Talk:Bertie Ahern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Bertie Ahern is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 9 September 2006

This website says he was educated at University College, Dublin. Atorpen 23:30 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC) That page is gone, but this page says both[1]. Niteowlneils 05:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bertie was not educated in/by UCD- attending a few lectures there given by other bodies would be the extent of it. Nor is he a qualified (Chartered,Certified etc) Accountant [unsigned]

The anonymous contributor is correct. Bertie was not educated at UCD. He just attended a few lectures there. (Following his standard, I have visited the Tower of London so obviously I am King of England!). The lies were finally exposed in Ireland some time ago and his website withdrew them, saying it was all a misunderstanding! Yes indeed. Whoever wrote it misunderstood what the truth is! FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)}

Don't know about the UCD claim, but I remember the same question arising with respect to the LSE. It is pretty peculiar to state in someone's biography that they "claim to have been educated at ....". It would be better to remove the "claim" until someone can confirm it is true. There are a number of sources which suggest it is not true, eg. [2] [unsigned]

I think Bertie Ahern was actually born in Cork and family subsequently moved to Dublin. He is therefore a Corkonian.--Ewanduffy 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Info box pic! 2 Quotes 3 Bertie and the drink 4 Photo 5 Bertie is a nice guy 6 Berties Oratory skills 7 Ever so slightly worried query 8 Ahern, Bertie 9 Failed GA 10 Trivia section is totally POV 11 Split article? 12 Quotes in the Trivia Section

[edit] Info box pic!

What happened to the picture in the info box of our glorious leader? CorkMan

Deleted for lack of adequate copyright status information. There's a concerted effort (misplaced, in my opinion) to remove all pictures from Wikipedia which aren't uploaded with an acceptable copyright status (GFDL or public domain or similar), but the deletionists don't seem to be bothering removing references to the pictures they're deleting, which makes Wikipedia look a mess. -- Arwel 11:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

The quotes section would be much enhanced if somebody can locate his famous (to me, anyway) quote from a Hot Press interview (must have been the late 80s) regarding his drinking, wherein he said something along the lines that he would be all right to drive after 8 pints of Bass (his favourite tipple of the time). For a while after Hot Press referred to him as Bertie "Mine's a gallon of Bass" Ahern. Bowsie Jnr 12:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bertie and the drink

Like all good irishmen <sic!>, Bertie likes his pints or two. But i though he didn't drink during lent,Ror (talk • contribs) changed it to November when he abstains from the drink. I dont recall where i hearing it, and with a lack of source, i was pretty sure that it was lent, it would make more sense for it to be over lent as opposed to november anyway. Anyhow, i am going to refrain from chaning it back till either i can find a source, or some one backs it up. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Its possible that Bertie doesn't drink during lent as well, but I certainly know he doesn't drink during November, which is a Catholic tradition some people keep "for the Holy Souls". I will try to get a proper source for this from a newspaper (I know the Sunday Business Post mentioned it in a flippant manner this year). However, informally, I can tell you that I happened to have the oppertunity to be in his presence at an event last year and he mentioned it. Not a proper source, I admit.--Ror 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahern abstains both during Lent and in November.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Does it strike anyone that the photo of Bertie and the randomers in Brazil is a personal ego trip and is neither a good photo nor relevant to the text around it? I propose deleting it in a week if no one objects.

Good point, could be worth removing. But it is a classic (just opening a phone booth) photograph of bertie. Djegan 19:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not encyclopedic Rye1967 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertie is a nice guy

Post from indefinitely-banned user removed. AnnH ♫ 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to removed post also removed--Rye1967 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berties Oratory skills

The sentence has been removed as vandalism. I was the one who inserted it, back on Apr 27, 2005. I was accidentially not logged in at the time, but it was not input as vandalism, whatever your POV about it. Personally, I admire the man, don't hate him at all, have no axe to grid. I was simply recording a fact as I see it. Since then one other editor added the 'Bertiespeak' moniker, presumably agreeing with me. Someone added that he stutters, and I removed that. The sentence has survived since Apr 05, presumably been read many times, without anyone feeling the need to remove it.

I meant that his speaking style is not inspirational in the sense of great orators such as Martin Luther King, Jr.. Examples are his speech at the opening of the 2003 Special Olympics and the May 2004 Enlargement of the European Union. Some of this is due to his accent and tone of voice.

Seperately, I was referring to his style of obfuscation, which he regularly uses in debates and discussions when he does not want to get caught in a corner. I was thinking in particular of a general (ie non-Northern Ireland-related) interview which he did with the BBC some years ago where no-one could interpret what his long-winded response to a particular question meant.

Although he hesitates, uses 'Aah', sometimes repeats a starting word, he does not sutter. But those things do detract from his speaking style.

So, I think the sentence should stay, do you now agree? -- Rye1967 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I did not mean to imply it was vandalism, and, having forgotten my wording, I almost posted that I had never referred to it as such. I didn't check the history, so I had no idea it was added by an Anon. I removed it on the basis that it seems to be a commentary on his reasons for allegedly avoiding giving straight answers to questions. I am not so familiar with his way of speaking, but presumably he has not admitted to simply skirting awkward questions he does not want to answer, and the implication that he does has little place in an academic encyclopedia article. If it could be re-worded to avoid making any such political accusations, I would have no problem with it being reinstated. elvenscout742 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point and I have revised it to just describe his style and remove references to his motivation.--Rye1967 22:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ever so slightly worried query

This is'nt meant to be vandalism or anything like it, but .... seriously: how many of you boys and girls here in Ireland have noticed a strange relationship, both in personality and looks, between the following over the years?

Yours in the Force, Fergananim 21:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahern, Bertie

Have removed Bertie from . There's nothing in the article to support the claim that he is notably pro-life. Maybe he is, but if so, please provide references. --BrownHairedGirl 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree - the fact that he supported the most recent referendum (which left a lot to be desired irrespective of pro/anti views on abortion, and just part of the pro-life debate) does not warrant inclusion. He is a politician firstly. Djegan 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the category doesn't say anything about the politicians in question campaigning purely or even primarily on a pro-life platform, it's simply for politicians who are pro-life. Ahern is prominent enough to warrant inclusion, and his pro-life beliefs (and that of his party) are well-known. He didn't just support the last referendum, he initiated it. I also thought the category could do with being a little less amerocentric. But now I see that Dana's there representing Ireland, so that's alright then.--Dub8lad1 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references, a large amount of citation tags, and a cleanup needed tag. Tarret 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a qaulified accountant

He is not a qualified accountant and it is appropriate to mention this as he has described himself as an accountant.

[edit] Trivia section is totally POV

I think this is obvious. Tayana I understand you disagreed with my edits, which I disagree were "vandalism", and this is not aimed at you, but I would like to be clear about this section before my edits are written off as vandalism. Just look at this:

   * Ahern is a poor public speaker; his tone and style of delivery is mechanical.
When speaking off the cuff, he sometimes speaks haltingly. During debates and interviews, he gives indirect,
vague, ambiguous or meaningless responses, a behaviour dubbed "Bertiespeak". In 2004, Joe Higgins TD described 

Ahern's refusal to answer questions as like playing handball against a hay stack. Your hear a dull thud but the ball never comes back to you[27].

While you are correct in saying that Higgins' description of his elocution is cited, the fact that his public speaking is "poor" is not, and is most certainly an opinion.

   * Ahern has few close friends among his political colleagues,
but recent revelations [28] show that he has many supposedly non-political friends.

The choice of wording here is clearly trying to make a political point.

   * Ahern and the Government misjudged the sentiment of the nation
in arranging for a State funeral for Charles Haughey, which was largely ignored by the public.

Is this "Trivia about Bertie Ahern", or is it more POV pushing?

In the interest of improving the article and WP:BLP. I would like to hear someone else's view on this. Generalmiaow 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you, and I think a number of the entries should be removed. It's hard to argue with material in a 'trivia' section (how can material be considered irrelevant?), but the choice of items displays a clear bias.

• Ahern is not an accomplished orator in the grand parliamentry tradition - he tends to speak haltingly, - however he has a skill of successfully avoiding committing himself by giving indirect, vague, ambiguous or meaningless answers to questions by journalists and in the Dáil.

is utterly blatant, non-factual bias. I've tried (three times) to excise it, but it's been reverted by (another) anonymous editor. Is there consensus that it should go? --21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• There was no consencus that "trivia" be removed. Much of it has been present from 2005. The Irish radio media refer continually to "Bertigate" and "Bertispeak". Editor "demiurge" seems to delete more than contribute and his edits are negative. He never corrects, just deletes. Of his last 9 posts, 7 are reversions.

From the recent history page we have demiurge edits of Bertie Ahern

1. (cur) (last) 13:54, 5 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (?Trivia - remove unsourced)
2. (cur) (last) 17:16, 4 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (rv unsourced)
3. (cur) (last) 10:07, 4 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (?Trivia - add "devious, most cunning" ref, remove unsourced)
4. (cur) (last) 20:10, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79285962 dated 2006-10-03 17:47:46 by Demiurge using popups)
5. (cur) (last) 17:47, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79268832 dated 2006-10-03 16:16:08 by Demiurge using popups)
6. (cur) (last) 16:16, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79268105 dated 2006-10-03 16:12:00 by Demiurge using popups)
7. (cur) (last) 16:12, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 79261426 dated 2006-10-03 15:33:28 by Demiurge using popups)
8. (cur) (last) 15:33, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (rv; WP:LIVING)
9. (cur) (last) 10:08, 3 October 2006 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (?1990 presidenti

Should demiurge be blocked as an editor?, on the basis that wiki is creative rather than censorious of others' edits? in accord with wiki philosophy. 194.46.173.253 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• If the media continually refer to "Bertiegate" and "Bertiespeak" then it should be easy for you to find a citation, no? Demiurge 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • You are missing on the philosophy of wiki, which is to colaberatively edit, not to criticise others. Acceptable editing is to improve and expand on the work of others, straight deletion without positive activity is a negation of the editorial principles of wiki. Be positive. Straight deletions will usually attract reversionary attention.

Tayana 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Incorrect, you are missing out on Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". Demiurge 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• In addition to what Demiurge rightly asserts, your comment is just illogical: "Acceptable editing is to improve and expand on the work of others, straight deletion without positive activity is a negation of the editorial principles of wiki".

1. "Acceptable editing" - as defined by whom? Because your definition sure ain't in accordance with established Wikipedia procedures.
2. "... to improve and expand on the work of others, straight deletion without positive activity...". Deletion is absolutely necessary where the content does not cross the verifiability threshold. We aren't trying to keep people happy, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. If "the work of others" is rubbish, it should be summarily deleted.
3. "...a negation of the editorial principles of wiki". No, it's not. Demiurge outlines why. In addition, there are many wikis. You presumably mean Wikipedia. --18.242.7.128 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• The suggestion that Demiurge should be blocked is ridiculous. Specifically, your complaint is that he doesn't act "in accord with wiki philosophy". There is no wiki philosophy. There are Wikipedia procedures, and Demiurge is scrupulously upholding them. The material in the trivia section violates WP:NPOV, and, more pertinently, is un-sourced in many places, violating WP:V. The anonymous editor that continually re-inserts material in the trivia section is in violation of the three-revert rule, and displays general misunderstandings of Wikipedia in many of his other edits (such as by deleting logos). The Bertie Ahern article is greatly improved by Demiurge's involvement. --18.242.7.128 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split article?

In view of the size of this article, should we have a separate article, something like "Bertie Ahern alleged corruption controversy"? Mustafa Bevi 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes in the Trivia Section

The formatting of the trivia section is pretty atrocious. I've changed the italics to quote marks in an attempt to tidy it up.

The quote in the first entry is simply the title of the article referenced for the entry, so I see no reason to have it there, as it distrupts the flow of the article, and can in any case be found in the reference. If someone wants to add it back in, could they provide justification here? Reveilled 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)