Talk:Michael Kennedy (Dublin politician)

Not notable and should be deleted
Who is this guy, why does he merit an entry, what has he achieved? There are many office holders, who are totally invisible and have no notability outside their own circle. He seems to be one such. Article should be deleted accordingly.
 * The subject of this article is a member of the Irish parliament. His merits or achievements aside, as a policitian elected to national office, he meets wikipedia crtieria for notability of politicians. See WP:POLITICIAN. Please do not propose AfDs without familiarising yourself with notability guidelines. Snappy (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fianna Fail Teachta Dala
There is no such thing as a "Fianna Fail Teachta Dala". Instead, you have the political party known as "Fianna Fail" and, quite separately, you have a deputy of the Irish parliament known as a "Teachta Dala". To put them togethter in the same phrase implies that the Fianna Fail party has some right to membership of the Dail. It does not. The two terms need to be separated. The Dail site in no way links the two terms. The succession box exists for the purpose of the political office; for this purpose, "Teachta Dala" on its own will suffice. The addition of "Fianna Fail" to the office title is both redundant and misleading. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The party names appears on the ballot paper, so a candidate of any party has a right to membership. The successful party candidates sit and vote together, hence they are a party TDs. The Oireachtas website explicitly links the terms. A "Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála" is a TD who is a member of the Fianna Fáil party, this is factually correct. Snappy (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Oireachtas website makes no such linkage. It quite properly separates them. It correctly identifies Fianna Fail as a political party. No ballot paper contains the words "Fianna Fail Teachta Dala". The bollot paper names parties and non parties. It is mischievous of you to claim that linkages exist when none exist. FF has no divine right to seats. It has the right to contest for a seat. If successful, the FF candidate is called a TD, or a TD from the FF party. He is not a "FF TD". Only lazy language allows this linkage to occur. There's no point is giving this lazy error any more credance. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are saying a TD can be called a TD from FF but not an FF TD. This is just bizarre semantic nonsense. Snappy (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The template is about TDs. It is indifferent to their party allegiences. It should state TD and constituency and no more. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have something to backup your claim. Snappy (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've checked neighbouring parliaments that use the "s-par" template. See below. If there are other parliaments that interst you, I can look them up also.
 * The European Parliament succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Pat the Cope Gallagher (from FF).
 * The Parliament of the United Kingdom succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Tony Blair.
 * The Northern Ireland Assembly succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Gerry Adams.
 * The National Assembly for Wales succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name.  See Dafydd Elis-Thomas.
 * The Scottish Parliament succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Alex Salmond. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant some independent reliable source, not wikipedia which is not a reference. Snappy (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's wikipedia's template: who better than wikipedia to decide on its use? And what exactly is it that you're trying to find externally? Are you expecting me to find an official document that says "thou shalt not put the name of a political party before the title TD when describing the office of TD"? Supposing you show me the official document that proves the opposite. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who is claiming this, so its up to you to prove it! Answer my semantic nonsense charge, e.g. You are saying a TD can be called a TD from FF but not an FF TD. Snappy (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works. This innovation of yours is nothing but OR. As has been shown above, no other use of the template in our neighbourhood uses it in the way that you would like to have it (ab)used. You have no precedents for a use of the template comparable to the one to which you are forcing upon it. Please desist and revert your innovations here and elsewhere. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not my innovation but I agree with it, so I won't be reverting anything, and you can please desist from its removal which is your own pov and OR. Snappy (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it my pov when every other use of it agrees with what I've said? Where's my OR when every other parliament using the template agrees with what I've said? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not my OR. Template usage varies across wikipedia. You said earlier that a TD can be called a TD from FF but not an FF TD. Can you explain this further? Does this mean I can put in TD from FF party in the template? Snappy (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The central issue is this: the "s-par" template lists the name of the parliamentary constituency for the given member. It does not list the political party to which the member is affiliated. This may be seen from the precedents of all neighbouring legislatures that use the same template. There is no indication that the template varies across wikipedia. Even if such evidence was produced, the local usage of the template would indicate that such variance would not be indicated in the case of the Dáil. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your conclusions. I note you still haven't answered my question. Snappy (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please supply a reason why you don't agree with the conclusions. I have not answered the "TD can be called a TD from FF" question because it is not the central issue. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question because you regret writing that and trying to weasel out of it since. The s-par doc does not say that the political party is not to be displayed. Also, having the political party is useful info for the reader, most especially in cases where a TD has changed party or from Ind to party or vice versa. This info can be gotten from the article text but presenting it in a table format helps the reader. An extreme example of this is Noël Browne, who was a TD for 5 parties (6 if you count Ind). Snappy (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can have no knowledge of my motives. The only assumptions about my motives that a good Wikipedian is entitled to make is one of Good Faith. David Owen is equally famous for his party hopping. His template remains uncluttered with party allegiances; it quite properly confines its entries to his parliamentary terms. O that Mr. Browne's entry would follow this model of clarity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You said a a TD can be called a TD from FF but not an FF TD, yet now you refuse to say why, interesting! Anyway, it's not clutter, its useful information that helps the reader. O that Mr. Owen's entry would follow this model of usefulness, accuracy and clarity. Snappy (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd party opinion
I think the political parties ought to be left out full stop, as is done in most political articles (see, say Francis Pym). So it would look like this:

Interested readers have wiki links to discover party alleigance - or if important it can be made clear in the article. Egg Centric 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should readers have to follow links or scour the article text, when this factual and accurate information can be neatly presented in succession boxes? Snappy (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be a sore loser Snappy; it's undignified and disrespectful to the 3rd party. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? I asked a perfectly valid and civil question. Also, as per WP:3O, it is a voluntary and nonbinding. There are no winners or so called losers. Since wikipedia is not a democracy, there is still no consensus. Snappy (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear oh dear, such a vulgar display of truculence. Not so long ago, such peevishness on my part would have resulted in me being labelled as "tendentious" and "disruptive". But at this stage I have become accustomed to expect "Don't do as I do, do as I say". Finally, can you suggest the next level of escalation to enforce a more binding arbitration? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the personal attacks? That's very uncivilised of you. I simply have a different point of view on this issue than you do. I have conducted a civil discussion on this issue, which is something you could do well to emulate in future. Snappy (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't know what the next level of dispute escalation is? The sooner a binding arbitration is achieved, the sooner this tedious discussion can end.Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand, are you trying to enforce binding arbitration on the third party opinion? As I pointed out already, this is both voluntary and non-binding. Snappy (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find out if there is an arbitration forum in existence that has the power to ratify the above decision of the 3rd party and to make it binding on you and everybody else? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times to I have to point to you the opinion (not decision) of the third party is non-binding? Snappy (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to clarify that I seek a forum that can deliver a decision, in line with the opinion delivered above, which you would consider to be binding on you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's non-binding! Alternatively, try the helpdesk. Snappy (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment about inclusion of party
Whether the "s-par" template should be used to list the name of the political party (if any) to which a member belongs in addition to listing the parliamentary constituency for the given member. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Responses

 * Comment - I am an outside editor, come here via RfC, It reads strange to have the party and office as one phrase in the s-par table. Other Oireachtas members pages also have the party office phrasing too, so logically the same pattern should apply to all. The party affiliations are given for the preceding and succeding members in parentheses below the name which is an improvement but it seems inappropriate to include party affiliation at all. It confuses things and suggests that each party has a member occupying that office, i.e. This article's s-par table is not sufficiently unique to merit a unique decision about formatting the s-par. That is to say. A decision about whether or not the Oireachtas s-par table should include party affiliation in general should be made in a more appropriate forum such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland or a prominent article that uses the template, such as Enda Kenny or Ruairi Quinn, or even Michael Collins (Irish leader). For now it should be consistent with other similar tables (party included). I am not familiar with the details of Irish politics so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My my, is there no end to the forums that User:Laurel Lodged tries? Snappy (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. You'll probably feel free to dismiss the findings of this discussion as non binding also. Let it not impinge on your unique take on s-par. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. if you want to resolve this issue you'll have to come to a consensus, seeking third party involvement was wise, but as I said above you should look for a better forum to discuss the issue. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not about winning nor is it about hawking your wares around different forums in a desperate attempt to find someone to agree with you. I have responded in the section below with a serious proposal. Snappy (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But is it about having your own way despite the input of third parties? Anyway, before you remind us, again, that it's not binding, May I add that the suggestion below is a different issue. While it's interesting in its own way, I don't wish to get drawn into a tangential issue at this time. Let's address the core issue here first. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I intend taking my proposal to WT:IE, so if a consensus to remove succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies emerges then this issue becomes irrelevant. Let's just park it for now, after all, you had a month off before your latest spree. Snappy (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've written a fair few biographies of British Parliamentarians using the succession box template. It would be better not to include the party within the title, because it wrongly implies that there is a specific post within the constituency representing that party. On a higher level, most elected officials will stress that they represent everyone within their constituency, those who voted for them and those that didn't; including the party in the infobox certainly implies a degree of political preference. It will also create immense confusion if the Deputy changes parties or becomes an Independent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Another issue
I have to say here that regardless of the issue of whether the party should be listed in the infobox or not, it's factually incorrect anyway to say that Kennedy was "succeeded" by Alan Farrell. Three sitting TDs - Kennedy, Darragh O'Brien and Trevor Sargent stood and lost. Three new TDs, Farrell, Clare Daly and Brendan Ryan were elected in their place. We did have a discussion on this before but unfortunately no agreement was reached. So as well as being incorrect, I don't see that these succession boxes add anything that isn't in the Dublin North article. Valenciano (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, Valenciano, that it is "factually" incorrect but the original idea was for informational/presentational purposes. Also, you are correct in stating that Dublin North TDs tables display all this information, with the caveat of: "The columns in this table are used only for presentational purposes, and no significance should be attached to the order of columns. For details of the order in which seats were won at each election, see the detailed results of that election.". Also, the TD, constituency and dates of office are displayed in the infobox of the subject. One proposal was to list all the TDs serving alongside the subject plus all those who preceded and succeeded them, but this lead to a huge and unwieldy, horrible looking succession box. We don't have succession boxes for Senators (also elected in multi-seat constituencies), so I propose that we remove the succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies entirely, and the information will be available in the officeholder infobox and the relevant constituency article. As a bonus, it would end this tedious, forum hopping debate about party affiliation in succession boxes. Perhaps we should discuss it at WP:IE, after all what's another forum? Snappy (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a logical solution, and I think WP:IE would be a good place to take it. If a decision is made then it should end up in the Ireland MOS, so that other editors will know what the convention is. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * when you talk about forum shopping I don't know what those forums are but if you do take it to WP:IE then you should post a link to the discussion on any of the talk pages this discussion has already happened on. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)