Talk:2015 Irish constitutional referendums

Voter Numbers

Posting this before a revert war starts. 62.07% of the 60.52% (registered) voters that voted in the referendum chose Yes. For the article to claim that 62.07% of voters said yes is a blatant falsehood. I've corrected the claim to correctly reflect the proportion of voters that actually voted in favour of the amendment however it's been claimed that mathematical accuracy constitutes weasel wording. 118.208.12.53 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't want to start a revert war, don't try and reinstate your edit after it's been reverted (read WP:BRD). The sentence "The proposal was supported by the Government as well as all major political parties, and was approved by 37.56% of registered voters." is pretty obvious weaseling from someone who wasn't happy with the outcome. Number 57 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I shall be endeavour to be clearer since you're having trouble with English. Claiming 62.07% of voters said yes is a lie. Roughly 40% of voters didn't vote. Together that's 102% of voters, and doesn't count those opposed. I'll wait a while to see if you contest the maths or can suggest alternative phrasing. Failing a logical solution I'll revert to the mathematically valid claim. As it stands the article isn't merely "weaseling" it's out and out dishonest! WP:Don't_lie 118.208.12.53 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for the insults. 62% of people who voted (i.e. voters) said yes, and this is a standard way of describing the results of a vote; for instance RTE state "62% of voters voted Yes". Number 57 12:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Voter: a citizen who has a legal right to vote. 37.56% of citizens who had a legal right to vote voted yes. The current claim is that 62% of citizens with the right to vote voted yes. This is blatantly untrue hence this attempted correction. 118.208.12.53 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's quite clear that the context is it's the percentage of actual voter. Or are you saying RTE is an unreliable source? Number 57 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The table makes clear the 62% is a subset of voters, the sentence itself however does not. I'm not familiar with RTE so whether there's bias or shoddy journalism involved I really can't say. What I can say is that their article is disingenuous. It ignores all those who abstained. The majority of those who voted supported yes, this was however a definite minority. Claiming a majority of voters supported the yes position is contrary to the facts, though the contextless reinterpretation is fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.12.53 (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

All referendum and election results on Wikipedia are based on the percentage of voters, i.e those who went to the polls. The turnout of those registered to vote is also recorded. Therefore on Wikipedia, we say that on a 60% turnout, 62% voted yes. Your approach is novel, but has no support on Wikipedia. If you want to change this, please register and open a Request for Change discussion. If a majority of editors agree with you, then Wikipedia policy may change. If this does not happen, please abide by the current guidelines and consensus here. Tx, Snappy (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally a clear explanation! Even if I disagree with it :-) The problem is obviously the use of the term voter. Wikipedia is using it in the sense of those who have voted whereas the dictionary defines it as one who can or has voted. The ambiguity of the English term means the current version of the text implies an absolute majority whereas the largest group of voters was actually those who did not vote on the day meaning the Yes vote was a definite minority position, though still greater than the No vote. I doubt I'll have any luck with a clarification request but I guess I can look into that Request for Change discussion option. I'll also test one slight phrasing tweak, see if that stands or see if folk demand voters is the term used. 118.208.142.101 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with Wikipedia policies and guideline but I have reverted your change as there is no consensus for that wording. For example look at the Scottish Independence referendum article, the wording is: "The independence referendum question, which voters answered with "Yes" or "No", was "Should Scotland be an independent country?" The "No" side won, with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. The turnout of 84.6% was the highest recorded for an election". Wikipedia does not use "those who voted" wording as that is implied. If you are arguing that Non votes are No votes, then the President of the High Court rejected such an argument yesterday in the referendum challenges. Frankly, I don't see why this you want to change what is a worldwide standard of reporting election and referendum results. AFAIK, I think the Constitution of Ireland says a third of registered voters must vote for a valid poll, this was comfortably exceeded. Snappy (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Then clearly voter has different usage in different regions\cultures. Akin to how the term fag means cigarette in some places but in Britain it refers to a young schoolboy who does flunky work. I checked a variety of referendum and election pages, aside from references to voter turnout the term voter wasn't really used. Another country did use the term voter in a referendum on whether to change the voting system. I had to scroll to the end of the article to see any reference about turnout. Again it was very misleading. 118.208.142.101 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest you didn't look very far. I took Category:1990 referendums as an example, and found numerous examples of voters being used. Number 57 12:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked at several recent NZ\AU ones. Enough to be suggestive without being exhaustive. 118.208.168.115 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish constitutional referendums, 2015. 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/20150729084643/http://www.referendum.ie/results.php?ref=11 to http://referendum.ie/results.php?ref=11

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) 21:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish constitutional referendums, 2015. 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/20150809115721/http://www.referendum.ie/results.php?ref=10 to http://referendum.ie/results.php?ref=10

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) 11:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Niall O'Loughlin - vote yes on marriage equality street art - Dublin, Ireland.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)