Talk:Oireachtas Golf Society scandal

Oversight of the article
Hi. I've just started this article and I wanted to make you, as some of the most active editors in Irish circles, aware of it. I imagine that article could well become an article of significant or at least interest for many people and as such, I just want to make sure the article is of a good standard. I'm going to give it a good shake, and I'm sure I won't be the only one, but if you guys could keep an eye on it and tweak it as well that might be for the collective good. What I've added so far is really only the starting point, the whole subject is already such a sprawling topic it requires quite a lot of effort to cover the many aspects of it. Any thoughts? CeltBrowne (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, @CeltBrowne, and for your good work in starting the article.
 * My main thought is that a topic like this is hard work, for lots of reasons, including:
 * people have strong views on it, so it risks attracting POV-pushing edits. It will need careful watching
 * key parts of the story are still emerging, so the shape of the article may be unstable
 * its hard to keep up with the volume of news reports
 * I can't help because I am v busy right now with other tasks, but I wish you luck. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks also for the ping. I'd considered starting an article on this subject too, but decided against it as I was/am too busy right now to give it the attention it needs, but I've added it to my watchlist and will edit and add to it as time allows. You've made a good start, well done. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I've also added it to my watchlist – great work in starting the article, @CeltBrowne! In line with keeping it to a high standard, I'll be watching the style and grammar to make sure it's relatively consistent, and with the barrage of news articles that seem to be coming through every day I'll probably start a local revision to make sure there is a coherence to it. Bearnard O'Riain. (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Good work, CeltBrowne! I, too, like the others above, thought of creating this article but, like them, I did not have the time. It is a necessary article and you did a great job in compiling and writing it. — O'Dea (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Even though some alternate titles were suggested, the consensus is not to move. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Oireachtas Golf Society scandal → ? – "scandal" is POV. Alternatives include Golfgate, 2020 Oireachtas Golf Society dinner, 2020 Oireachtas golf dinner, Oireachtas Golf Society, Oireachtas golf dinner controversy jnestorius(talk) 15:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The affair has pretty much universally been referred to as a scandal. Compare Garda whistleblower scandal, Renewable Heat Incentive scandal, Windrush scandal, FÁS expenses scandal, Iris Robinson scandal, Cash-for-Honours scandal. Agree that "2020" is redundant. The variants with "dinner" are sub-optimal as the event seems to extended over two days including some rounds of golf. --Kwekubo (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen many newspaper articles using the word "scandal" in the title (IT letters page is one); most use "[the] Oireachtas golf [event/dinner]", some use "Golfgate". Many articles may describe it as a scandal, but a description is not a name, and IMO more describe it as a controversy than a scandal. It's too recent for such a strong label as "scandal" to have become canonical. jnestorius(talk) 18:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" is just a milder synonym for "scandal". I dispute that the describer needs to be milder, or that more time needs to pass before the term scandal may be applied. And secondly, I dispute the idea that more sources are referring to it as a "controversy" rather than a "scandal"; The Irish Examiner is referring to as a scandal, the Irish Independent is referring to it as a scandal , Newstalk is referring to it as a scandal , politico.eu is referring to as a scandal , Euronews is referring to it as a scandal , I could go on. These are all serious sources. The gravity of the situation, in which the deputy leader of a major governing party has been forced to resign, the leader of the Senate has been forced to resign, and many other may have to resign, has elevated this above "controversy" and to the level of "scandal" and I believe this is reflected by how the previously mentioned sources are referring to it. Kwekubo has also made a good point that the use of the word "scandal" is not unusual in this context, either in real life or as Wikipedia article names. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you sign your contributions above, please?
 * Whoops, sorry about that, I have a bad habit of forgetting to sign my posts. Corrected now. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that of the five articles you link to, three have "Golfgate scandal" in the title, one has "Golfgate" without "scandal", and one has neither.  jnestorius(talk) 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones that don't use the term "scandal" in the title do so in the body of the text. My point being that major publications are happy enough to attach the term "scandal" to this event, thus my use of "scandal" rather than "controversy" was not inappropriate. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the removal of the word "scandal": See my reply above. I would also point out that "Golfgate" already redirects to the article, and is acknowledged in the article as an informal name. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you are pointing that out. By the same token, if the article is moved, "Oireachtas Golf Society scandal" will redirect here. jnestorius(talk) 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But neutral to a move to "Golfgate": While I think we've established that moving to an article title including "controversy" is not wise, if a consenseus emerges that supports a move to "Golfgate", I will not oppose. WP:NDESC does seem to encourage the use of the most commonly used name for an item, even if that most commonly used name is not very academic in nature. "Golfgate", I would concede, has/is becoming the most commonly used name for the affair. Another aspect is that, currently, the article is not ranking highly on search engines such as google when one searches for golfgate, which may demonstrate also the current name is less in use than "golfgate". CeltBrowne (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to Golfgate. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose any move to "Golfgate." The term is already identified as "informal" within the article. It is merely tedious and mindless tabloid cliché of the laziest sort; the term borders on mere slang, while this is an encyclopaedia. — O'Dea  (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Scandal does not cast judgement on the activity, it merely refers to antivity which has illicited a public reaction. I disagree that the wording is inappropriate or even "strong". I only oppose on these grounds. If it is due to "Golfgate" being proven to be more recognised or more standard, I will switch my stance to neutral.Kanjo Kotr (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that today's Irish Times letters page uses "Golfgate" as the heading. jnestorius(talk) 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The term "scandal" is correct in this case and is not pushing a point of view. News reports have uniformly described the breakout of public outrage as being remarkably rapid and furiously intense owing to the sharp affront thrown in the faces of the Irish population.


 * The opening sentence of the article political scandal reads as follows: In politics, a political scandal is an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. The golf society incident meets both criteria in the definition of scandal perfectly – wrong behaviour followed by public outrage.


 * Further evidence that it is a scandal, as well as a political crisis, is provided by the resignation of a government minister and of a senior senator, as well as by the efforts at senior government level to procure the resignation of a Member of the European Parliament and of a Supreme Court Justice, and by the early recall of the Dáil. — O'Dea  (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The question isn't whether the event is a scandal; the opening sentence and the fact that it is in Category:Political scandals in the Republic of Ireland should convince you that that is not in doubt. But a glance at that category, or indeed the whole subtree of Category:Scandals, shows many articles that don't have "scandal" in the article title. jnestorius(talk) 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "scandal" is specifically cautioned against in WP:NPOVNAME: "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." The point I am trying to make is that, while reports of the Oireachtas Golf events often include "scandal" in their descriptions, they have not settled on a canonical name containing the world "scandal", so the Teapot-Dome exception does not apply. Instead we ought to choose between an actual commonname (Golfgate) or a WP:NDESC (others). Whether "Golfgate" fails under "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later" I'm not sure.
 * Another reason for favouring "controversy" is that, while aspects of the story have universally been condemned, other aspects have divided opinion (e.g. should Sean O'Rourke be banned forever from RTÉ; should there be a process to force Seamus Woulfe out). jnestorius(talk) 15:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The caution (not prohibition) in WP:NPOVNAME about a word like scandal is understandable but should not be a worry in this case.


 * Where a minor political fuss about the behaviour of the politician "John Doe" might be pounced upon with irresponsible glee by his opponents to create a mischievous article entitled The John Doe scandal, there is no "concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" in this particular article because members of so many political parties attended the golf society gala, so the use of the term scandal cannot be politically partisan in this case.


 * WP:NPOVNAME also advises that "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess." The existing title does seem like the most obvious search description, given such widespread reference to scandal in the media.


 * I agree with User:CeltBrowne, above, that there is no need to euphemise the term scandal with the term controversy. As to its canonicality, the descriptor "scandal" has more or less instantly become widespread and established in respectable Irish media. If an alternative becomes a more established description in future, the justification for renaming the article might emerge at that point.


 * The questions about Sean O'Rourke and Seamus Woulfe concern only two of the 81 attendees. The only question concerning them is what should or should not happen to them; they are still part of the scandal whatever becomes of them, so their appearance on this talk page is no help to us in determining the title of the article; they are a red herring.


 * I have described my opposition to the non-canonical term "Golfgate" in my reply to User:Rhetoricalnoodle, above. In addition, as User:CeltBrowne has pointed out, any reader searching for "Golfgate" will find this article because of the existing redirect Golfgate. — O'Dea  (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: No POV concern. —Legoless (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Given the events of recent days, the extent of the international coverage, and the consequences, this has definitely reached "scandal" proportions. (Struck earlier comment). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move to 2020 Oireachtas Golf Society dinner with redirects to Golfgate from anything people will likely search for - A lot of the argument around why the people should or should not resign including from Phil Hogan himself ("I did not break any law") and surrounding Séamus Woulfe (who has not resigned and doesn't look like he will) relate to whether or not it was actually a scandal at all. In the case of Wolfe without going too much into the specifics, if he was under the impression he was not breaking the rules can it truly be said to be a scandal. The comparisons with the Windrush Scandal particularly seem a bit far-fetched. The real scandal relates to Phil Hogan's repeated lying and other travel rather than the actual attendance at the dinner or anything in particular that happened at the dinner unlike say the Presidents Club dinner controversy. - Financefactz (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Proponents of this move admit above that this is commonly described as a "scandal" and the various arguments that this should somehow not count seem strange indeed. On a more basic level, any reader looking for an article on an event and its aftermath which led to the resignations of three senior politicians involved will recognise the word scandal in the title as describing what they want, whether they personally consider it a "scandal" or not. No case for moving, it's a perfectly good title in every sense under the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Structure of "Reactions and consequences"
I'd be interested in seeing what people's thoughts were on this – I don't think this section is very congruent and feel it would be better structured as a timeline in chronological order, as there is constant fast-forwarding to a few days later for events concerning one attendee and back to the day in question. Bearnard O&#39;Riain. (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When I created the article, the section currently labelled "Background" was called "Initial timeline". I based the structure of the article on the layout of 2020 Congressional insider trading scandal and WE Charity controversy. At some stage, someone renamed "Initial timeline" to "Background" and moved content from that section down to "Reactions and consequences". I didn't have any problem with this as such but it does get away from the layout used in other Wikipedia articles about scandals and this means there are some issues when trying to read the article chronologically. I don't know if having a timeline section if the perfect solution, as it could become bloated. There might be another, more logical way to do it. I think input from a few editors would be good and from there we might be able to figure out a good overall layout for the article. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It was me who moved material, but the sections had already been renamed 'Background' and 'Reactions and consequences' at that point, I think, so it seemed appropriate to move the material I did. I've tried to keep my additions chronological-within-subject, but there was so much being published it's not always easy. The main sub-topics would appear to be Calleary; Hogan; Woulfe; Hayes (and his guests); Buttimer; others. I'm undecided as to whether we'd be better treating this strictly chronologically or chronologically-within-subject. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

50th anniversary?
Some background on the Oireachtas Golf Society would be in order. I suppose it was open to current and former Oireachtas members and staff, with invited guests at events and functions. As the Ceann Comhairle has been at pains to stress, it had no "official" status. It seems it sent teams to competitions at times. The 50th-anniversary aspect suggests to me it fell into abeyance and was revived:

Irish Times archives:
 * 1933/0519/Pg004 "The Oireachtas Golfing Society has been in existence since June 1923" Cooper Cup 1923, Cosgrave Shield 1929
 * 1959/1024/Pg002 "The Oireachtas golf competition ... will be held at Bray tomorrow by An Golf Chumann" — this is a false positive, Oireachtas na Gaeilge not legislature. 1959/0930/Pg006
 * 1975/0624/Pg003 [caption] "the inaugural outing of the Oireachtas golfing society" — I suppose inaugural of the season, if founded in 1970.
 * 1980/0626/Pg016 members at Island charity fourball
 * 1985/0502/Pg014 members at Island charity fourball
 * 1993/0703/Pg040 only members, not staff, can win the captain's prize, a rule which arose when "the prizes got so big"

Dáil record:
 * dail/1995-07-07
 * I wish to congratulate the gallant Oireachtas golfing team who beat everybody before them in Mount Juliet.
 * dail/2008-04-15 Enda Kenny on the death of Paddy Hillery, one of many to mention his golfing exploits:
 * I was honoured once to be the captain of the Oireachtas golf society. The family of the late Joe Brennan — he had discovered some sort of cup in the bowels of his House and revived the golf competition — asked on the tenth anniversary of his death that we might bring the competition to Donegal Golf Club at Murvagh. We did so around Easter time and as I stood on the first tee with Paddy Hillery in a shower hailstones under the same umbrella, I wished him luck in his game. He won that competition not because he was with me but because of his skill as a golfer.
 * The following morning I went to Magee's shop and was making arrangements for Mr. Temple to supply the Oireachtas golf team with proper outfits to go play the Brits.
 * I guess "the late Joe Brennan" is Joseph Brennan (Fianna Fáil politician) (died 1980) not Joseph Brennan (Clann na Poblachta politician) (died 1968).


 * jnestorius(talk) 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)