Jump to content

Talk:Batt O'Keeffe

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

Reference to budget cuts

[edit]

I have provided a reference for all 30 budget cuts. Veritas-truth101 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:BLP? Do you know what WP:NPOV is? It's way too detailed, is longer the the current article, is too WP:RECENT. If you don't like Batt O'Keeffe or FF start your own blog, wikipedia is not a forum for your point of view. I have condensed the section. You also only mention cuts, you fail to mention that the Capital allocation of €889m is increased by €80m, construction of 26 new schools, etc, selective in your references you are! Snappy56 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing the facts as released by the Minister on the Department's website on 14th October 2008. On the contrary it is you who are showing your clear bias towards O'Keeffe. If you want to mention the construction of schools, I will talk about the 40,000 children in Ireland who are taught in delapidated prefabs. Cop onto yourself - You are obviously a FFer. This is the Minister's legacy!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas-truth101 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget section

[edit]

~ I think the budget section on this page is too long and bares no relevance to Batt O'Keefe, other than a single debate made in his career on the 15th October 08. If you wish to give expanded details on this man, then please extend the rest of the article and edit the budget section to make it more relevant to him, edit the Irish Budget 2009 page. NevF --86.45.253.128 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The budget "section" is no longer necessary due to the entire affair now having its own article (that incorporates everything from health and education to income levies and army barracks). --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 04:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section is still relevant and so should stay. It can be trimmed a little and a main link to the new article added. Snappy (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protests

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the protests made by college and university students against the reintroduction of third level fee's which is supported by batt o keefe? this protest occurred the same day as the medical card protests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.159.177 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Cert 09

[edit]

Why has there been no reference to the fact that Batt O Keeffe would not apologise for the English Paper 2 scandal on radio with Sean O Rourke on the 4th of June 09? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryEoin (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this wikipedia page is written by pro FF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.88.15 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should he have to apologise to someone else's mistake which he couldn't have prevented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.147.166 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Reintroduction of Third Level Fees Section

[edit]

This section has been removed twice by User:Snappy. As far as I am aware, it is an objective and accurate description of Batt O'Keefe's reintroduction of third level fees (which whether you support or not will probably be the most important thing the minister will do in his political career and should therefore be kept in the article). The reason given for his edits have been that the final result has not been reached. This seems like a spurious argument. For example, would the Hurricane Katrina section on New Orleans have been removed because the final result wasn't known? I can only assume that Snappy's edits are due to some sort of political bias. --78.16.20.180 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all speculation. Third level fees HAVE NOT been re-introduced, the government are still discussing it. Try reading this article [1], an extract is: ANY BRINGING back of third-level fees would have to form part of negotiations for a new programme for government, Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe said yesterday. Speaking in Limerick, he said his Government colleagues had just one more week to make submissions on the proposals he has submitted to Cabinet for the reintroduction of student fees. Is it too much to ask to wait a week or two to see the actual proposals rather than speculating about what might be? Snappy (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The section I've added isn't speculation; it's facts supported by references which shouldn't just be swept under the rug. I can't think of any justification for what you're saying. If you like, you could rename it "Proposal of third level fees" or something but I think that the section should remain. Batt O'Keefe's involvement in this has received sufficient media attention for it to be added in my opinion. --213.202.160.49 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement with 78.16.20.180. There is absolutely no reason to omit facts. --86.41.141.201 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But all you anon editors, think its ok to introduce pointless speculation. Snappy (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "pointless" as the references show and it's not "speculation" as they also show. And I seriously doubt that your objective, by removing facts, is to protect the integrity of wikipedia. --78.16.181.66 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anons: You claim to have references for this or "it's referenced"... I don't know anything about the subject, but I'm not blind: there isn't a single <ref></ref> in the paragraph you're trying to add, and therefore isn't in line with WP:BLP. Bring a source, cite it properly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was all referenced but the other anon reverted it without the references [2] and it seems to have gone from there. --78.16.181.66 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There. Now can it stay? --78.16.181.66 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, that's much better and would at least satisfy the sourcing-req. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! --78.16.181.66 (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Batt O'Keeffe. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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) 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Batt O'Keeffe. 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) 06:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batt_O%27Keeffe&oldid=1257030073"