Talk:Mary Coughlan (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allegations of imbalance[edit]

discussion moved from User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Mary_Coughlan_.282.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for your comments.

There are three grounds on which I have an issue with the "Gay Rights" section that has been recently added to Mary Coughlan's profile on Wikipedia. Firstly, the piece is out of context in what is after all a reasonably short factual entry on Mary Coughlan's 21 year political career. To the reader perhaps researching her for the first time, it would appear that gay rights is the only issue on which she has expressed an opinion or the only issue on which she may have has casued a controversy. This is not the case, and it is questionable whether the issue that has been highlighted would get much of a mention in any detailed work covering her career.

Secondly, on its face and from the references cited it would appear that the contributor, rather than being an advocate for gay rights, is perhaps "on a mission", as the entry itself does not make a full appreciation of Mary Coughlan's work in this area. There is no reference, for example, to her work on modernising the Irish government's policy on (the very sensitive constitutional question of) the "family" during her tenure as Minister for Social and Family Affairs, which has informed the current steps being taken to introduce civil partnership to facilitate same-sex copules. This same contribution was acknowledged only very recently by the respected RTE broadcaster and journalist, Olivia O'Leary, in a recent RTE Radio 1 "Drivetime" poltical column: http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2008/pc/pod-v-010408-5m21s-drivetime.mp3 In general, and from an informed point of view, the piece appears as purposely political.

Finally, the contributor is correct to say that the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 amended the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993 to provide that a person cannot be a qualified adult for the purpose of the relevant scheme unless the person is a spouse, whith spouse being re-defined as: 

- each person of a married couple living together, or
- a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are cohabiting as husband and wife.

However, I would argue that this amendment was in line with Government policy accross the board at the time, which is only now being considered and reviewed following years of much behind the scenes work and building of a social consensus on the issue. This contributor's type of anaylsis and selective references, and indeed, his or her views on Mary Coughlan's contribution thereto is, I believe much better suited to a seperate page on the development of gay rights issues in Ireland, rather than being the focus of debate on Mary Coughlan's profile page at it currently stands. I would respectfully make te suggestion that this content is moved to such a page and the contributor encouraged to give a less bias and more balanced view. In time, should Mary Coughlan's page develop to include more detailed analysis of her policy positions, successes and failures, then the relevant link, with some fair balance could, quite rightly, be made.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my response and I hope you will review your most recent edit in this light.

Regards,

Logicalview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicalview (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid that this reply will have to be brief, but I hope it explains why the material was reinstated:
  1. You're right, it's generally a short article. But that's an argument for expanding it with more details of Coughlan's career, not for removing the details which have been added. The gay rights issue is a significant and controversial area of public policy in Ireland, and Coughlan's role in that is a part of her career which should be recorded. Of course it's not the only thing she has done in her career, and the other areas should be expanded ... but one short para on gay rights in not excessive. If you have can suggest references which would allow the expansion of the rest of the article, please post them here and hopefully someone will get to work!
  2. Please please do assume good faith when considering the contributions of other editors. Assuming, as you have done, that another editor is "on a mission" is not the way things are done on wikipedia, and is regarded as very poor etiquette.
  3. Your views of Coughlan's role on gay rights as being in keeping with govt policy at the time are interesting. Personally, I'm a bit surprised by what you say: of course her actions were in line with govt policy (if not, she would probably have been fired from her ministerial job), but there seems to be no dispute that Coughlan as minister did those things, and it does not appear that she resigned in disgust, which is an option open to any minister who dislikes the policy they are required to implement (they aren't robots!). However, your views and mine are no more suitable for incorporation in the encyclopedia than of any other wikipedia editor: they are an unsubstantiated opinion, and wikipedia does use original research or synthesis. If you have references in reliable sources to allow the article to discuss the background to that legislation, and Coughlan's role in it all, then should of course be added ... but the lack of that detail is no argument for deleting from this article this concise mention of Coughlan's role in what remains a high-profile area of public policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I added the info it was with a mind to expand the article. I came to the idea when I noticed how poor the articles for Irish politicians are in general. I am acutely aware of the importance of pieces being NPOV and well sourced. In fact, my addition to the article is the only info on the page that has sources. The only agendas I had in editing the piece were to begin expansion of the page (I have also been working on Mary Hanafin's page as I am most familiar with Fianna Fáil), starting with notable events, and to add reliable sources. I will try to use the podcast that Logicalview has mentioned to give more depth to the article. Cheers, --Conor (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates - May 2008[edit]

I've recently updated most sections of the page, with the result that some sections are reasonably complete and others, such as her Cabinet career, have at least some general info. where before they had little (or none). Dneale52 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! And particularly good that you have referenced everything so thoroughly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin remarks[edit]

The Sarah Palin remark was made by Leo Varadkar during a Dail debate. If an opposition TD hurls an insult at a government minister (or vice versa) and this is recorded, does that make it encyclopaedic? I don't think so. But please explain to me why you think routine insults which are par for the course in Dail debates should be included in this article? If we are to starting include all the names that politicians have called each other over the years then that's a lot of work! Snappy56 (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The summary you gave for removing the material was "rm unreliable sources" - please explain how The Irish Times, Irish Independent and Evening Herald are unreliable.
2. I'm not sure either that the quotes are worth keeping, however I think due process should be followed. We should leave the material in place and have a discussion here with as many editors as possible; removing the material without discussing it first is poor etiquette. It is well-sourced and does not violate WP:BLP. I will revert it to the original until we have consensus GeneralBelly (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the three references, in Irish Times, Independent and Herald, the reporting of Coughlan's Dáil performance are accurately reflected, in a non pejorative manner, in the Wikipedia article as written.

Public domain material as surely the Dáil record is and its reporting in the public press is relevant in a Wikipedia edit provided it is consistent with WP:BLP. As there are several references and a balanced edit the material should remain Octanis (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both ot you cant see the wood from the trees. The sources are not in dispute, the various newspapers have reported what was said in the Dail in a neutral manner, this is not in dispute. Can you explain you why you think the statements made by opposition spokespersons during the course of a Dail debate are encyclopaedic? A lot of comments are hurled at ministers by opposition spokespersons and vice versa during a parliamentary debate, this is par for the course, but unless someone can explain otherwise this is not encyclopaedic and not consistent with WP:BLP. If these statements are encyclopaedic then every major Irish politicians' article needs to have every statement in every Dail debate added to thier article. Snappy56 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To accuse other editors of bad faith editing; Both ot[sic] you cant see the wood from the trees is unacceptable behaviour. As explained, the edits are on Coughlan's performance in the Dail in the face of criticism, as reported in several newspapers. Comment on her efficacy or otherwise in office are relevant. The fact that they may seem to be less than positive or made by opposition politicians is not a reason for their omission. There are many references in the article that are positive of Coughlan, some decidedly non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a balanced commentary, not just a statement of exclusively positive facts. WP:BLP is correctly applied in this case. Octanis (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snappy56, per your request, I am not replying on your talkpage:

Thanks but I don't need to be reminded of any wikipedia policies as I am current with all of them. I do not dispute the source but the content. You say 2 out of 3 editors, are we voting here? Wikipedia is not about head counting. Are you including the anon editor in that? I will not revert my edit, thanks for suggesting that though. Maybe you can on Mary Coughlan's talk page answer my question, which no editor has yet done. How is an insult hurled by an opposition spokesperson at a government minister during the course of a Dail debate encyclopaedic? Tx, PS don't reply here! Snappy56 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You questioned the sources twice in your edit summaries: "rm unreliable sources" and "rm opposition spokepersons statements - insults hurled during parliamentary debate are hardly unbiased and neutral sources". I am glad that you now agree that the sources are reliable. Your earlier assertions were confusing.
I am also glad that you are current with all WP policies - I am not, so perhaps you could point me to a few guidelines which support your argument in this particular area? Unencyclopaedic content should be expunged, but consensus about what is encyclopaedic must be reached. You have removed the material in question at least 5 times, despite 3 editors reverting your edits. While I appreciate that your motives may be sound, and that you may have a point, it would benefit everyone if you would agree to discuss the problem here rather than continuing to make unilateral decisions. This issue is not clear-cut and some discussion might not only help sort it out quickly, avoiding an edit war, but might also educate some of us on BLP and WP in general. Please revert your contentious edit and allow time for people to consider your suggestion.
I second Octanis' last remarks. GeneralBelly (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As Snappy56 is current with all WP policies, here is one that is relevant:

From WP:BLP. In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Octanis (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my remark about being current with all WP policies was obviously sarcastic or perhaps it wasn't that obvious after all! It's one anonymous editor who keeps added the Sarah Palin remarks, and this person has not bothered to a) register or b) participate in the talk page and may probably be violating WP:COAT. So, let's spell it out, one opposition TD (Leo Varadkar) compared Mary Coughlan to Sarah Palin, this is duly reported by reliable sources ( which I added unreliable sources in a previous edit summary I meant Varadkar not the newspapers which reported the remarks). How does a throwaway remark by an opposition TD about a minister become encyclopaedic? If this were the case then all remarks made by TDs about each other over the years would have to be added to the relevant articles. My two cents is that if the Sarah Palin comment became a nickname, was used by others, used by the media in general about Mary Coughlan then it would merit inclusion. This has not happened. So adding this comment in is not relevant. I'm sure in a few weeks/months time another TD will call Mary Couglan, something like the Margaret Thatcher of Irish politics (just an example), are we going to add this too? The Palin remark is just indiscriminate information and is not notable. It was said once and duly reported, that doesn't make it encyclopaedic. It was just a throwaway soundbite, which John Bowman dismissed as off topic on Q&A. Snappy56 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I strongly suspect that the ip hopping anon editor who keeps adding this is also Octanis. I've had dealings with this editor before and the modus operandi is to push pov anonymously and then when that fails they start editing as their registered name. Bertie Ahern infobox springs to mind. An anon editor kept removing the relevant and factual information as to who was President of Ireland during Aherns tenure as Taoiseach, as soon as the article was semi-protected, in pops Octanis, making the same edits as the ip hopping anon. Would you object if submitted a checkuser request, Octanis? Snappy56 (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • To attack another editor is unacceptable and to make allegations on spurious grounds is a breach of etiquette and editing principles and can lead to sanctions.

To quote a hypothetical "example" and to try to "force fit" the supposed hypothetical analogy as being relevant in this article is fatuous in the extreme. Snappy56 is abusing the editorial principles here and would appear to be acting to breach the NPOV principle and is acting in breach of WP:BLP. There is a deliberate ignoring of facts in Snappy56's edits, in breach of the WP:BLP principle, which states that if an incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article. Snappy56's position on continuous reversions of well sourced notable and relevant information seems to be in breach of the NPOV principle also. Octanis (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking another editor I am pointing out salient facts, that are relevant. Octanis' history is quite relevant, much s/he would like to deny it. The use of the word fatuous, more or less proves my point, that was a favourite word of the anon ip hopping editor who kept removing info from B. Aherns infobox and then edited the same as user Octanis. Far from being hypothetical, it is actually a fact. Deny it all you like, Octanis but checkuser will provide the answer in the end. Further more, you still haven't answer my point as to why an opposition TDs insults said about a government minister during normal exchange are now to be considered encyclopaedic? The incident in neither notable nor relevant and its removal is fully in accordance with WP:BLP. Also, you are the one in violation of WP:NPOV, because you are including (when editing as yourself and when editing anonymously as you so often do) biased material who suffers from WP:RECENTism and has no relevance in a neutral, unbiased and encyclopaedic article. Snappy56 (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who want to talk about issues that are not directly related to this article should perhaps move those discussions to their own talkpages. Getting back to Coughlan, while I agree that not every verbal shot fired by an opposition TD ought to be included here, this particular (repeated) comment was deemed important enough to be reported on by a number of national newspapers. The Tribune article was critical of Coughlan in general but saw fit to rebuke Varadkar's faux pas; Bowman did the same on Q&A. I am very much in favour of keeping the material, with some minor changes, for example:

Her performance as Tánaiste in defence of the October 2008 budget was criticised by opposition politicians and the media,[1][2] with Fine Gael's Leo Varadkar publicly comparing Coughlan to gaffe-prone Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.[3] Varadkar's comments were challenged by broadcaster John Bowman and Sunday Tribune journalist Justine McCarthy, as well as by Coughlan herself.[2][4]

This ought to be acceptable. GeneralBelly (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current version is acceptable now (Snappy56). Please ignore the idiot below who obviously has way too much time on their hands. Snappy56 (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well it isn't. So there.Snappy57 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be hearing from my solicitors. Snappy56 (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.herald.ie/national-news/outofdepth-mary-fails-to-keep-order-among-dail-mob-1501795.html Out-of-depth Mary fails to keep order among Dail mob
  2. ^ a b http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/oct/26/the-budget-bunch-tanaiste-mary-coughlan/
  3. ^ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1017/1224108325702.html Dáil hails Three Marys not so full of grace under Opposition fire
  4. ^ http://www.independent.ie/national-news/calamity-coughlan-in-war-of-words-over-palin-remark-1503279.html 'Calamity Coughlan' in war of words over Palin remark

A good source[edit]


Pointless quotations[edit]

Is there some point to the quotations? Most of them seem to be unremarkable pronouncements that anybody might make. I don't see why they are preserved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.26.14 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mary Coughlan (politician). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mary Coughlan (politician). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Coughlan (politician). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Coughlan_(politician)&oldid=1206805650"