Talk:Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JTorre23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro- and anti-referendum organisations[edit]

Question - would the "Organisations" section be better off as it is now (chronological, as far as possible), or subdivided into pro- and anti-referendum subsections? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer Pro and Anti, like Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pro, Anti, and Neutral (e.g. Church of Ireland). It needs other rework in any case; it reads like a news-agency timeline now. Similar boilerplate quotes from different organisations make one's eyes glaze over; and does it really matter which group's statement was on 3 May and which on 4 May? Maybe
  • one section with simple lists of pro/anti/neutral groups (possibly more background info where there are internal divisions within a group)
  • a separate arguments section for the points made (whether by a group spokesperson/press-release or an individual noteworthy commentator: journalist/academic/politician).
  • I'm not sure where meta-debate belongs (e.g. criticising foreign funding of the Other Side, or objections to uniformed Garda at photocall). Maybe that does belong in a news-style chronology of the campaign itself.
jnestorius(talk) 13:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological format definitely needs to go. As for meta-debate, I think it needs to be reined in a bit. The Garda-incident belongs because it was widely reported, same goes for the GRA incident (the latter have been countered as being perfectly entitled to endorse a position as it is essentially a union). But just repeating what a partial columnist (Breda O'Brien) wrote in a column, I feel, does not belong. If it were news, if it were genuinely important, after she "broke" the story, it would have been picked up by other outlets. Which it hasn't. She is partial, she is making a one-sided case for her side, which is obviously understandable. But I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to be reprinting it. I'll admit I am not impartial either, but I wouldn't think it appropriate to directly reprint any claims taken directly from Yes Equality's website either. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "the Garda incident", you mean where the Garda member was photographed at a Yes side voter registration event? Maybe - though I've seen the No side run at least one voter registration event that also had Gardaí present. Agreed on Breda O'Brien's piece, and I've removed it (that particular piece was a bit rich, considering Iona refused to register with SIPO and also get U.S. donations!) - the alternative would be to include a line or two on every column she, David Quinn and John Waters write, and Fintan O'Toole, Una Mulally et al from the other side. Fairer and more NPOV to leave both out. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsements like the eBay one also don't need whole quotes and explanations dedicated to them. I think something modelled after the table in the UK's AV vote with "Minor parties" replaced by "Businesses and unions" or something like that, would make for far easier reading. - Estoy Aquí (talk)
Yes, that looks workable (though I hate working with WP tables!) - will try to knock it into shape later if someone doesn't beat me to it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absorb First Families First[edit]

I can't see any reason for this to exist as a separate article except as a vanity to the group itself. The group has all of three members, set up for one purpose (to oppose the 34th Amendment) and, unless it is subsequently demonstrated to the contrary, can be presumed to cease to exist after the referendum campaign. It is therefore not notable independent of the campaign itself. None of the following groups should have their own article:

  • Yes Equality
  • StandUp4Marriage
  • Business for Yes Equality
  • First Families First
  • Mothers and Fathers Matter (it's not notable independent of this and the CFRA, but because its therefore split between two, I can't see where you'd merge it to, so I'm not proposing its merging for the time being)
  • The myriad of other opposition groups (I'm not actually targeting those opposed to referendum, there just seems to be so many more of them)

None of them is notable independent of this referendum, and none of them is engaged in any activity requiring such detail as to merit its own article. -Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - though there aren't that many opposed to the referendum outside some religions, I think? The FFF' article is pretty much just three sentences (I don't understand the last sentence). The format change proposed above should take care of things, anyway. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's mostly been Catholic church and well known conservative catholic figures. See [1] for a usable source: "The no campaign, consisting mainly of lay Catholic intellectuals, writers and activists", It's misleading that we have them under "other organisations" when they really are religiously motivated. This spider web shows the connection between various Catholic activists and various organisations: [2]. Second Quantization (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ruy costa deleted the merge proposal without discussion. I've re-added it. 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Been nine days, with no objection (except a unilateral deletion of the merge proposal). I'm going to be proactive and call redirect. I couldn't find any info in that article that isn't already here that belongs on Wikipedia. But the history is still there if anyone finds anything necessary. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calc[edit]

What's the issue with the calc here? [3] It seems a pretty straightforward thing, Second Quantization (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the calculations are correct (as in, the numbers added to the "excluding Other" ratios are correct), I don't think it's valid to do the calculation in the first place. There is an issue of WP:OR, and there is no WP:RS - where we have a source from the polling organisation, the "excluding Other" figure has been included. I'm not sure it can be included where the organisation didn't publish that figure. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I think we can all see it's a basic calc under WP:CALC. It's not like we are saying anything different that someone couldn't calc themselves, but filling in the numbers seems to provide some basic completeness to the tables. Second Quantization (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the look of completeness :-) If you think it's valid, feel free to re-add - WP:BRD has moved me from a 'No' to an 'Undecided' ;-) Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've reinstated it, Second Quantization (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iona Institute[edit]

Knowing next to nothing about Irish politics I read in the article that "The referendum is also opposed by the Iona Institute, a right-wing Catholic pressure group, who have been criticised for failure to register with the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), as required by law." This is pretty clear: I now know that Iona Institute is unequivocally bad -- they are, after all, right wing, a pressure group, they've been criticised because they failed to register, and they generally flout the law. Could we maybe be a little less helpful in telling people what to think? --Malatinszky (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a self-selecting group of some few individuals can - through immense and disproportionate media influence - become synonymous with the No campaign, lobby constantly on the issue, and refuse to comply with the law governing said lobbying, such that it's actually discussed in our parliament, I'd actually consider that to be worthy of mention here. YMMV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an accurate summary except that they are generally described as conservative which is a better description than the more generic right wing. Further, that's a much politer summary than the average Irish person would give (which would be more like " a shower of bastards"), Second Quantization (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that (1) Iona is not Catholic (20% of its patrons are Anglican) and (2) it did register with SIPO. jnestorius(talk) 17:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of reliable sources all regard it as a Catholic organisation. Your original research is irrelevant. Their filing with SIPO was much later and after insisting they didn't have to, Second Quantization (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland[edit]

Why is Northern Ireland on the map (in grey)? It is not part of the Republic of Ireland, lads. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's grey. The same map design is used across pages and consistency is desirable. It's a pretty standard design. See for example, the Irish Times. --Tóraí (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the Irish Times does isn't a good reason. Also referendum.ie removes Northern Ireland as well. What other sites do isn't necessarily relevant, but if it is, referendum.ie is surely more authoritative. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in other words, it's on the map because it's part of the same landmass. Seems pretty sensible to me. --Thnidu (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not a great reason. It's not very clear to a casual reader what the grey part is and why it's grey. Even within the same sovereign entity of the US Washington_Referendum_74 (for example) cuts out surrounding states. Other maps on votes do not typically show surrounding areas, even when they are geographically contiguous. I cut out NI in the gradient map, although that was out of necessity mostly, as I needed the space to but the enlarged Dublin area. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Division[edit]

In the section on Debate, there is a clause

it was passed without a division

I have lived in the United States all my life. I have seen this term before in discussions of procedures in parliamentary forms of government, but I have never understood it. The DAB page for Division, § Society, includes

which does not help a foreigner resolve what is presumably perfectly clear to a resident of a country with this form of government. Would someone who knows what's going on there please be so kind as to wikilink this word to the appropriate article? And maybe also to add these definitions to Wiktionary, which lacks them? --Thnidu (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just misreading Division of the assembly, which doesn't mean "to undertake a different voting method than the default" - it simply means to take a vote (with everyone voting simultaneously). Historically in some parliaments (including Ireland's), those voting used to physically "divide" into different rooms where their numbers would be counted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: Thanks for pinning the Division link down to § Ireland. I've also edited the first sentences of that section and the Division lead to make it more immediately evident that it's a count, and added a "translation" to the mention here:
it was passed without a division (i.e., by voice vote).
[Egad, yourself! ;-) ] --Thnidu (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

This is a very long and complex name for the article. Per WP:COMMONNAME would something such as Irish marriage equality referendum , 2015 be better? AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Besides the objections below, "2015" in that case is superfluous as there is no ambiguity to resolve by adding the year. The current title only has 2015 because that was part of the bill. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The name should be changed to Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. All other enacted amendments to the Irish Constitution are named in this form. See Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland as examples. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems overly long, failing WP:COMMONNAME and not in accordance with other referendum articles worldwide. AusLondonder (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The Irish amendments are named in this form. There is no reason to make an exception in this case. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is important, but for me, the referendum was only part of the Amendment process, i.e. since the article deals with the amendment itself, and the vote on it, it is therefore about the amendment, because in a hierarchical structure that can encompass the two. Whereas the concept of the referendum does not encompass the amendment. The article is about the change of the constitution effected by that referendum, not just the referendum. For that reason I think Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland is more appropriate, but only once the bill is actually signed into law, at the end of the challenge period. It is unlikely the result will be challenged as most of the No side appeared to accept the result, but it is still a possibility. And that would delay the amendment for up to/over two years if it happened. So if renaming to that, wait till next week. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to determine whether a given noun phrase label counts a name rather than a mere description, or whether WP:COMMONNAME gives names priority over descriptions. As others say, the article is about more than just the referendum; FWIW, the most common label for the referendum by various Irish media and official bodies appears to be as follows:
jnestorius(talk) 12:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The media always does that. That applies to virtually every referendum. Now, I'm not necessarily opposing such a move (it would certainly make it easier to find articles since you wouldn't have to know what number they were) but if you move this to Marriage Equality amendment or something like that, you'll have to move almost every other amendment. Except maybe the 8th. Referring to that by its number is quite popular. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The media always does that". -- not sure what you mean by "that". If not-needing-to-know-the-number is a concern, that can be accomplished as easily by a redirect as by a move. jnestorius(talk) 17:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The media always refers to the referendums by what they're about. Not needing to know the number to find the article was not a concern, I thought my phrasing suggested it was a positive. I meant, all amendments are referred to by the media as something other than "xth Amendment". Up till now, however, they have still always been title that way. Changing one will necessitate changing them all. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another point, should the article about the proposed law and the actual referendum and results and reactions be separate? AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is so much information included that the article becomes too long, or that the section on the referendum get undue weight within the overall article, then a separate child article on the referendum can be refactored out and summarised in the parent article on the bill. I don't think that is the case at the moment. jnestorius(talk) 12:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland once the thing is signed next week, in keeping with all other Irish constitutional amendment articles. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos[edit]

Kudos to all those that worked on this article. Great job! That's what Wikipedia is all about! (Way to go Ireland!)

Reactions section[edit]

The section currently seems unsatisfactory. It has one line about the reaction of a supporter (Katherine Zappone), and 3 paragraphs quoting various disappointed Churchmen. And so far that's all. No mention of the reaction of prominent Yes people like Enda Kenny. No mention so far of any international dimension - that the result has been publicly praised by Ban Ki Moon, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, etc, has led to calls for a similar referendum in Northern Ireland, and caused Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to reject calls for a similar Referendum in Australia as its constitution says the Federal Parliament regulates marriage, and so on. In times past I'd probably have a go at fixing this myself, but I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia and have no wish to risk spending vast amounts of time arguing over who should and should not be included, but perhaps some people, who are not yet as disillusioned with the process of editing Wikipedia as I am, might care to have a go. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps add that the lack of reporting of international reactions in the section seems especially unsatisfactory, given that the article is currently one of those featured 'In The News' on Wikipedia's Main Page, and thus seems liable to attract a fair number of international readers. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, Tlhslobus, we've been a bit busy since Saturday :-D BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everybody.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better. Thanks everyone who edited. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church and the Irish flag[edit]

I do not think the Westboro Baptist Church's reaction should be included in this article at all, but setting that aside for the moment, I object strongly to the inclusion of the comment about the flag. I do not see how it is relevant to the article, but more importantly, as a negative statement about living people, it must be well sourced, per WP:BLP. Of the two sources currently used to support the comment, the first does not state that the WBC used the Ivory Coast flag—it just quotes someone on Twitter who asserts this, seemingly with the intention of mocking the WBC. It does say that the WBC "seem confused about the order and orientation of the colours on the Irish flag"—but it is obvious that they simply rotated the flag 90 degrees for the sake of making a better poster. The second source does state that "this guy just can't figure out which way is up", but its comment about the Ivory Coast flag is evidently a joke, and is certainly not stated as fact. Neither source supports the strong statement currently in the article that "they managed to mistake the Flag of Ivory Coast for that of Ireland." Moreover, in the description of this vine, the WBC says, "You flip a flag upside down to show a nation is in distress", suggesting that the reversal of the Irish flag on the poster in that video may well be intentional. (See also this image, where they are holding the American flag upside-down.) For these reasons, as well as the fact that I do not see any purpose of the inclusion of the flag information other than to ridicule the WBC, I removed the statement, but I was reverted by User:Bastun.

I would appreciate other editors' opinions on this issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. We don't include the opinions of random wingnuts, but equally we don't need Wikipedia to expose the idiocy of idiots. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you know what? Leave it in. Whilst the WBC are obviously idiots, why not include a reliable source proving it? Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the sources don't adequately support this statement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll give you that. Footage of stupid people not being able to work out which way round a flag goes is probably not a reliable source. Making that kid hold that sign probably counts as child abuse, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tlhslobus: Thanks for your edit—it's an improvement, but I think it still gives too much weight to a statement that is evidently supposed to be a joke ("Or they're just getting us confused with the Ivory Coast."). Why do we need to include the comment about the flag at all? —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether we include it or not, and I'm happy to leave that debate to others. But if we do include it, it needs to include something like the kind of qualifications that I've just added - whether it's worth including is a subjective judgment call, but it's just plain wrong to present it as 'fact' rather than as 'report'. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction of the Westboro Baptist Church should be included, in my opinion, as it attracted significant media attention in Ireland. I've no strong objection to removing the part about the flag. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WBC coverage in international response is a joke. Do you think in 40 years when people look back at this WBC will even be remotely relevant to the response? No, clearly you don't and no one else does. It's covered because it's
1. amusing
2. they are American and wikipedians love giving excess focus to americans.
3. newspapers cover silly stories and silly reactions all the times.
Considering the massive amounts of coverage the referendum has received in all aspects, there is no way this joke has due weight. Second Quantization (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—the WBC's viewpoint is not significant enough to merit listing alongside all the major politicians quoted in that section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WBC are master self-publicists, must we give them more of it? Snappy (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions too Western? Too few newspapers? Mention/link to other Marriage Equality Referenda[edit]

  • 1) We have some policy or guideline somewhere instructing us to try to make Wikipedia less Western. We currently have nothing describing the reactions of such important countries as China (most populous country), India (most populous democracy, and I've seen at least one Indian article calling for change in India, though I didn't look closely at it), Indonesia (most populous Muslim country), Brazil (most populous country in Latin America), Nigeria (most poulous country in Africa), Russia (most populous country in Europe, and the focus of much ongoing criticism for its treatment of gays, including claims by, I think, David Norris, that our Yes might give hope to Russain gays); and perhaps Uganda (a small country in Africa, but also the focus of much ongoing criticism for its treatment of gays), Japan (most populous Buddhist country, etc...), and maybe a few others.
  • 2) Part of the problem may be that 'newspaper editorials' are allegedly not notable (my reference to the New York Times reaction was deleted on those grounds, even though The Irish Times clearly thought it was notable). I have been unable to find any rule supporting this claim of non-notability, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, and in any case I desperately want to avoid getting involved in a lengthy argument. But because of other US reactions, the omission of the NYT is trivial compared to the omission of, for instance, any Indian newspaper and thus of any Indian reaction.
  • 3) As for important places that ignore the news, or just report it without comment (as Russia Today and Al Jazzeera have seemingly done, representing Russia and arguably the Arab and/or Muslim reaction), IMHO we should also be able to mention this, provided we have a reliable source to back it up. If instead we just say nothing, a reader has no way of knowing whether this is because there was no reaction or because no Wikipedia editor chose to look for the reaction.
  • 4) Incidentally this 'newspaper editorials are not notable' claim may help explain why the article has only one reference to the paedophile priests scandal (and would have none if a Cardinal had kept quiet) despite it being mentioned in almost every foreign article trying to explain the result to its readers, so that.'newspaper editorials are not notable', even if backed by some as yet undiscovered rule somewhere, would seem to be in practice a likely violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IAR, at least in the current case.
    • 4b) Much the same may also apply to our failure to report that the Pope has spoken publicly since the result was declared but said nothing about it, despite several reliable sources deeming this worthy of mention.
    • 4c) We also have no mention of (nor link to articles about) earlier referenda in, I think, Slovenia, Croatia, and Slovakia, that were rejected but where the debate arguably helped the Parliaments of 1 or 2 of these countries later introduce Civil Partnerships (something still not granted in Italy, let alone most of Eastrn Europe) - this is mentioned in some French opinion piece (though it may well not qualify as a Reliable Source).
  • 5) However I'm somewhat reluctant to be the first to go down that route without getting some feedback here first (and please don't mention WP:BOLD's encouragement to be bold - as far as I'm concerned Wikipedia is not compulsory, and if others want to be bold that's their right but I've had far too much hassle with WP:BRD in the past to have any wish to risk repeating the experience). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thingy that can count as "comment" from China was the fact that they were even willing to report it on the evening news. You won't get an official comment from anyone of importance. (the 3 no's: No approval, no disapproval, no mention) - 114.80.87.186 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think our readers are arguably entitled to be told this provided it is said by a reliable source (do you have one, by any chance?). It is less entertaining but perhaps a billion times more important than whether the WBC knew it had the Irish flag wrong. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
晚间新闻 of 24th. http://tv.cntv.cn/video/C10420/cd1fe18c00944edfb6e54de0ba6f9376 . Begins at 22:03. No editioralising though, except noting that abortion and divorce are both taboo topics (that's what it says). No national news will report on their being able to report it being noteworthy. That would break the third No. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that in itself seems noteworthy, including their clear error regarding divorce (and their possible error regarding abortion, which is banned but not 'taboo', in the sense that it has been debated ad nauseam in, among other debates, 5 referendums, 3 of them on the same day, plus another change in the finer points of the law about a year ago that lead to the creation of Renua, an ultra-conservative breakaway from the ruling Fine Gael party - though 'taboo' is your word and perhaps misrepresents their actual words). An RS free from the third No could be a non-Chinese news outlet (perhaps Irish, British, or US) reporting China's reaction, just as they have reported on the reactions of the Vatican, Italy, etc. Or we can have your source for what they said, plus a second sentence from another RS briefly explaining the effect of the 3 Nos in general rather than just for this case. Maybe I'll do some googling on that myself. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be hard to find. Most western (or any media) don't seem to have noticed the (very slight) loosening of restrictions regarding homosexuality in recent years at CCTV. It was unsurprisingly absent from Xinwen Lianbo which kind of says something as well (result was already long official for XWLB of 24th, yet it didn't get reported until the nightly news, presumably because that's not as politically sensitive). It's almost certain that on the 24th, it was approved by the panel that has to approve stories, but just not for Xinwen Lianbo, even though it might have been sufficiently noteworthy to appear on XWLB. If it appeared on Xinwen Lianbo, that probably would've been noticed by foreign media in China. Making the evening news is more liberal than a few years ago, but it was a gradual process, so its very possible no media no media will have commented on it. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, Estoy Aquí. But at this late stage I presume the referendum is no longer on our 'In The News' section (or will shortly cease to be - I haven't bothered checking), so it's probably something like 90 to 99% less useful to be putting effort into improving this part of the article, so I've largely gone back into 'semi-retirement'. I may eventually put a bit more work into it at some unknown future date, but I rather doubt it. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " I have been unable to find any rule supporting this claim of non-notability". You wouldn't be able to, because notability is the criteria for the existence of articles (see WP:GNG). It's not a criteria for inclusion in articles. The inclusion criteria for adding content in to this article is all about weight. It's a common mistake for people to mix the terms up, Second Quantization (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Second Quantization. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary results table[edit]

Does anyone else find the last two rows of this table to be illogical?

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
Choice Votes %
Referendum passed Yes 1,201,607 62.07
No 734,300 37.93
Valid votes 1,935,907 99.29
Invalid or blank votes 13,818 0.71
Total votes 1,949,725 100.00
Registered voters/turnout 3,221,681 60.52%

The total electorate is paired with the turnout percentage, while the number of votes cast is marked at 100% (of itself). Shouldn't the two percentages be swapped? - Estoy Aquí (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "100%" next to Total Vote is superfluous and should probably be removed, but that's the way the template is built, and it's widely used. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Must vs May[edit]

@Jnestorius: IMHO, the amendment is permissive ("may"), not directive ("shall"). This means that the lead should read "may" (or enables or permits) and should not say "requires". So while you would expect enabling legislation over time to give effect to the vote, it was not constitutionally necessary. By passing, any legislation in force at that time that forbade such marriage, would, if challenged, have been struck down as being repugnant to the constitution now in force. In other words, it was already law by being accepted into the constitution. So while enabling legislation would have been nice, it was not, strictly speaking, necessary; the right already existed in virtue of the passing of the amendment. Was it illegal for two same-sex people to marry in the interval between the passing of the amendment and the enactment of the Marriage Act? IMHO, no. Such a case would have failed. So there is no "must", only a "may". Nothing in the Minister's speech says otherwise. See Law Society paper here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend "requiring provision for same-sex marriage" to mean "requiring the Oireachtas to pass enabling legislation for same-sex marriage", but rather something like "prohibiting prohibition of same-sex marriage". Some rewording may help ensure the correct interpretation, but I don't see where "may" comes in: can you suggest a complete sentence? jnestorius(talk) 03:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: What about: "....that permits marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex." ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, to Laurel Lodged's suggestion, that's just repeating the actual wording of the amendment. I agree with Jnestorius' suggestion but the phrase "prohibiting prohibition" is clunky to say the least. It would be more accurate to say the passing of the amendment repealed the constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage. This is like the divorce (15th) amendment. Snappy (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One repeals legislation; one does not repeal constitutional provisions. What proposal of Jnestorius are you supporting? I wasn't aware that he proposed one. What's wrong with repeating the wording? To do anything else is to introduce OR. Keep it simple. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does one? Use the word remove then. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which removed the constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage." Simple, factual and no OR. Snappy (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and added in my wording because it simple, factual and has no OR. There was a constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage and now it has been removed. Simples! Snappy (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the typos in the last signing, I don't know whether to be insulted over my wittering or my withering comments. Either way, it goes to show that post-2300 hrs editing after the first bottle of Blue Nun is always a bad idea. G'night. 23:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The referendum inserted "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex." So, "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which extended the availability of marriage to same-sex couples, removing a prior implied prohibition." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Laurel Lodged: I think any intro that does not include and wikilink the phrase same-sex marriage is deficient. Your wording is likely to make an uninformed reader think, "is this about same-sex marriage? why is this so awkwardly phrased?"
  • @Snappy: There are three possible things the Constitution could say:
    1. Same sex marriage must not be allowed
    2. Same sex marriage must be allowed
    3. The Oireachtas can decide whether or not it is allowed".
To say the amendment "removed the constitutional prohibition" is an incomplete summary, as it is compatible with changing from #1 to #3, whereas the actual change was from #1 to #2. jnestorius(talk) 23:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: What changes to the summary are you suggesting to make it complete? Snappy (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bit longwinded but how about "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which requires same-sex marriage in Ireland to be legal, replacing an earlier implicit prohibition." jnestorius(talk) 10:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a very interesting edit by @Jnestorius: on the 15th Amendment. He wrote: "Although this act, the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, specified its own commencement date as 27 February 1997, the first divorce was granted on 17 January 1997, based solely on the constitutional amendment.". This supports my position above, namely that the amendment itself became law the moment that the President signed the bill to enact it. That is, no further legislation was required to "support" it; the amendment itself is the law. This removes any necessity to pad out the lead by inserting words like "must" or "requires" into the lead. Leave the lead to the bare minimum. Avoid inserting stuff that may not be there. Do not be tempted to stray into OR - it's dangerous and simply not necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for you to prove something which nobody has denied. Nobody is saying the amendment compels the Oireachtas to act. If you interpret any proposed wording as saying that, then I think you are misinterpreting, and the correct interpretation contains no OR. jnestorius(talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the vote below is necessary is because one editor, Snappy, takes the opposite view (i.e. that there is a legislative imperative). That's why he has advocated no. 3 below. When I point out the opposite to him, he accuses me of "amateur lawyer". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? You're the one coming up with this total OR and personal opinion - "This supports my position above, namely that the amendment itself became law the moment that the President signed the bill to enact it. That is, no further legislation was required to "support" it; the amendment itself is the law." Can you back any of this up with a reference from a legal text? How can the amendment itself became law? If that were true, then why did the govt pass the Marriage Act? Snappy (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So there you have it jnestorius - a denier. I'd give a short lecture on constitutional law but I'd be accused of being an amateur lawyer. Anybody got a copy of Kelly to hand? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you might answer my questions, or give a reference for you assertions? Snappy (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snappy is incorrect, but I think we're getting sidetracked, since none of the candidate wordings presupposes Snappy's erroneous view. The amendment act is a law; the constitution is a law; the marriage act is a law. Three different laws. Which is "the" law depends on what your focus is. I am not sure how one can dispute "the amendment itself became law the moment that the President signed the bill to enact it" unless one misunderstands "became law". There is no constitutional obligation on the Oireachtas to pass statute laws to implement any provisions of the Constitution. In the case of, say, unenumerated rights, it's hard to see how the Oireachtas could even attempt to do so. The requirement for the Marriage Act 2015 was a political requirement, not a legal one; without it, same-sex couples would have to go to the High Court to have the previous excluding laws and regulations annulled as unconstitutional, which would annoy the couples and the judges. It's dreadfully inconvenient to rely on the broad strokes of the Constitution, but the Oireachtas may choose to do nothing if it feels doing anything would be more damaging politically; hence the 10-year delay on blasphemy and the 20-year delay on the X Case. jnestorius(talk) 11:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above interpretation of constitutional law. That's why I want to exclude "requires" from the lead. As Jnestorius points out, it was only a political requirement, not a legal one. This article is almost exclusively concerned with the legal aspect. There are other articles to cater for the surrounding political stuff. This is not it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The constitution requires SSM to be legal. It does not require an act of the Oireachtas to enforce the legality; it prohibits any law from making SSM illegal. It is a legal requirement. That is why I want to include "requires" or a synonym. jnestorius(talk) 13:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jnestorius, for your respsonse. I have updated my !vote below as a result. Snappy (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on lead wording: must vs may[edit]

I've laid out the leading candidates below. I'll wait a day for further additions. Voting can then commence. @Jnestorius: @Snappy: @Bastun:

  1. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which removed the constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage in Ireland."
  2. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that permits marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex."
  3. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which requires same-sex marriage in Ireland to be legal, replacing an earlier implicit prohibition."
  4. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that permits marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex. Prior to the enactment, the Constitution was assumed to contain an implicit prohibition on same-sex marriage." Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— 3, 4, 1 1st preference is Option 1, 2nd preference is Option 3 Snappy (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— 3, 4, 2, 1 jnestorius(talk) 11:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— 4, 2 Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— 4, 2, 1 in order of preference. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— 4, 2, 1, 3 in order of preference. Only option #3 I find to be unnecessarily wordy. Jono52795 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to jump in with a new proposal after your polling was already underway, but Iridescent (talk · contribs) asked me to see if I could help here. The above alternatives are all about equally good to me, but given the unusually short length of the amendment itself, why not this?: "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides that in Ireland, '[m]arriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.' It superseded a prior constitutional provision that allowed marriage only between persons of the opposite sex." Perhaps this will help? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote 2[edit]

  1. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which removed the constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage in Ireland."
  2. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that permits marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex."
  3. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which requires same-sex marriage in Ireland to be legal, replacing an earlier implicit prohibition."
  4. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that permits marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex. Prior to the enactment, the Constitution was assumed to contain an implicit prohibition on same-sex marriage."
  5. "The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides that in Ireland, '[m]arriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.' It superseded a prior constitutional provision that allowed marriage only between persons of the opposite sex."

Pinging @Jnestorius: @Snappy: @Bastun: @Newyorkbrad: and @Jono52795: and thanking the latter two for their input. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2, 3, or 4 are all good with me, in any order. Being pedantic, there was no explicit prior prohibition (see paragraph 2 of the Background section, for example), so 1 and 5 are technically incorrect. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2, 3, 4 in this order. Options 1 and 5 are bad, because there was no explicit prohibition. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3,4,2,1,5 jnestorius(talk) 11:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3,4,2,1,5. Snappy (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4,2,5 Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4,2,3 although I'd prefer "thought" instead of "assumed" in options 4. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tally We're tied on first preferences, second preferences and third preferences. Need to cast the net wider. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't. 1 and 5 are materially wrong. 2, 3, and 4 all say the same thing, just in different ways or with more detail. Any of them are good. Personally, I think the phrasing of 3 is a bit odd, at least when read in isolation and not also reading the current footnote. I'm therefore going to change the lead to #4 (with no objection if someone wants to change it to 2 or 3). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of 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: 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) 12:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of 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: 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) 11:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thirty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland&oldid=1210705800"