Talk:Mary Hanafin

Quality
June 2007 - Full of weasel words, and congratulatory opinions "This was one of the newly-expanded junior ministry positions created by the new government in 1997, and, although it did not hold cabinet rank, it was regarded as a hugely important position." Lookng at the history of comments, this is not a new problem. Previous attempts at removing them have not been wholly successful. If the plague persists, I would suggest putting a warnings/lock on the page. CCKKAB

Irish Language
Mary is an Irish language speaker and should be included in the new category "Category:Irish (Gaeilge) language speakers"
 * What is the point of this category? It'll end up including nearly every Irish politician past and present, because they all would claim to speak Irish? Snappy56 (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just noticed this new category, and (unless there is a counter argument I'm not aware of) I'll be nominating it for deletion. Categories are normally intended to group subjects by NOTABLE attribute. Cat attributes should be specific, neutral, inclusive and (above all) verifiable. Whether or how a subject get's included in this cat will be subjective, and - frankly - pointless. Problems with this cat are:
 * Relevance. Compare (for example) a notional category of "Be-spectacled people". It may be factual to create such a cat, and put Sigmund Freud in it, but IT'S NOT RELEVANT that he wore glasses. Or anyone else for that matter. Unless the wearing of glasses was contributory to their notability.
 * Verifiability. Exactly what standard of Irish would warrant a subject's inclusion in this article? And how do you verify it?
 * Over-population. Anyone who went to school in Ireland since the late 1920s was taught Irish. Does that mean that every article who's subject fits this criteria should be included?
 * Precedence. We have (for example) no category for Spanish speakers or English speakers or similar. Because it's just not appropriate. Why is Irish any different?
 * Etc. Guliolopez (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guliolopez. Go on, take it to WP:CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nom as Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_12. Guliolopez (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

State payments table
I can understand why some people might feel mentioning state payments to former office holders is "overkill" but given the issue is regularly discussed in the media it seems like a legitimate issue to note on the page.

It would be misleading* to just lump all payments into one single figure (in this case €520,000), however given the volume of payments, both in different categories and different amounts, it would be confusing to list them all in sentence format. Therefore the table provides helpful and easy to understand breakdown of payments. The details of the payments were sourced from a national broadcaster and AFAIK are not disputed. *(WHY misleading? Because some of the payments are subject to tax (pensions) whereas others are tax free (severance)) Reggiegal (Reggiegal|talk) 06:00, 01 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely overkill and excessively detail. Why her and not many other current and former senior ministers? A sentence or two on her pension details would suffice. I have left in that paragraph. Also see WP:Undue. Snappy (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Hanafin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121024030/http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0120/politics.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0120/politics.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)