Jump to content

Talk:Anti H-Block

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

Convicted felons

[edit]

Use of scare quotes around convicted felons makes this NPOV. Perhaps a description of the process by which the UK govt. prevented the prisoners from standing as parliamentary candidates or a longer quotation from the bill in question would be better.71.166.129.50 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed that, for various reasons. Firstly the UK doesn't even use the word felons anyway, and secondly the legislation doesn't prevent people with convictions standing as candidates. I'll check the full details and flesh it out a bit later. One Night In Hackney303 12:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Anti-H block - a label not a party

[edit]

Anti-H block was a label not a political party and was simply a number of candidates backed by the anti-H block committee. These included members of Sinn Fein, the Irish Independence party, Independent councillors and even a couple of SDLP councillors in Dungannon who heeded the committees request to withdraw from local councils in support of the Hunger strikers. Sydney Elliott provided the full list in his book on the 1981 council elections. Valenciano 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti H-block candidates, and others

[edit]

Hi Snappy

I see that in these two edits [1] and [2] you reverted a change from "Independent" to "h-block" in the affiliation of candidates.

Since no ref was provided in either case, you were quite right to do ... but even with a ref, this is not a simple question. The electoral laws in Ireland at the time were rigid: either a candidate was nominated by a registered political party, or they were labelled on the ballot paper simply as a "non-party candidate". (I dunno whether this is still the case). So whatever label any of the H-block candidates used for their campaigning, they all appeared on the ballot as "non-party candidate", which we usually represent in election boxes as "independent".

It seems to me that:

  1. the editor who added "H-block" was probably right about how the candidates labelled themselves, which is also how they would have been referred to in the media.
  2. We do need a ref before we can use that fact (which is why I support your reverts), but ...
  3. Once a ref is found, we need to find some way of conveying the fact that these candidates had two difft labels, one a self-description, and the other on the ballot. I suggest that the best way to do this would be label them in the list of candidates using their own self-description, but add a footnote about how they appeared on the ballot.

Note that this does not just affect the H-block candidates. In Nov 1982, Roger Garland is listed in Dublin South as an Ecology Party candidate. This is technically wrong, because while he was the Ecology party candidate, the party was unregistered, so he was on the ballot as "non-pary". ElectionsIreland has not got to grips with this: it labels Garland as Ecology Party,[3] but in Wicklow Liam de Suin was also an EP candidate, but is labelled as independent.[4]. Similar issues apply to the other Nov 192 Ecology Party candidates: Maire Mullarney in Dublin South-East,[5] Richard Power in Limerick East[6], Owen Casey in Cork North-central[7], and 2 others who names I forget.

Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference alright between self description and what appeared on a ballot paper. The question is, do we stick rigidly to what was on the ballot paper (eg. Independent) or go with what was probably on all posters and literature in the candidates campaign (e.g. Free Cheese Party). On balance, its probably better to have what was on the ballot paper in the results table (so it is factually accurate) and as you suggest to have a footnote explaining, that said Independent candidate actually campaigned under the self applied banner of Free Cheese Party. Also, you're right about ElectionsIreland.org (excellent reference site for the most part) is a bit haphazard/unreliable in this area. Snappy (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting issue of sourcing here, which seems to be reflected in the inconsistencies in the generally-excellent ElectionsIreland.org.
I did a little more burrowing, and found that the registration of parties was introduced in S.13 of the Electoral Act, 1963, so until that point, presumably free-form descriptions were permitted, as happened in the UK until the 1990s.
I then recalled that I had a good printed source on this stuff: Brian M. Walker, ed. (1992). Parliamentary election results in Ireland 1918–1992. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. ISBN 978-0-901714-96-1. On page 99, Walker explains his sourcing. There were no official printed returns for Dail elns until the Kerry South by-eln in Nov 1944. Up to June 1927, Walker uses local newspapers; from Sep 27 to the 1944ge he uses Flynn's guides, and thereafter the official returns. He says that there is a lot of difficulty in 43 and 44 in distinguishing Farmers from Clann na Talmhan candidates, and that after 63 party affiliations for candidates of unregistered parties were either described as "non-party" or not described at all, and I see that is reflected in his table. Walker says that "where helpful, additional information on these candidates has been given in square brackets", and the only example I found in Nov 1982 was Neil Blaney being labeled as [Ind FF].. However, looking at the 1981 general election, I see "[H-block]" beside the following:
It seems to me that since Walker is the most scholarly source we are likely to find for coverage of Dail elections as a whole, that we should adopt that format, with a footnote. That's kind of a reversal of your approach, but it seems to me to better reflect how such candidates were described in the campaign and in the media, which I think is the approach implied by the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME.
Would you be OK with that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the research, very thorough! Yes, I agree with your proposed approach, its better to go with how candidates were described/known as in the media/campaign. Btw, I'm sure you mean ANTI H-Block candidates. ;-) Snappy (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to but in here but from what I've read I don't think Vincent Doherty had the backing of the Anti H-Block committe to run in Dublin North Central. He was a member of Bernadette McAliskey's group, Peoples Democracy but from what I read in the Magill article he wasn't formally backed. He isn't referred to in Sweeney's book or on the other link. I do know Tom McAllister ran in Clare (INLA - IRSP). Exiledone (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Snappy for copying here the discussion on hir talk. This is a better place for it. Two few points:

  • I din't actually mean Anti H-block :) As above, the wording used by Walker is simply "[H-block]" ... and while that may be a summary of a longer description used by the candidates, I don't so far have an RS for what that longer description was. Does anyone have such an RS? I am not averse to adding the word "anti", but we do need sources.
  • Thanks to exiledone for the note re Vincent Doherty. I think that resolving that point could be a little more complicated, because what you are describing is someone unofficially using a description which in any case had no official status in electoral law. I'm not suggesting that we take the electoral law POV about this, rather that in Vincent Doherty's case we have three perspectives to represent. It seems to me that the best way to do this would be to label him in the table as "[H-block]" (or "[Anti H-block]", if adopt that label), but to footnote it with a note saying something like: that he was non-party on the ballot paper, and while he campaigned as an Anti H-block candidate he was not formally supported by he Anti H-Block committee". Would that be reasonable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last year when the Irish Times made their archive available for a limited period I took screenshots of the election results back to 1961. 7 of the 8 candidates above listed by Brown Haired Girl are referred to simply as "H-Block" in the Irish Times (Monday 15 June 1981, p10-13.) The exception is Vince Doherty who they list as "PD (H-Block.)" Additionally they have Tom McAllister in Clare and Seán McKenna in Kerry North listed as "H-Block." A further candidate in Wicklow, Richard O'Carroll, is listed as Non-P (H-Block). It's tricky but some kind of footnote would probably do the job. Valenciano (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also of interest is the An Phoblacht of the time which gives nine prisoner candidates (all Brown Haired Girl's except Vincent Doherty plus McKenna in Kerry North and McAllister in Clare) together with four non-prisoner candidates: Vincent Doherty, Joe Harrington of PD in Limerick East, Paddy Healey of The League for a Workers' Republic in Dublin NE and Sean Kelleher in Cork SW. The latter three are listed simply as "Ind" in the Irish Times. Valenciano (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti H-Block. 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) 20:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti_H-Block&oldid=1255552065"