult period in his life.Basically he got money because he had an AFFAIR,and due to that divorced his wife while his daughters were young. F A C T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.70.13 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Payment controversy
Given that Ahern is now daily on the front page of the Irish papers regarding this issue is it not right that this is mentioned in the first paragraph of his article here? I have added a few lines.Gael-wh 11:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Remarks
User Nwe by removing edits relating to Ahern's suicide remarks is asserting his viewpoint in contravention of NPOV. The remarks were controversial and were widely reported. That they "news for a day" implies that they were news and offended many, hence the publicity. To say that "barely anyone no(sic) remembers them" is an unacceptable individual point of view, contrary to NPOV  The remarks are relevant, noteworthy and relevant and are reinstated accordingly. Octanis (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And User Netwhizkid by using the following edit summary Reinserted his suicide remarks removed by biased idiot is also asserting his viewpoint in contravention of NPOV.
 * ''That they "news for a day" implies that they were news and offended many, hence the publicity.
 * Actually news for a day just implies that they were news not that they offended anyone since they would be also news for a day if everyone praised him for them .Garda40 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The remarks are also utterly irrelevant to the general biography of Ahern. This article should only give the most significant incidents and general detail of his career, not every single event involving Ahern that made the news. My assertion on this actually have nothing to do with any personal POV regarding Ahern, I simply feel that their inclusion makes a farce of Wikipedia guidelines and the article's general respectability. Nwe (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Anybody in the public eye who makes disparaging remarks about a tragic human circumstance, reveals a side to their nature that is of interest to the general public. The suicide remarks reflects his attitude, which is just as relevant to his biography as therevelations about his finances.
 * The general public hasn't shown any interest, the story was dead after a day. The pychoanylisis you suggest is furthermore a complete violation of WP:OR.Nwe 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A biography reflects all facets, not just the favorable ones. 194.46.225.248 (talk)21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No kidding, what's your point? That's got nothing to do with the discussion. His biography should reflect issues of genuine significance. Incidentally, because some people seem to be getting wrong impression here, I hate Ahern; he's corrupt and malicious and a liar and should resign. I'm sure if you check over my edit history you'll see what my views are quite clearly. But by including irrelevancies like this you're not only making a farce of the article in question but also actually undermining genuine criticisms of Ahern by placing them side-by-side with this nonsense.Nwe 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Edits critical of Ahern
User Garda40 on 2 Dec 2007 is incorrect in removal of validly cited references to Ahern, that have been unchallenged for months. He provides no explanation for his reversion. 194.46.228.103 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided an explanation in the edit summary every time .If you don't choose to read edit summaries that's your problem  .01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) .Garda40 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pay-rises
Given that this whole issue has had a definite beginning and end (for the time being), is it OK if it's moved from "The Future" to "Controversies"? If no-one objects in the next day or two, I'll move it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampdat (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahern's Children and Grandchildren
Ahern's children and granchildren are ultra peripheral to an article on Ahern and do not rate prominent mention in main text, if at all. They are private citizens, not in public eye and should not feature at all, as being irrelevant to Ahern's profile.

I moved the mention of his children and grandchildren's activities to a footnote and suggest that the reference should be removed entirely.

194.46.255.175 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While a case can be made that his grandchildren aren't in the public eye, how exactly are his children not in the public eye with one being a successful novelist ( with a movie of one her novels coming out and writer of a US sitcom ) and the other married to the one of the members of Westlife.

Apart from that how exactly is the fact that someone has children peripheral let alone ultra peripheral to their article.

And a correction I moved the mention of his children and grandchildren's activities you  moved the existence of his children and grandchildren and now want to delete the fact that he even has children , let alone grandchildren from the article  , a fact that has been in the article since at least 6 Dec 2004.

And do you even know the difference between twins and fraternal twins because there is a very big difference which you and your other IP addresses have repeated each time .Garda40 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not "Hello" magazine. Ahern's children and their grandchildren are independent of Ahern insofar that his actions don't affect their lives as independent individuals. So in a biography of Ahern, it seems straightforward and non controversial that the next generation(s) don't impinge on, or are relevant to Ahern and their mention is  superfluous to an encyclopedic article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.255.175 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Garda40. Cecelia Ahern is a successful novelist, with a movie based on her novel released in the US with Warner Bros. While Georgina might not be famous in her own right, she is married to a successful boy-band member, which in itself, brings fame. In any case, mentioning children in the biography page is nothing new and most articles in Wiki do that - I don't see any controversy on it unless the article devotes a whole section on his kids and grandkids.--Cahk (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To repeat another editor, Wikipedia is not Hello magazine. Reference to children and grandchildren are peripheral to the main character and distract the narrative of the subject and where relevant belong to a footnote only.

02:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel this is not a fair 'concensus' building. Not only are the oppose comments came from anon IP edits, they are all from the same IP bandwidth. --Cahk (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Disingenuous editing
User Chwech in relocating quotes to Wikiquote removed some stated fact with valid citations, without comment. This is in violation of NPOV and is disingenuous editing. The quotes are central to article on Ahern and are reinstated accordingly. 194.46.238.32 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which quotes exactly? They're all at Bertie Ahern (with the citations they had when they were here) and I won't stop anyone moving them back. The big list of quotes just looked trivia-like to me. Chwe ch  13:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I see they were already moved back. I agree that there are probably quite a few worthwhile quotes there, but the list really needs trimming down. Perhaps the most important ones could be merged into the text. Chwe ch  13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge ?? User:Ratman1999 on 5 January 2008 proposed a merge with the Mahon tribunal article. This is silly as there are many others involved with Mahon other than Ahern. The proposal is without merit.

Octanis (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Removal of Quotes section, present for 2 + years is disingenuous, quotes being relevant, correctly cited and present for a very long time, especially considering Ahern's mastery of the spoken word. Reverted accordingly.

194.46.249.242 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes section
I have moved the main quotes section to wikiquotes, they have NOT been deleted. Wikiquote is a sister project of wikipedia and contains a page for quotes for the relevant person. There is a link on the wikiquote page to the persons wikipedia article and vice versa.

The quotes section is rather long and all it is not relevant to the article, moving it to wikiquote helps reduce the length of the article which is already quite long. They are still many quotes scattered throughout the text and I am leaving these in place as they are relevant to those sections. If any editor feels some of the quotes from the Quotes section deserves to be in a particular section then they should remove the quote from wikiquote and move to the relevant section of the main article. Having a big long list of quotes is a bit trivia like and everything that Bertie Ahern says does not have be recorded there!

An anonymous user has reverted this change on several occasions, and been made spurious claims about "disingenuous editing" and also a claim that just because the quotes section has been there for a good while it shouldn't be moved. The is not a good enough reason for leaving the quotes section in place, we are always striving for improvement in wikipedia not being content with the status quo. Snappy56 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also noticed that the quotes were arranged in a way that prejudices Ahern. By selecting small statements from different occassions and placing them after each other an affect of stupidity was achieved.AleXd (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, AleXd says that the quotes create an "effect of stupidity" while 194.46.249.242 says they show his "mastery of the spoken word" (I don't necessarily disagree with either, incidentally). It's two weeks since I first moved the quotes section and I still don't know what POV I was pushing with my "disingenuous" edits. I still agree with the section's move; Quotations is a good essay about how to (and how not to) use quotes, and pretty much summarises my view. And as I said, any really important quotes would be much better merged into the text of the article. Chwe ch  18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Several anon IP editors keep reverting this without discussing it here. If you look at the revision history of this article, the most of the changes are vandalism and the reversion of same, it might be no harm to disable editing on this article for anon and new users for a while. Any admins out there agree? Snappy56 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think it is several anon editors I believe it is the same anon editor who has a dynamic IP .If you look at the edit summaries the tone of the summaries is very similar .Garda40 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'future'
This section contains alot of speculation and information about his current popularity. As far as I know Mr Ahern has stated that he intends to consider his future in politics when he turn sixty. He also mentioned that he may become involved in sport in some capacity. Previously it was speculated that he would be offered the Presidency of the European Council but he stated that he wasn't interested. Since a section called "the future" is by nature speculative can we trim this down to the bare essentials? The stuff about his popularity should be integrated elsewhere in the article or removed.AleXd (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to President in Infobox
To cite the President in a listing of a Head of Government in an inferior position is incorrect. The reference is irrelevant and is removed accordingly. Because there is a field for completion in an infobox does not imply that it is appropriate to complete it where protocol dictates otherwise. 194.46.187.135 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that this is how most are done seems to belittle that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation of President Head of State in infobox is inappropriate
Therequiembellishere is abusing protocol by citing the Presidents, whom Ahern has served under, in an inferior position as though a Head of State is a subordinate position, analogous to a his deputy. This has been pointed out before but crassly reinstated by Therequiembellishere A Head of State is a superior office to a Head of Government and to cite Presidents in Aherne's infobox as edited by Therequiembellishere is inappropriate and reverted accordingly. 194.46.252.92 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're ignoring a common protocol, and refusing to see reason. The items you've stated above make little sense. The person who is acting crassly is you, and the person who has "pointed out" your own point is clearly you. Your vandalism has been reported and my next course of action will be a semi-protection, pending the next course of action by the administrators. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephen Harper, Helen Clark and Gordon Brown are a few examples where it is cleare who appointed them to the position of PM. Since the Taoiseach is formally appointed by the President of Ireland, it is a factually correct to include her in the infobox. Wikipedia is not a protocol office of a government, we simply state the fact and that's it. The only exception? Australia. Kevin Rudd is the only PM that doesn't show the Queen as the person who appointed him to position. If you are looking into why, look at his talk page - but I will warn you, they have strong republic sentiment whereas Ireland is already a republic so it doesn't quite apply.--Cahk (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Head of State (President) is a superior office to a Head of Government. It is unacceptable protocol to cite the First Citizen, aka Head of State aka President in an inferior position to a Head of Government, or his deputy. The mere existence of a title in an infobox on Wikipedia does not make it appropriate in all circumstances.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.253.144 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As in the case with all the Commonwealth PM where the Queen is the HoS but it is still cited in their infobox - merely pointing out who appointed them to office (even France & Russia). Wikipedia is not a protocol office because if it were, should we embed the Presidential Salute to the President's page, have gun salutes amongst other? If you wish, you can submit a RfC and see what others think. --Cahk (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes
There no delicate way to be put this so I 'll just say it out straight but what on earth have US Presidents infoboxes to do do with the Taoiseach .The jobs and powers aren't comparable and neither is position in Government .Garda40 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also not happy with this "10th Taoiseach" title, because it is misleading: it ignores W. T. Cosgrave, who had the same job under a difft title. So I will remove the number. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added back in the order number as this is consistent with all the other Taoisigh infoboxes. It is misleading and simpilistic to say that W.T. Cosgrave had the same job with a different title. There was also a change of state and a new constitution. The fact is that since the office's creation 10 (soon to be 11) men have been Taoiseach, putting that in the infobox is not visual cluttter as some have claimed. It is an information box, right? This is relevant and valid information. The point about the US Presidents infoboxes is that they have order nos in them too, so does PMs of Australia. There is no guidelines on MoS that I can see. Snappy56 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Snappy, you have now done three reverts in 24 hours. Rather than edit-warring and getting a 3RR block, please discuss the issue and try to reach consensus.
 * Yes, there was a new constitution in 1937, but it was in nearly every respect a relabelling of the same job as President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State: a head of government, in charge of the cabinet, elected by Dail Eireann. The number implies that there was no predecessor to DeV, and the reality is more complicated than that; infoboxes should not mislead, as the number does in this case.
 * US Presidents are a different matter, because the job only came into being with the United States Constitution in 1789; Washington did not have an existing job relabelled, as happened in DeV's case. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't a relabelling of the same job, again with the simplistic approach. This is not the place to debate the differences between Taoiseach and President of the Executive Council (PEC), but the PEC was more a Chairman and could not fire a cabinet minister and the whole cabinet had to resign en masse if that happened, Taoiseach is more a CEO position. The fact is that the position of Taoiseach came in to being in 1937 and soon the 11th person will occupy the office, having 2 little numbers and 2 little letters will inform people of this fact, otherwise this consequences are dire!
 * Have you seen this? Oh my God! Cowen gets the Crown, "Cowen will become 12th Taoiseach", if only they had checked Berties's entry in Wikipedia when the order number was in the infobox, and added 1, this tragedy could have been avoided. Now, all readers of the Indo will think Cowen is No. 12 when infacta he is No. 11! Schoolteachers will use the Indo as a reference and generations of schoolchildren will grow up, think Cowen is 12, oh weep, for the lost generations! In future, many may come to Wikipedia to change Cowen's article to state his is the 12th Taoiseach because they learned it in school. This all could have been avoided, do you see what you've done? Hang your heads in shame BHG and thereqiumbellishere!
 * And don't think for a minute that they are including W.T. in this list of Taoisigh, they are Indo journalists, they're not that bright! Snappy56 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My God, you're blowing this way out of proportion. It's not as if news people cheque here due to many considering it unreliable. In fact, if you click on the article, you'll see one of the main reasons it's not shown. The post has been held by ten people twenty-one times. The differences in numbering conventions across the world adds more confusion than not. The world will go on despite this "tragedy" so please calm down. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Snappy, your picture of future generations growing up with a warped idea of history is hilarious … though the cynics and begrudgersTM would of course ask in bewilderment how this would distinguish them from previous generations of readers of The Indo ;)
 * You're right of course that 1937 constitution did alter the powers of the head of government ... but that doesn't make it a different job. The post created in 1922 was a head of govt, elected by the Dail, and that's what it remained afterwards. Restarting the numbering in 1937 makes it sound as if it was a wholly new post. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My previous post was mostly humorous, which Therequiembellishere failed to get, don't worry you can a sense of humour online nowadays! Well, fine, ye can have this one, I'll leave the order out of the infobox. Btw, Therequiembellishere, I don't think much of your attitude. You have gone around removing order nos from Head of Government and State infoboxes claiming support from some non existent MoS. Then when most of the info boxes had no order nos in them, you try and do the rest claiming this is the standard, Wikipedia standard by stealth more like. Furthermore, you tried and failed to remove the order nos from the US Presidents infoboxes, you seem to have lost that particular edit war. Your last edit on Dubya article simply superscripted the ordinal letters. So you are content for US Presidents to have order nos, and want to delete them else where, standards or double standards?! Snappy56 (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (editconf) That was fairly rude. I have tried on the US, Australian and Canadian pages and failed. It's as simple as that. The reason I took your comment the way I did was because there are a lot of people who would respond the way you did in earnest passion and, as I'm sure you've noticed, text tends not to show emotion. So forgive me for having dealt with idiots and been blinded to your joke (it's pretty funny now). I'd like you to try and be a tad less brisk when your talking about things that I'm afraid you can't truly see. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I should add that I also agree with Therequiembellishere's concern that an order number is misleading when a post has been held with interruptions. That's not the case with, for example, a King, and things get more intersting if we look at your example of POTUS. The List of Presidents of the United States shows that Grover Cleveland held the office for two non-consecutive terms, and was thus the 22nd and 24th President of the USA. By this logic, Dev would be 2nd, 4th and 6th head of the government of Ireland, and Bertie would be the 21st or 22nd (I'm too tired to count). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thr Irish Times have said that Brian Cowen is the 12th head of government since the foundation of the State in 1922. I quote from the Irish Times, which should settle this matter from a paper of record.

'When he is elected by the Dáil next month Mr Cowen will be the 11th person to hold the title of taoiseach since the Constitution was enacted in 1938. Before that the head of government was termed President of the Executive Council, a position held by WT Cosgrave and Éamon de Valera before he was termed taoiseach.' Irish Times 8th April 2008. Condix talk

"Government"
More of a style question than anything, but I've noticed that the word "government" has been capitalized (and not) in many sections of this article. I looked at the context, but there doesn't appear to be any reason why it is capitalized in some cases and why it is not in others, with the exception of when the word is part of an official title. Can anyone explain this? OverSS (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Deleted Without Warning
I notice that the image has been deleted without any warning .Garda40 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Rettetast deleted it as a "blatant copyright infringement", which is a pity because it was quite a good picture. I've re-instated the old image. Chwe <font color="#41 69 E1">ch  18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The other image I inserted was quite a good one. Is there a better picture that doesn't have Bertie Ahern squinting and frowning due to sunlight? Condix (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Quick Fail
According to the GA criteria, the presence of cleanup banners states that the reviewer should quick-fail the article and that a full review is not necessary. I urge you to deal with the issues addressed by the cleanup banner before renominating the article (preferably after copyediting and peer review). Best wishes on your future work with this article, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The trivia section will also need to be killed if this should make GA. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, there seems to be an ongoing edit war, which would prevent it from being promoted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious Vandalism
Throughout the piece, this entry is vandalised; perhaps best to revert and tidy-up. Just noticed, and don't have time now. And obviously someone thinks they're a whole hell of a lot funnier than they are. My ==TotallyDisputed and ==blpdispute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugorudd (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Main image
The main image has been BertieAhernBerlin for some time now. Another user has added an image from Davos which isn't any better or worse imho, I've restored the Berlin image as the main one and added in the Davos one further down. If anyone has opinions on why this should be changed please discuss it here first before changing the article. Snappy56 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of President in Infobox
Some editors (including IP hopping anons) keeping removing the mention of who was President during Ahern's tenure as Taoiseach. There has been inconclusive discussion of this before. Btw, "as discussion on the talk page" is not a valid reason for removal. As far as I see it, the mention of who was President is relevant information after all the Taoiseach is appointed by the President. There has been mention of strange protocols but no explanation of what these are. Could those against the inclusion, please state clearly their objections as currently I cannot understand why they are objecting? Snappy56 (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A Taoiseach is elected (indirectly) by the electorate, most probably as the leader of the largest party returned in the popular vote. It is a sine qua non that this individual becomes Taoiseach under the constituton irrespective of whomsoever is President. To provide President in an infobox is irrelevant in such circumstance and its' inclusion in article is fatuous and is derogatory to the President as first citizen, to appear as possibly serving under the incumbent Taoiseach. Octanis (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * After having run-ins with the editor before on this article ( feel free to check them out ) Octanis is the IP hopping anon if you already hadn't guessed .Garda40 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guessed that Octanis is the IP hopping anon because as soon as the page was protected they edited the article with same reason. Now to discuss the reasoning, Octanis states that it is irrelevant, I don't agree, some body looking up a Taoiseach article may wish to know who was the President, so it is definitely relevant. The reference is described as fatuous, which means "Obnoxiously stupid, vacantly silly" according to wikitionary, how is the mention of the President stupid?!


 * Octanis then says it is derogatory to the President that they are mentioned in the Taoiseach's infobox. This is a bizzare claim indeed. Is Mary McAleese personally offended? I don't think anyone except Octanis would look at the infobox and come to the conclusion that the President possibly appears to be serving under the Taoiseach. Gordon Brown's infobox mentions Elizabeth II as Monarch, but no-one editing that article seems to think that the Queen serves under Gordon Brown or that the mere mention of the Queen in the infobox is an affront to Her Maj and the dignity of the Crown!


 * Finally, it is once again very relevant to know who was President during the tenure of a Taoiseach. The events of the Irish presidential election, 1990 prove that beyond doubt. Read the article or Brian Lenihan for full details, I won't mention all the details here but phone calls from the incumbent Taoiseach to the incumbent President's office, show that this is information that is not only relevant but vital for anyone reading about that period of history. Snappy56 (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Renovation Discussion
The trivia tag says

The dispute says

blpdispute

These are not licenses to delete large sections of the article. If the information is well sourced and well written it stays. If you have a problem with the structure and quality of the article then change the quality and the structure of the article.

Jmckeon ie (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They are licenses to be bold. I will let the trivia section stay while it is being intergated, but that is the point of the tag - the section is to be deleted once any worthwhile information is intergated into other areas of the article. The disquiet section on the other hand repeats the controversy section's information almost wholesale, It is not unreasonable to use the orginal section as the basis for a smaller and more even handed crique section than having to deal with two sections making the same basic points. The tag does grant greater powers to do such things as the article is in such a state of patrisan disrepair as to warrant the tag in the first place, with many people pointing that out on this page, but with the people who made this partisan mish-mash trying to stall and revert the process at ever step. We need to act in the best tradition of WP:BOLD to make this article better. Syferus (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Being bold is all very well but you seem to view this as solely for deleting information. For example, you made no initial attempt to integrate the Trivia section, just delete. As for the disquiet section, some of it is duplication, some is not, again no attempt to integrate, just delete. You also removed a mildly critical quote from emiment historian John A. Murphy but left a faint praise one from Diamuid Ferriter, both are opinions of these men, both should stay or both should go. Since you are well up on WP:BOLD, I assume you are also current with WP:BRD. Snappy56 (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I felt most of the trivia section was of any worth to the article and where it was was it was already mentioned in some other part ofthe article (case in point: the many references to the Mahion inquiry). Clearly from the above the discussions, more than a few people agree with me. And since the trivia section has now been finshed with it is a moot point. The John A. Murphy quote was nothing short of blaming Ahern for all current social troubles, coming for someone who was a politican himself, concerned almost wholey with these same social issues mentioned. It clearly not a NPOV enough of a source to use in a 'Legacy' section, let alone under the misleading tag of a simple 'historian'. Ferriter's, on the other hand, highlights Ahern's sucesses as well as quite a biting crique of his lack of vision - in other words, an even handed evalution suited for a 'Legacy' section. The disquiet section deletion was a judgement call to help kickstart much needed improvements on this article - any information that is not making simliar points and is of notable enough quaility can still be re-added once the 'Controversy' section has been made more managable. Enough defending of my actions - the biggest flaw of this article is the size of 'Controversy' section which almost out weighs Ahern's full biography above it. It is weighted almost fully towards the Mahion inquiry, and seems to have been a tracker mostly made earlier in the year when these 'revealations' were coming out of the inquiry. We need to condense it by many times and probably rename it as a 'Criticism' section with more of a focus on his full life in office and not a single inquiry which only dealt with Ahern as part of it's work. (I've renamed this section to reflect what it has developed into) Syferus (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bertie(2008 documentary)
I'm sure this is worth putting in but here or should it have its own article is beyond my guess.It started last night. Sioraf (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)