Wikipedia

Talk:Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page

Name

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Wouldn't this be a "twenty-eighth" amendment, too, as the previous attempt at a twenty-eighth amendment didn't pass? —Nightstallion 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think you're right. For example, there is Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 1958 and Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 1968. Snappy (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually the numbering refers to the bills not the changes, so every new bill has a new number see Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland#List of failed amendments Bogger (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unless I have misunderstood, my understanding is that that only applies when they are put to the people simultaneously (i.e. the succeeding numbers are passed, and so their names are set in stone). Though I stand to be corrected. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 23:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Bill as introduced is the 28th, not the 29th. (I am in Leinster House right now and have the bill before me.) 213.94.210.30 (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Opinion polls

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are these small samples being used to suggest public opinion has changed. This is a biased article and I dispute the facts presented. The samples are too small to draw any conclusions. A ridiculous article and I would like to see fantasy seperated from fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.233.75 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've added the latest opinion poll which shows a slip in the yes support...but as the above comment points out they are small samples. I had to get a reference for the sample size of this poll as mainstream Irish news didn't give this info...

"The mainstream Irish news didn't give this info". Try front page of todays Irish Times! [1]. Try harder! Snappy (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

UKIP

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have changed this to Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD group in the European Parliament), Nigel Farage made it quite clear he was there on behalf of the EFD group, the leaflet that they sent out to homes in Ireland was also from EFD, not UKIP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.137.44 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Problem on the pie chart

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The pie chart says

  • For = 67.13%
  • Against = 32.87%
  • Spoilt = 0.40%

The total is over 100! (100.40%) The problem is that the 'spoilt' percentage is percentage of all casted votes, whereas 'For' and 'Against' are percentage of the total votes taken account (casted minus spoilt). So it doesn't really make much sense. I would suggest simply removing the spoilt percentage.

laug (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe I have solved you problem. 212.2.173.243 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reaction

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the 'Reaction' section of this article more weight is placed on the No side reaction than on the Yes side reaction. However the Yes side won the elecion by a margin of over 2:1. It was represented by more groups than discussed in the article. Surely reaction from the civic groups should be included. The reactions of trade unions such as SIPTU, ICTI, IBEC and the IFA, the community groups, and some of the leading economists' reactions should be included. As seen as the more controversial parties such as UKIP are included on the No side perhaps Ryanair and Michael O'Leary should be included on the Yes side. I tried editing the article by adding quotes from the IFA and IBEC that stated their respective reactions to beef up the Yes side reactions from the Irish Times but I don't know how to make references. Perhaps someone would be as kind to inform me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdave84 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ambiguous

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article says passing the amendment 'enables' ratification of the treaty of Lisbon. This implies the action is not yet taken, but is now possible. Is that right, or has the amendment, in fact, ratified the Treay, and the word 'enable' is the wrong one? 173.13.153.50 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article is correct. In fact the amendment has yet to come into force as the President has yet to sign. The earliest she can do this is tomorrow week. After that there a parliamentary procedure to go through. Once this is done, actual ratification will take place in Rome when the Irish ambassador lodges the ratification instrument with the Italian foreign ministry. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The turnout figure

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Page eight of today's Irish Times explains that the official electorate figures are out of date and does not take two supplementary registers into account. Under the paper's figures the total electorate is 1,816,098 making the turnout 58%. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is REALLY annoying. I first put in most of the figures using the IT as a source. Then I noticed that they differed from the official result at referendum.ie, so I changed the results table to use the official figures. Now it seems that the IT is correct and that the official figures are wrong! I give up! The official electorate is given as 3,078,032, while the IT says it is 3,132,475. (BHL, the figure of 1,816,098 which you mention is the total valid poll which both agree on. Snappy (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Name of article

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Shouldn't this article be moved to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. I don't see why there should be 2 separate articles, one for the Act (including Referendum campaign) and one for the Amendment. They should be merged to be like Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, with 1 article for the background, bill, referendum campaign, result and amendment. Snappy (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Act, 2009 → Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland —This change would bring the article into line with the 20+ other articles on amendments of the Irish constitution. (If you look at "Category: Amendments of the Constitution of Ireland" you'll see what I mean.) --Iota (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

Referring to the treaty in the intro

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It's a totally pedantic point so I don't know why I'm bothering with it, but I think the most elegant and commonly used phrasing is ""the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union" (if referring to the EU as part of the overall name). I'm obviously not the only one who thinks this, because compare these Google results:

The difference is pretty startling.

But by all means lets call it the Treaty of Lisbon when we're not including the "of the European Union" bit. -Iota (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, your inclusion of - "of the European Union" has skewed the ghits, more accurately it is:
  • Treaty of Lisbon - 3,280,000
  • Lisbon Treaty - 3,310,000
So Lisbon Treaty gets slightly more, but its roughly the same. The reason I changed it was so that the first reference to it would be the official name, but its fine like it is now. Snappy (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Apologies again for being such a pedant. Iota (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See WP:EXTLINK.

I've removed general Lisbon Treaty websites, which are only relevant to Treaty of Lisbon, not this article.

I've removed all the political party and campaign group websites. Most had linkrotted away, and the random selection that remains would give an unbalanced view of what once was. It might be work checking the Wayback Machine to see if any of the sites was comprehensively archived as at October 2009; but I'm not optimistic enough to put in the effort myself. jnestorius(talk) 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

These were not linkrotted

edit
Political party campaigns
Other group campaigns

These were linkrotted

edit

Meaning either the website or the relevant page is gone altogether has been updated (e.g. to focus on the 2012 Treaty) and is no longer relevant to this particular article.

Political party campaigns

Groups

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Twenty-eighth 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: 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) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-eighth 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: 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) 00:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland&oldid=1208264775"