Talk:Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 June 2008.

Wikipedia

Present article is strongly Pro-Lisbon biased throughout majority of sections

Firstly, the referendum in Ireland, which I was present for before during and after, is a subject worthy of an independent Wikipedia artical in itself. Such a title could be "2008 Irish Rejection of the Lisbon Treaty". For example, in the Background section, links are provided to the independent articles "France in May 2005" and "Netherlands in June 2005".

All other issues with the page concern the unprofessional, and blatantly laughable, corruption of this article by a pro-EU writer. Its pretty outrageous stuff. This is evident in sections such as "Referendum", which instead talks about how the Political parties (not the people of Ireland) supported the treaty, as evidenced below.

Paragraph 1 of the "Referendum" section starts with:

"Events The government parties of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were in favour of the treaty, but the other government party, the Green Party, was divided on the issue. At a special convention on 19 January 2008, the leadership of the Green Party failed to secure a two-thirds majority required to make support for the referendum official party policy. The result of the vote was 63% in favour. [...] all Green Party members of the Oireachtas supported the Treaty.[7][8] The main opposition parties of Fine Gael[9] and the Labour Party were also in favour. Only one party represented in the Oireachtas, Sinn Féin, was opposed to the treaty"

- Under the Referendum section, this is 100% Irrelevant, and is an example of blatant propaganda that seeks to lie to the readers of Wikipedia to frame the referendum in a pro-Treaty light.

Paragraph 2 of the same section starts:

"The then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern warned against making Ireland a 'battlefield' for eurosceptics across Europe."

Paragraph 5 of the section starts:

"At the start of May, the Irish Alliance for Europe launched its campaign for a Yes vote in the referendum this consisted of trade unionists, business people, academics and politicians. Its members include..."

Paragraph 6 starts:

"On 21 May 2008, the executive council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions voted to support a Yes vote in the referendum" (and goes on to cite 5 more examples of pro-Lisbon voting.

In a referendum where the People of Ireland (you know, Democracy or whatever) voted No, and in many cases vehemently so, with protests and rallies in the center of Dublin and a vast majority of plackards resisting the Lisbon Treaty, with virtually no visibility of Yes voters to be seen anywhere in Dublin center, the number of mentions of "Yes" in this hideous excuse for an article are obviously misplaced.

Section: Opinion Polls

The sources of this data must be questioned due to the fact that it seems they have been selected to reflect the Yes vote, even though the actual referendum brought a No majority.

Section: Results

By now the ridiculousness of this article is evident and somewhat entertaining, and this continues when the same person or another pro-Treaty user has not been able to bring themselves to write in their own words a summary at the top of the section, saying that the people of Ireland democratically REJECTED the Lisbon Treaty. Instead they probably deleted such a summary by somebody else, of which there is none. No declaration in words in the results section that the referendum resulted in a No vote.

Section: Reasons for Rejection

"Ireland has begun to cast a sceptical[37] eye on the EU and general concerns about how Europe is developing were raised.[38] As of Spring 2007, the Irish citizenry have the second least European identity in the EU, with 59% identifying as exclusively Irish as opposed to wholly/partly European.[39] The integrationist aspects of the Lisbon treaty were therefore also of concern.[40] Few expressed specifically anti-EU statements, but pro-EU sentiments were interpreted[41] or expressed[42] in favour of an idealised/desired EU and expressed concern about its present form or the future direction of the EU post-Lisbon. To keep Ireland's power and identity,[43] voters chose to vote "no"."

- Is this a qualified, aggregated, ballanced and multi-contributor diagnosis? Is this paragraph, or its writer, qualified to speak on behalf of millions of people without review? Their only resource is a couple of newspaper articles. Surely professional researchers and quantitative data should be directly cited. They wont be of course, because there is no evidence to suggest that most No voters "express pro-EU sentiments" as this user claims.

My favorite part is probably this:

In September 2008 rumours in Brussels indicated that US billionaires and neocons heavily influenced the Irish vote by sponsoring the "No" campaigns".

I dont think any explanation is needed as to why this deceit has no place in academic discourse.

"It is said that US interest groups this way pursued their goal of hindering the European Union to become a stronger partner internationally." It is also said that the writer of this section has severe mental problems. The paragraph on how the US "sponsored" individual No votes in an Irish referendum, which I for one as a witness in Dublin saw no evidence for whatsoever, is the sort of thing that has lead to Wikipedia to be discredited, and academically unsourceable.

After the tables show the most common reasons that the majority of the people voted No, the same writer presumably, has added "French Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet blamed "American neoconservatives" for the Irish voter's rejection of the treaty." dispite the fact that even a potentially Pro-EU-biased survey has found that 0% of No voters said they voted because of the influence of foreign politicians. Which, ironically, is precisely what they are opposed to.

FINAL NOTES:

1. The photograph is biased, showing as it does two Yes posters above one No poster at the bottom. In most of central Dublin, the No posters (and later the No Means No posters) were omnipotent, while "Yes" posters were fairly scarce, and lampposts with 2 yes posters on top would have been a rare exception, hinting again at Wikipedia user bias.

2. The "see Also" list could be far more comprehensive, and as suggested above, should include a link to the Twenty-eighth Ammendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland), which should be a seperate article from the one about the Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Le Pen

Le Pen? No reason for him to be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.244.63.128 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV tirade of quotes

This selection of quotes has little to do with the Irish referendum, and is misleading and extremely POV. If approperiate anywhere, it must be in the Treaty of Lisbon article. To say that the Constitution-Lisbon changes are only cosmetic, is simply wrong. Don't reinsert it. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 04:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the proposed ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by the Irish electorate. The quotes belong in the Treaty of Lisbon article or in the European Constitution article but not here. I have made one small change to the Cancelled European Constitution referendum section which should be agreeable to all. Snappy56 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of balance I have added a link to the non party Libertas website. This group advocates a 'no' vote in the referendum. A previous link to a Sinn Féin website was removed on the grounds of "no parties", dubious but I'll let it pass. Libertas is not a political party but I assume this link should not be a problem. Snappy56 (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to have a structured list of party websites' sections on the Lisbon Treaty. - Instead of dubious think-tanks that pretend to be neutral or nonpartisan. -

\mathrm {S}

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Libertas are non party group advocating a no vote, that's not pretending to be neutral or non-partisan. They are entitled to their opinions, whether you like them or not. See also United_Kingdom_European_Constitution_referendum#External_links for non party no groups whose websites are in the External links section. Snappy56 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes hard to see the difference between a serious think-tank or group, from unserious blogs. Let's say if Rupert Murdoch hated the EU so intensely he started a POV website against the Lisbon Treaty; it would never be included in the Treaty of Lisbon article on Wikipedia. - Because external links should be mainstream, credible and NPOV. Plus major political parties of course. All POV websites and unknown groups can't be included. The Libertas group is according to the Libertas article: "a small Irish group, established by multi-millionaire businessman Declan Ganley which is campaigning for a 'no' vote to the Treaty of Lisbon referendum being held in Ireland in 2008." I don't think this article should link to dubious things like that. Political parties is a standard limitation. -

\mathrm {S}

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd be wrong then. In our wonderful Irish democracy, we give everyone a say, no matter how looney they are, then we proceed to ignore them, but we do give them their say. Rupert Murdoch does hate the EU, he doesn't need to start websites, he has several newspapers at his disposal to put forward anti-EU opinions. Snappy56 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Rupert Murdoch does. "Give everyone a say"? - so you think this article should link to every little blog entry and hate-website related to the Lisbon Treaty? -

\mathrm {S}

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

12:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, give everyone a say! Are you afraid of the other sides arguments? I'd like to point out that I am one of the few EU citizens that has a vote on the Treaty of Lisbon, and I will listen to all arguments and all sides before making up my mind! Snappy56 (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of vote

(Obsolete paragraph; the objection below was proven immaterial.) --90.176.185.73 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing official until it is decided by the the minister for the environment. This date of June 12 2008 is subject to change. Please do not state this as gospel until confirmed by order of the minister. 89.204.197.161 (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I have moved this article inline with other failed amendments to the Constitution of Ireland, e.g. Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002. Snappy56 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map is squishing the results table. Might it be a suitable image to have at the top of the article when filled in, to show the extent to which this bill failed at the polling booths? - JVG (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squishing? Looks OK to me. I coloured it in and re-uploaded it. I am not sure Kildare was drawn correctly in the original image though. -- Evertype·✆ 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the map have undeclared in grey for Northern Ireland? Snappy56 (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I'd better fix that. -- Evertype·✆ 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a separate map for the Dublin constituencies? They are quite hard to see on the map of Ireland. Snappy56 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the map boundaries (esp. Kildares North and South) as per Oireachtas (see description page for sources) and used standard map colors as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps. If you can't see the colored version: it's a cache/purge problem that should resolve itself: click twice on the map if you don't believe me. Evertype, you may want to delete your Image:Results of the June 2008 referendum on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland-2.png version or correct it accordingly. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the "Standard map colours" are quite unattractive. Be that as it may, I don't know how to "delete" the other image. -- Evertype·✆ 09:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I agree that the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps are not a de jure standard, but given their widespread adoption for the US states and India, they seem to have become a widespread de facto standard.
2) The coloration of Northern Ireland has been changed by User:Avala to grey, which is about as neutral as it gets.
3) You don't have to delete your "-2" fork: i just assumed you'd want to correct the borders. Either way, there is no deadline.
4) Your point about the standard colors sucking is well taken: I need to point out that I didn't design them <grin>

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medium Red would be better than that wimpy pink. -- Evertype·✆ 08:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the borders on your "-2" fork: the article may now use your bright-red/bright-green version or my pastel version, whichever proves more popular. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the map back down and replaced it with a national pie chart because I felt it was misleading to show a constituency yes/no map at the top (even at all really, but WP is hardly breaking the mould on this one). The result was calculated on a national vote, not on the number of constituencies showing for or against (as is the case in some plebiscites in some countries). I felt it needed to be made more clear. --Úsáideoir éigin arís (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maith thú. But the caption says "turnout" and your image says "turn out". -- Evertype·✆ 08:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I'm a confused American trying to understand what exactly this treaty is and why anyone would vote against it. This article is really lacking a decent summary of what so many Irish found unappealing about it. There is a huge section on what political groups did or did not support it, but not their reasons for doing so.

The best information I could find on the matter was in one of the images. It was a sign that sound "no privatization of healthcare and education" or something along those lines. It's pretty bad when the images are more helpful than the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.140.142 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I'm not sure what the hell is going on here.

Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an additional source of confusion is the title of the article itself. I guess it should be moved to rename it as "Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution Bill" (dropping the year, as it looks as if there have been 28 amendments just in 2008). Tha article falls short at explaining the consequences of a defeated proposal that blocks Ireland from ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon, and why is it necessary that a small country like Ireland ratifies it in the first place, versus having Ireland decide whether to join it in a future or not. --AVM (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...I do totally agree with you guys. Probably a move is necessary, as the current title does not contain enough information (lack Irish) and is misleading (the year). However, if a move is carried out, all the similar article that concerns the Irish constitutional amendments, e.g. Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002, should also be moved at the same time. Salt (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved all of the failed Amendment articles from (for example) Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 to Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2002. This harmonizes with the names of the articles about Amendments that passed. -- Evertype·✆ 10:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and it's good that way. —Nightstallion 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's bad that way. The old name was the legal name of the bill as introduced to the Oireachtas. The fact that it's not intuitive is irrelevant: that is only important for constructed article names for topics with no standard name of their own. The Bills have legal names when introduced, which include the year but not the name of the country (the Oireachtas will hardly introduce a bill to amend the constitution of Sweden). If you must mention Ireland, it should be a parenthetic disambig Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland). But I don't think there's anything in MOS:NAME about adding parenthetic dabs where there's nothing to dab against. The name of the article Defence of the Realm Act 1914 doesn't mention which Realm; should it be Defence of the Realm Act 1914 (United Kingdom) or Defence of the United Kingdom Act 1914? --jnestorius^(talk) 11:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is necessary to cite the actual bill's title as introduced of the Oireachtas, the article itself can do that. "Ireland" should be named in the article title because there are hundreds of countries with constitutions and "Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution" could apply to any constitution. They way we have it now is properly formulaic: An approved amendment's article title is Nth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, Date and an unapproved amendment's article title is Nth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, Date. This is quite sensible, and helpful to users of the encyclopaedia, in my opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no date in the titles of the approved-amendment articles.

My mistake. -- Evertype·✆

Second, other than by hitting "random", I don't see how anybody could arrive to this article without already knowing it related to Ireland.

US articles are often criticized for assuming that "the nation" refers only to the one country; it's a kind of solipsism. There are nine articles referring to failed amendments to "the" constitution; as the passed articles all have titles which specify which constitution, I believe it is sensible and encyclopaedic for the names of all the articles to be similar, regardless of whether the Oireachtas had the word "of Ireland" in the title or not. -- Evertype·✆ ~

If any other country has a 25th amendment bill this year that gets an article, we can use the standard parenthetic disambiguation for this one. Till then "Ireland" is superfluous. The current title is of a form that looks official when in fact it's just descriptive; parenthesis avoids that. If you want a simpler title, I suggest Irish Treaty of Lisbon referendum would match Irish European Constitution referendum. jnestorius^(talk) 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any proposal to move the Constitution Amendment articles. Following the proper legal names as we have is the best way to go. The suggestion that we use Irish Treaty of Lisbon referendum etc quickly runs into mud when one thinks about the many different ways one could describe earlier referendums: Example - would one call the abortion referendums by that name or would one call them right to life referendums etc... All sorts of arguments would soon surface. Sticking consistently to the legal names is simply by far preferable. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that "Lisbon Treaty Referendum" or the like would be a bad idea. My view that "Constitution of Ireland Bill" is better than "Constitution Bill" is unchanged, however. If the "official title" is that important, it can be mentioned in the article itself. I don't think that JNestorius' suggestion that people will be misled somehow in thinking that the Wikipedia article title is "the official name" of the bill is very credible, however. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Category:Current bills and Category:Statutory law by country, it seems the title of articles does not as a rule include the relevant country except as a disambiguator. Looking at Category:Referendums by country, title forms vary between countries, but most are Countryan topic referendum year, with either topic or year optional. Nothing appears to use the format currently used for the failed Irish referenda. --jnestorius^(talk) 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above and other postings, as I understood it: "Looking at Category:Referendums by country, title forms vary between countries, but most are Country, topic of referendum and year, with either topic or year optional." (1) name formats vary so there is no set format Irish Bills should follow; (2) any use of topics would be a minefield and lead to all sorts of arguments (increasingly, it seems there is agreement on this); (3) currently the official title of the Bill is used so a clear, exact and accurate position is presented. Overall: where is the imperative to adopt alternative names for the articles? What's the advantage. I see none. We should just stick to the current position. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the current position is not the legal name because they've just been moved from X Bill to X of Ireland Bill. --jnestorius^(talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the current position specifies which country's constitution it is. They were move from Constitution Bill to Constitution of Ireland Bill (not X). Constitution alone is ambiguous. I don't see any advantage to users of the encyclopaedia to insist that the article title be the "legal name". -- Evertype·✆ 09:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My previous post begins "just to clarify" because Redking7's last two posts appear to contradict each other and I would like clarification. I didn't intend merely to reiterate points previously made. jnestorius^(talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point User:Jnestorius. I missed the subtle change that has been made. Clearly it is better to refer to which country's constitution is involved. I have no problem with it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

As well as explaining the arguments of both sides, as the previous section suggests, we also urgently need a reaction section. This should perhaps be on the main Treaty page rather than this page, but in either case a crosslinked summary on the other page is required. jnestorius^(talk) 08:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it does need some explanation of the aftermath and voting. Of course, I'm not sure everyone agrees what the reasons were, though some specific points have been mentioned in the media. I tould seem dofferent groups objected to different things. Sandpiper (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nightstallion questioned me concerning the "No" vote, and I ended up reading thru five months of RTE reports (my brain hurts) and way, way more other newspapers. The results are now on the page and cover initial diagnoses on/prior to last Friday and includes the Flash Eurobarometer on the subject (The Irish Times published poll of the 18th was, I am given to understand, a slightly garbled version of that FEB, which explains why it added up to 105%): I haven't read the papers this weekend, for brain-hurting reasons previously alluded to. I can't afford to spend any more time on this, so if anybody wants to monitor diagnoses from this week on, please do so. Hope that helps, regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line: "To preserve Ireland's power and identity therefore voters chose to vote "No"" was a non-sequitur from what went before. Rather than rewrite all the preceding, I added to the line, to arrive at "Few expressed specifically anti-EU statements, but pro-EU sentiments were interpreted[41] or expressed[42] in favour of an idealised/desired EU and against its present form or its predicted form post-Lisbon. To some extent to preserve Ireland's power and identity, therefore, but also out of a concern about the future direction of Europe, for all Europeans, not simply as concerns the Irish, voters chose to vote "No"". (BB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.147.197 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest concern regarding the death penalty as a possible reason for the "no" vote is absolutley disingenuous, and suggests a (willful?) misreading of the cited article. A number of the "reasons" cited throughout this entry are also misrepresentations of the reasons for the vote (and, to say the least, often forced readings of the sources cited - the detention of three-year-olds as a reason for the "no" vote being another notable example, citing an article which is openly tongue-in-cheek (micro-chippng of future conscripts is also mentioned in the article, though not quoted in the wikipedia entry)), written from what would seem to be a markedly biased viewpoint, and aiming only to vilify, belittle, and indeed ridicule, the "no" position. (BB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.26.145 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply above. The sentence in question does not list reasons for a "no" vote. The sentence in question lists issues that were raised during the campaign.

The detention of three-year olds was raised as an issue during the campaign. Sources stating that detention of three-year olds was raised are as follows: [1][2][3][4][5][6] The Libertas article in which Libertas spokesperson Caroline Simons reiterated that this was an issue is given here.

Similarly, the reintroduction of the death penalty was raised as an issue during the campaign. Sources stating that reintroduction of the death penalty was raised are as follows: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The same Libertas article given above states that If Ireland votes to ratify Lisbon and accept the Charter, it also votes to accept the limitations or 'negative' definitions which form part of the terms of the Charter. (Ref Article 52.3 of the Charter) For example, in the area of the right to life, member states may reintroduce the death penalty in certain circumstances "in respect of acts committed time of war, or imminent threat of war". This is contrary to the decision of the Irish people in a referendum to abolish the death penalty.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish times poll

Are those results correct? The percentages add up to 105! 83.70.235.251 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct when you say the figures add up to 105%. Unfortunately, those were the actual figures given in the Irish Times article of Wednesday June 18th (see here). I do not know if they were a misprint in the article, or whether the newspaper accurately reported the results of the rush EC Commission poll and the poll had the 105% total. Given the speed with which the poll was produced (the vote was the previous week), I suspect the latter. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table Markup

There is a standard Wikipedia CSS class for tables, called "wikitable". That sets colours and borders in a way which is consistent across articles, and in general it should be used with minimum adornment, to ensure consistency and readability.

I can see no specific case for applying markup to this article; there may be a general case for changing the CSS in particular implementations of the class "wikitable", but nothing that I can see which applies specifically to this article and not to others. In other words, if you want to change the way in which tables displayed on wikipedia, then the appropriate course of action is to go to the appropriate place to argue for them all being changed, rather than just adding style markup to this particular table in this articles.

Adding the colourings and borders can be disruptive to the reader. Like most users, I use the default monobook theme, and you markup works in that theme, but there is guarantee that it will work in any other theme. Introducing unnecessary markup into an article simply reduces its portability, by creating the possibility of display glitches in other themes, whether on Wikipedia on the many WP mirror sites. Snappy56 (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

No-one ever refers to this as the "28th Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2008", however technically correct it may be. I suggest it is moved to something on the lines of the 2008 ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some evidence that the bill has another popular name, then please provide that evidence. The current name is both technically accurate for the bill and consistent with the naming of other bills, bit it seems to me that there may be a case for splitting the article to remove the material on the first referendum to a separate article, per W:SPLIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the " Confused" section, the current name is not technically accurate. jnestorius^(talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current name. It is accurate and I have to add that this article is very good.--Andrewire (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move to format Nth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, yyyy (Ireland). With regard to the comma, I am leaving the commas in place until the issue has been discussed with more clarity and addresses not just this subset of articles. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 1958 → ? — jnestorius^(talk) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, yyyy The current names of these are misleading: they are so long and formal-looking that one would easily assume that the name was the official name of the bill, when in fact the bill in each case did not include the words "of Ireland". They were originally at the name Nth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, yyyy, but were moved after discussion at #Confused above. The justification was either that it conformed to the naming convention used for successful amendments, or that it would be less confusing. I found both arguments dubious, but so be it. Let me throw out a number of suggestions which would meet each of the two posited justifications similarly to the current format, while in addition avoiding the problem I have pointed out with that format. I would support either of the following as an improvement on the current:

Nth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, yyyy (Ireland)
Nth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland (yyyy Bill)

If the ~~second~~first alternative is implemented, one could take the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by removing the extraneous comma from the recentest bills, thus:

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland).

jnestorius^(talk) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, option 1 - Since many Irish articles are disambiguated with "(Ireland)" at the end. As for the commas, I think we should have commas for all or none, because if we follow the official name, we will have commas for all but the most recent, which will be quite inconsistent. Snappy (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the government is inconsistent, we should be likewise inconsistent; it is not for us to correct their mistakes and pretend the real world is more consistent than it actually is. There's not much point in painstakingly moving articles to eliminate one inaccuracy and then introducing another. A relevant question is whether the decision to eliminate commas in names of bills and acts applies only to new ones made after the decision, or applies equally in retrospective reference to earlier bills and acts. Anybody know the answer? jnestorius^(talk) 20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if the Irish government is inconsistent, then we should not copy their inconsistencies. But, your question about the elimation of commas is interesting. Looking at IrishStatuteBook.ie, I picked a bill from 2003 (first year without commas), CENTRAL BANK AND FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY OF IRELAND ACT 2003, it references previous acts and refers to them without commas, e.g. "AN ACT TO AMEND THE CENTRAL BANK ACT 1942 FOR THE PURPOSE OF...". The 1942 act is officially title Central Bank Act, 1942. So it would seem that the elimination of commas does apply retrospectively. Snappy (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, option 1 per Snappy -- that's the std way of disambiguating. Not sure about standardising on the comma or absence hereof: I usually approve of standardising, but in this case it will lead us into a conflict with the Oireachtas's own names. However, if we do standardise it should be standardised across all Oireachtas bills and Acts, not just this subset. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, yyyy (Ireland). The actual Bill title is then correct and the article title references Ireland. Jubilee♫clipman 20:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The articles reside in the context of the Wikipedia; they amend the Constitution of Ireland, not The Constitution. There is no requirement that the title of the article be identical to the title of the bill or the amendment. I don't care about the comma. -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that they be identical —another option is simply to dispense altogether with references to bills and amendments and call it something like "Irish Lisbon Treaty ratification process, 2008"— but there is equally no requirement that they be different. In other words, the title should be chosen on its merits. One demerit of the present title is the vast majority of readers, unaware of the Wikipedia policy that article titles need not reflect legal titles, will be misled. There may be some compensating advantage of the present title over the proposed alternatives, but you have not said what that might be. jnestorius^(talk) 11:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but surely the full and formal name can be specified in the introductory sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, you give no reason for preferring the current name for the proposed alternative. You merely downplay the disadvantages of the current name. jnestorius^(talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm pretty sure the naming policy says something on the lines of common name or official name. We shouldn't try to invent names. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I believe the most recent citation standard omits the comma. Most of the articles that we do have on Irish acts omit commas. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958 (Ireland) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Looks like it would be useful to many readers. Tom (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 01:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.referendum.ie/current/index.asp?ballotid=78
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0510/lisbon.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0426/lisbon.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.referendum.ie/current/resultsummary.asp?ballotid=78
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.referendum.ie/downloads/Advert
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224084849/http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/Referenda/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1894,en.pdf to http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/Referenda/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1894,en.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland). 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/20080105062629/http://www.reformtreaty.ie/ to http://www.reformtreaty.ie/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216012152/http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525203629/http://www.heart-of-europe.ie/ to http://www.heart-of-europe.ie/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314002132/http://www.no2lisbon.ie/ to http://www.no2lisbon.ie/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505122118/http://www.yestolisbon.ie/ to http://www.yestolisbon.ie/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1958 (Ireland) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]