Jump to content

Talk:List of female cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of female cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 12, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2018Featured list candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 14, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that there was a 58-year gap between the terms of office of the first and second women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland?


Offices not held by women

[edit]

Hi BHG, you objected to my addition because it was "not constitutional offices. This section is about the constitution". However, my addition was not in the 'Constitutiuon' section but in the 'History' section. My addition is factually accurate, no women have held those offices, why should this not be mentioned? I find your revert puzzling! Spleodrach (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you reverted again, without discussing it, you seem to have ownership issues! Spleodrach (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: You are allowed to mention no mention that no woman has been Taoiseach or Minister for Finance but I am not allowed to mention that no woman has been Minister for Foreign Affairs or Defence. Bizzare! Spleodrach (talk)
Hang on, I'm writing a long reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spleodrach: In my revert[1] of your edit[2], I made a slight mistake in my edit summary: you had edited a paragraph about constitutional offices, but I mistakenly wrote "section". I do think the constitutional focus should have been evident from the para's opening words "Only three ministerial offices are specifically identified in the constitution" ... but still, my summary was misleading. Sorry about that. However, per WP:BRD you shouldn't have reinstated without discussion; simply posting on talk without waiting for reply is not discussion.
So the problem was that you took a paragraph about constitutional offices, and inserted into the middle of it an unsourced assertion about ministerial posts which are not defined in the constitution. (Yes, I believe that your point was correct, but it is unsourced). That diverted the focus of the para, and diluted its impact.
As you know, ministerial offices have changed many times over the years. I didn't try to analyse the presence of women in other posts because any such para would easily become a WP:OR mess. If we did do that, it needs a para of its own, thoroughly sourced, because the history of most ministerial offices is way more tangled than the relatively simple history of the constitutional trio (Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Finance).
The context which you seem to have missed is that this page was promoted yesterday morning to Featured list status, one of only 6 pages in Category:FL-Class Ireland articles, and the only one relating to Irish politics.
The FL assessment process (see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland/archive1) lasted 7 weeks, amounted to over 4,000 words, and picked over nearly every single word and punctuation mark on the page. The review amounts to 17 screenfuls even on my HD screen, but I urge you to read at least one complete section to get an idea of how painstaking the process was.
So having sweated blood to bring this page to the highest standard, I intend to ensure that it stays there. This is not WP:OWNERSHIP; it's protecting featured content from being degraded by edits which would be perfectly fine on a start-class page, but do not meet the extremely exacting (and sometimes exasperating) standards of featured content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Well done on getting the article to Featured list, no mean achievement. However, I find your remarks implying other people editing the article would "degrade" it, a bit condescending.
My main problem is that if a reader comes to this list, and wanted to know if a woman had ever served as Minister for Foreign Affairs, they won't find it here, which for a featured list is a bit lacking.
If you look at List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries, you will see this information clearly presented in the table, which is organised by department. It also lists that, for example, no woman has served as the Secretary of the Treasury. This is also mentioned in the last para of the intro. On a side note, the table is neater, more succinct and more readable than the one in this list. It's quite cluttered, do we really need 'age on appointment' for example. It scrolls off the screen, and I have a wide screen!
I realise that some Irish govt. departments have changed names (and focus) many times over the years, but this is not an insurmountable problem. All I'm trying to do is give the reader some more factual information. Yes, it wasn't sourced but that can be easily remedied. I'm puzzled as to why you would want to exclude this. Spleodrach (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spleodrach: I'm sorry that my comment about degrading the article came across as condescending, and but I am also surprised. I tried v hard to avoid that, by explaining in some detail how the FL status imposes much higher standards than apply elsewhere. That is just how it is: this list has already been through v intense scrutiny, and further changes should be cautious, given the amount of polishing already done.
This is a v difft situation to most wn.wp pages, which are still in early stages of development. So I'm disappointed that in your reply you seem to have overlooked that core point and chosen to misrepresent my comments as implying other people editing the article would "degrade" it. I think it's v clear that I am applying a quality threshold, rather than sneering at any other edit.
As I suggested above, there is scope for coverage of offices which have had no woman minister, but I suggested that if it is done, it would need a para of its own, thoroughly sourced. Why don't you draft such a para, with sources, and post it in a new section here so we can discuss it?
The List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries is an interesting comparator, not least because it contains fewer women than the Irish list, and the US women between them have held fewer offices.
The US list takes a different approach to the one I adopted, by focusing on offices rather than my focus on office-holders. I don't think that approach is viable in Ireland, because of the fluid nature of Irish govt depts. Note for example that:
  1. Eileen Desmond was Minister for Health and Social Welfare
  2. Gemma Hussey was Minister for Social Welfare
  3. Mary O'Rourke was Minister for Health and Children
  4. Mary Coughlan was Minister for Social & Family Affairs
  5. Mary Coughlan was Minister for Health and Children
  6. Mary Hanafin was Minister for Social & Family Affairs
  7. Frances Fitzgerald was Minister for Children and Youth Affairs
  8. Katherine Zappone is Minister for Children & Youth Affairs
  9. Regina Doherty is Minister for Employment Affairs & Social Protection
So we have 5 responsibilities (1/ Health, 2/ Social Welfare/Social Protection, 3/ Children, 4/Family Affairs, 5/ Employment) spread across 7 different job titles held by 8 people in 9 appointments, and even that's an understatement because I didn't include all the other functions with which employment has been combined, which would in turn drag in more with which they were combined. Irish govt depts are, like British one, transient combinations of sets or responsibilities, not steady monoliths like the US; the claimed legal continuity of Irish govt depts is a form of legal fiction. I can see no way of simplifying that complex Irish reality into a set of static job titles per the US list ... unless you are happy to misrepresent the offices held by each person, which I am not.
It seems you disagree, so why not draft an outline list and show how it could be done? I think it's impossible without misrepresentation, but pls prove me wrong.
As to the rest of the list, the US situation is simpler 'cos:
  • US Cabinet appointments are not tied to a parliament or to changes of govt which can occur in the course of a Dail (as in 4 of the last 7 Dails)
  • the start and end of most US Cabinet appointments coincides with presidential terms, which is not the case in Ireland, so full dates are more relevant in Ireland
  • US Cabinets are not coalitions, which all Irish cabinets have been since 1989. That adds an extra layer of data to the Irish list.
  • The Irish list includes photos, which the US list sadly omits
  • None of the US woman has held more than 2 offices, whereas in Ireland we have 7 women who held 3 or more cabinet posts, including one who held 6.
So ... yes, the simpler set of facts in the US list can be more simply presented.
I only just spotted that {{dts}} (used on all dates), automatically applies a nowrap to the date. I will test what happens when that is disabled; it should help to avoid horizontal scrolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spleodrach: I have just added nowrap=off to the dates in the main list.[3] It does reduce the need for scrolling, and to my eyes the effect is less ugly than I feared.
What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good. The less scrolling the better. Thanks for that. Spleodrach (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of offices held by a women

[edit]
@BrownHairedGirl: Ok, moving on from who said what and who meant what, and who got offended, I propose a simple table of current departments (sourced natch), with name of officeholder if female or balnk if never held by a women. See example below. Given the ever changing nature of govt. departments I think this is the simplest solution while also presenting the necessary information.
Current Department of State Held by Woman First Women officeholder
Taoiseach No  —[a]
Tánaiste Yes Mary Harney
Defence No  —[b]
Finance No  —[c]
Foreign Affairs and Trade No  —[d]
Public Expenditure and Reform No  —[e]
Education and Skills Yes Gemma Hussey
Justice and Equality Yes Máire Geoghegan-Quinn
Business, Enterprise and Innovation Yes Mary Harney
Health Yes Eileen Desmond
Agriculture, Food and the Marine Yes Mary Coughlan
Communications, Climate Action and Environment No  —[f]
Transport, Tourism and Sport Yes Máire Geoghegan-Quinn
Children and Youth Affairs Yes Frances Fitzgerald
Housing, Planning and Local Government No  —[g]
Rural and Community Development No  —[h]
Employment Affairs and Social Protection Yes Eileen Desmond
Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Yes Máire Geoghegan-Quinn
a The office of Taoiseach was established in 1937; no woman has served yet.
b The office of Minister for Defence was established in 1919; no woman has served yet.
c The office of Minister for Fincance was established in 1919; no woman has served yet.
d The office of Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was established in 1919; no woman has served yet.
e The office of Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was established in 2011; no woman has served yet.
f The office of Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment was established in 1919; no woman has served yet.
g The office of Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government was established in 1919; no woman has served yet.
h The office of Minister for Rural and Community Development was established in 2017; no woman has served yet.
There is also a need for a table of defunct departments, or previous names of departments. More columns could be added like date and party affiliation. Spleodrach (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spleodrach: thanks for taking the time to try that.

I wrote above that I can see no way of simplifying that complex Irish reality into a set of static job titles per the US list ... unless you are happy to misrepresent the offices held by each person, which I am not. Sadly, I think your table does misrepresent the reality :(

Yes, I know that the ministries are defined by a 1924 Act, and renamed as needed along the way. But that is merely the legal process which each govt assembles the various civil service units into the blocs which suit its purposes. Many departments have changed so many times along the way that it is clear that the only element of continuity is a building (or set thereof) which is used as needed at any given time.

See e.g. Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht#Statutes: the history in only 41 years is: Economic Planning and Development → Energy → Industry and Energy → Energy → Tourism and Trade → Tourism, Sport and Recreation → Arts, Sport and Tourism → Tourism, Culture and Sport → Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht → Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs → Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

That's not a mutating body; it's a box which is filled with whatever is needed and labelled as appropriate at the time. It is like a cardboard folder which has been reused so many times that it now has a big bulge from all the overlaid sticker labels, currently filled with property tax details for one of my mansions in Moscow and labelled accordingly, but used 10 years ago for my reign as Queen of Rockall and 20 years ago for minutes of the AGMs of a children's daycare centre. Same physical cardboard wrapper, but the kids stuff was never filed under Moscow, the mansion was never filed under kids, and neither was ever filed under Rockall.

In this case, only 2 of the names on your list are used wholly accurately: Frances Fitzgerald as Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and Harney as Tanaiste.

One is an almost: Mary Coughlan as Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Her actual title was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ... but its close enough that I could live with it.

However, the rest are somewhere between half-truths and legal fictions, e.g.:

  • Gemma Hussey was never Minister for Education and Skills. She was Minister for Education. (What's now called skills was AFAICR then called "training", an largely managed by AnCo (An Chomhairle Oiliúna, "the training council") under the Minister for Labour, Liam Kavanagh)
  • Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was never Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. She was Minister for Tourism, Transport & Communications
  • Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was never Minister for Justice and Equality. She was Minister for Justice
  • Mary Harney was never Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation. She was Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment
  • Eileen Desmond was never Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection. She had responsibility for what is now called social protection, but at that time employment was managed by the Minister for Labour

Even some of the footnotes are half-truths, e.g. The office of Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was established in 1919. Actually it was Foreign Affairs/External Affairs 1919–2011, and was combined with Trade only in 2011. It is a historical falsehood to assert that there was a "Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade" at any time between 1919 and 2011.

Even worse, the table says no woman has served as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade ... whereas the reality is that two women (Harney & Coughlan) have been ministers for Trade, albeit combined with things other than Foreign Affairs. Your table contradicts that historical reality.

And as for The office of Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment was established in 1919 ... boggle.

So I'm sorry, but I don't think this is even a starting point for something which should be included in any article, let alone a WP:Featured list.

If you want to cover this accurately, I suggest that you take your focus off any illusion of continuity in the departmental kaleidescope, and focus instead on responsibilities which have not been held by women in Cabinet. So e.g., it is true to say that no woman has held cabinet-level responsibility for Foreign Affairs ... and if you can find an WP:RS for that it could be part of a para. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duly added. How long before you revert it? Spleodrach (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your addition[4] almost immediately when I saw it:
  1. Did you not read what I wrote above? Even some of the footnotes are half-truths, e.g. The office of Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was established in 1919. Actually it was Foreign Affairs/External Affairs 1919–2011, and was combined with Trade only in 2011. It is a historical falsehood to assert that there was a "Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade" at any time between 1919 and 2011.
    Even worse, the table says no woman has served as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade ... whereas the reality is that two women (Harney & Coughlan) have been ministers for Trade, albeit combined with things other than Foreign Affairs. Your table contradicts that historical reality.     ... yet you added "No woman has served as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade"
  2. You put it into the para about constitutional offices It's only two days since our loong discussion about that
  3. the source you added is dailyedge.ie, which is not a WP:RS
  4. the source does not actually say that no woman has served as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.
This is depressing. I am finding it hard to believe that you are actually reading my replies before rushing to edit the page. How many times do I need to repeat that this is a Featured list which has already been through v intense scrutiny, and further changes should be cautious, given the amount of polishing already done?
After several days of discussion, I shouldn't be having to revert a half-truth based on a misrepresentation of an unreliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted straight away, as I expected. And yet you claim you don't own the article! Why is the Daily Edge not reliable? It more a case of you don't like it.
So you can add that no woman has ever been elected as Taoiseach or appointed as Minister for Finance, but I can't add that no woman has ever served as Minister for Foreign Affairs or Minister for Defence. That's very strange! Spleodrach (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly stop misrepresenting me, and please read what I wrote. Discussion is pointless if you continue to plough on w/o even acknowledging 3 of the points I made above, or if you persist in falsely claiming that I object to any mention.
As to http://www.dailyedge.ie/ ... it's an online tabloid whose stated purpose on page title is "pure entertainment". Its "about us" link points to http://www.thejournal.ie/about-us/ which says "DailyEdge.ie: And you can get all your high-brow gossip at DailyEdge.ie". Assess that against WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All you have proved to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that you can add certain info to this article, but I can't add similar. Spleodrach (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are now repeatedly alleging bad faith on my part, yet you have wholly ignored 3 of the 4 points I made about your edit, and chosen not to respond to the evidence I posted about the 4th point (the unreliability of the Daily Edge).
Enough. Please discuss content, not contributors. If you make any more personal attacks in response to this content dispute, then I will escalate without further warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, threats to block/ban, I was waiting for that. Btw, I fixed your ref formatting, you're welcome! Spleodrach (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I did not threaten to block/ban you; I promised to escalate, by which I mean go to WP:ANI where others would decide whether and how to persuade you to desist from WP:NPAs and either focus on content or stay off this page. That promise still stands, but I v much hope I will not need to keep it.
Thanks for catching the missing brackets in the refs.[5] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be editing this page again and this time I mean it.
I used to respect you as an editor, now my opinion is unprintable.
FACT NO. 1: No woman has served as Minister for Foreign Affairs
FACT NO. 2: No woman has served as Minister for Defence
You can't dispute these facts as they are true, and in the end the truth will out!

Spleodrach (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spleodrach: did you not read BrownHairedGirl's very lengthy, detailed and thoroughly considered argument under #Offices not held by women? Please stop this badgering. "I don't hear that", ad hominem attacks and temper tantrums are not a substitute for valid argument. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, I have struck out my last comments. Spleodrach (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution on Offices not held by women

[edit]
@Bilorv: thanks.
@Spleodrach: Bilorv was one of the reviewers whose close scrutiny helped bring this article to FL standard. If you read Bilorv's detailed comments in the collapsed section, you'll see just how precise and rigorous it was. I am applying the same high standards now, and having been on the receiving end of such scrutiny I do know how exasperating it can be ... but also how valuable it is. I am v grateful to Bilorv for that rigour.
So please do read what I wrote above. Of course I do not deny those 2 facts you assert. The disagreement between us has been about:
  1. where in the article they should go
  2. the use of reliable sources
  3. how to present them in a way which is neither misleading nor a half-truth, given the many changes in the division of ministerial responsibilities.
That item #3 is the crucial one. You do not seem to have at any stage acknowledged the point I have been making about the need for very precise language to avoid misleading half-truths.
Consider just Foreign Affairs, and look at several different ways of describing the lack of women:
# Statement Is it true? Is it unambiguous? Comment
1 No woman has served in the Cabinet as Minister for Foreign Affairs Yes No The title "Minister for Foreign Affairs" existed only from 1919–1922 and 1971–2011 (see Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade). For 56 of the 99 years since 1919, there has not been a cabinet post with the precise title "Minister for Foreign Affairs" ... so the statement lacks precision.
2 No woman has served has as Minister for Foreign Affairs Yes No All the problems above, plus an extra layer of ambiguity which misleads. Two women (Creighton and McEntee) have served as Minister of State within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as Minister of State for European Affairs. They were ministers for foreign affairs, but not the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(I know that Spleodrach is v familiar with the history of all these offices and well understands the distinctions, but en.wp readers are non-experts who should may know little or nothing about Irish govts. We need to avoid misleading or confusing them)
3 No woman has served has Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Yes No The title "Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade" has existed only since 2011, so a precise reading is true: no woman has held that office in the 7 years it has existed.
However the statement does not cover the 92 years 1919–2011, and it misleads the reader by implying that no woman has had responsibility for trade ... whereas two women (Harney & Coughlan) have been ministers for Trade, albeit combined with things other than Foreign Affairs
4 No woman has held the cabinet posts of Minister for Foreign affairs (1919–1922 and 1971–2011), Minister for External affairs (1922—1971), or Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (since 2011) Yes Yes By setting out the history of the relevant job titles, an accurate and unambiguous history is portrayed, but with horrible verbosity. We should find away to say this accurately but without adding the off-point history of ministerial titles.
5 No woman has served as a cabinet minister with responsibility for foreign affairs Yes Yes By avoiding use of the mutating job titles, we get an accurate and unambiguous statement which is also concise. However, it needs to be preceded by an explanation of how the job titles mutate
6 No woman has served as a cabinet minister with responsibility for foreign affairs Yes Yes As above, but with no extra words a piped link to Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade allows a curious reader to see the list of ministers and job titles.
(Piped links may not work for other responsibilities, some of which are not set out in a single list)
I think that the best way to present this is in a new para which
  1. begins by explaining the kaleidoscope of changing job titles, as each Taoiseach combines govt functions into a set of ministerial offices which suits both his purposes and the talents of his ministerial team, as well as other factors such as demands of coalition partners
  2. Notes some of the responsibilities (not job titles) which have not been held by women. A complete list is probably impossible, but it should include e.g. Foreign Affairs and Defence
  3. Is carefully sourced to scholarly works (and definitely not newspapers, let alone an online "pure entertainment" site which promises high-brow gossip). This is a complex situation, which needs to be sourced with academic rigour.
I have some scholarly books on order, and I hope that they will provide the sources need to set out the history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have calmed down after a good nights sleep and have struck out my previous comments above, and fully retract them. Secondly, I was not going to edit here again but since you have responded, so will I.
Thirdly, I do appreciate you coming back with reasoned arguments and detailed proposals, especially in light of my recent behaviour and comments.
As you have pointed, the ever changing titles and functions in government departments makes it difficult to do this. Finance and Defence are the only 2 departments not to have changed title ever. This rules out a table. A paragraph as you suggest could be the best option. Responsibilities not job titles is a good idea, and limiting to certain offices is advisable. Yes, in hindsight, the DailyEdge is not an RS, but at least it provides high-brow gossip not low-brow stuff! Though I will point out the everything in the article is true, including the shocking fact that no woman has been head of a university in Ireland.
Finally, I hope someday that all this work will be in vain, and that woman will have all held all ministerial office, including Taoiseach, in Ireland. Spleodrach (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many many thanks, @Spleodrach. I have enjoyed working with you on a huge number of pages over the last decade, and while we haven't always agreed I firmly believe that all our debates have been highly productive, reaching a better outcome than either of us would have achieved alone. So I do hope that our successful collaboration can continue, for the fun of it as well as for the improvements to en.wp's coverage of Irish politics and govt.
Yes, you're right; that Daily Edge article is all true. But per WP:RS we can assert that truth in an article only 'cos we know it from other sources.
I too hope that the list of ministerial responsibilities never held by a woman will become empty. If nothing else, it will avoid doing this job again <grin>
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

[edit]

@Spleodrach: I have reverted[6] your edit[7] bypassing redirects to ministerial offices.

two reasons:

  1. WP:NOTBROKEN
  2. I am unpersuaded that the articles to which the redirects point are a good way of representing the history of ministerial offices. Keeping the redirects makes it easier to develop other ways of presenting that history.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this does really prove your ownership issues, and that you won't let anyone edit your precious article. You have redirects in Geoghegan-Quinn's section, but when I put in similar it is reverted. In that case, I'm out, as I can't be dealing with this kind of behaviour. Spleodrach (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spleodrach: With great regret, I have to say that I am relieved. I have much enjoyed working with you on other topics, but on this page you seem more interested in getting any old edit to stick than in applying the high standards set for featured content. In the discussion above at #List of offices held by a women, you seem to repeatedly ignore reasoned objections which I spent several hours setting out in detail.
Working with Featured content is not like editing other pages. Look again at the intense micro-scrutiny applied in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland/archive1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind. I won't be told what I can and can't edit by you. Spleodrach (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you persist as you have been continuing, by fixating on making any old edit and repeatedly ignoring reasoned objections about quality, then I will use WP:DR.
99% of en.wp's content pages are not Featured lists or Featured articles. If you don't like the exacting standards applied to Featured content, why not edit some of those 99% of pages where those exacting standards do not apply? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. Chief Whip

[edit]

I see that there is no mention of Government Chief Whip (officially Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach) in this article. That seems to be to be a bit of an omission because of the importance of the office. Only two women have held this office, Mary Hanafin was first and mostly recently Regina Doherty. While this office is a junior minister, it is the most senior Minister of State with a (non-voting) seat at the cabinet table. Also, chief whips are usually promoted to senior cabinet level in the next reshuffle. I would have thought that this would have at least merited a footnote in this article. Spleodrach (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the title says, this is list of cabinet ministers. The Chief Whip is not a cabinet minister; as you note in your first sentence, the Chief Whip is a Minister of State.
Yes, the chief whip attends cabinet, as do "Super Junior" ministers and several senior civil servants. Coverage of the ~20-year history of women in such positions belongs in a separate article.
However, I agree that a brief footnote would help, so I have added[8] one. Just an explanation of the role, without straying off-topic into naming any Super Juniors, let alone listing them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, a footnote was all I wanted to be added. Spleodrach (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2018

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. This is procedural as called for by the opposition, so there is no prejudice toward revisiting this request, if necessary, following further discussion. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Painius  put'r there  01:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland → List of female cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland – Wouldn't "female" be a better adjective in this sentence than "woman"? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 12:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: It's a bit rude to say I've given no reasoning, especially as you've immediately contradicted yourself by by delivering a counterpoint to the reason (in parentheses), meaning that you recognise that I did have a reason in the first place... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I came across as rude. The entirety of your nomination is a question, with no explicit reasoning. My counterpoint is not directed at your "reason", but at a preemptive guess of why you might have suggested this. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: You don't have to guess if you simply took off the super-technical glasses and read my summary for what it is, a statement of my opinion that 'female' would be a better adjective than 'woman' in this title, and that I wanted a discussion on whether or not this is a good opinion. It's not a case of if I might have suggested it, it's a case of I did suggest it. This altercation could have been avoided if you had simply chose not to be super-technical about wording and just said that you oppose the move because you believe "woman" is the common and preferred usage by some, which you were completely able to do as part of your original reply. There's really no excuse to annoy the nominator about wording if the reason is clear as day; take out "nominator has given no reasoning", and the "Procedural oppose" that it rationalised and you'd come off as a hundred times less rude. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make was that you had not supplied any sort of explanation of why “female” would be better than “woman”. So opposing, without knowing why you had made the suggestion, didn’t seem right. I don’t think it’s fair to oppose without understanding the proposer’s reasoning. I didn’t realise my wording would upset you, for which I apologise, but my intention was not to be pedantic and that’s why I went on to supply an explanation of why I thought “woman” was an appropriate word to use. For what it’s worth, I’m still not at all clear on why you prefer “female”. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong preference either way for 'female' or 'women', but I dislike the inconsistency, so one of them needs to become the standard across Wikipedia. Spleodrach (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose: While it's fine to test the water with an RM, this one is going nowhere. Having learned that, it's time for this discussion to move to a less focused arena. Perhaps an RfC on women or female or somesuch, but (if anyone is still interested) I suggest just an informal discussion (almost anywhere! Even a user talk page or subpage) pinging the above participants, with the intention of raising a proposal at wp:Village pump/Proposals (VP/PR to its friends) in the fullness of time. Consensus in the informal discussion isn't necessary before raising a proposal at VP/PR but I recommend it, partly because if this discussion comes up with a more concrete proposal affecting a policy of guideline then VPP is the place to raise it rather than VP/PR. Andrewa (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 February 2020

[edit]
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: Do not move Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland → List of women in the Government of Ireland – I have a small preference for using the formal title of the cabinet in the title of the page. The drawback is that it might not immediately be clear that the Government of Ireland is the cabinet in common parlance, and some may expect to see women Sec Gens. So I'd possibly also consider suggesting List of women ministers in the Government of Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_female_cabinet_ministers_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1208390422"