Talk:National Party (Ireland, 2016)

Stop edit-warring. All the (reliable) sources say "far-right".

@Irishpolitical: Per WP:RS, the claims made by the founder of the party in an interview (a primary source) are not a reliable source. They are an unreliable, first-party source, published by an outlet who admitted upfront that they know it is controversial even to give a forum to far-right groups to speak, and who directly described the group as far-right in the lead-in to the interview. See also the essay WP:INTERVIEW. Also courtesy-pinging Bastun (talk · contribs) (not accusing them of edit-warring, since they reverting unexplained counter-policy edits). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree entirely. They're not "right wing" like the British Tory party - they're far right, according to all of the reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you both and I believe your bias is shining through. How can a primary source directly from the mouth of the person who knows the party best be thrown out completely? It's ridiculous frankly. You're both allowing bias to cloud this matter. Maybe you consider them "far right" however you're lumping a lawful contemporary party into a label the party itself clearly rejects to suit your own personal view. It's not "clearly far right", it's debateable and disagreeable - therefore the article should include both "right wing" AND "far right" in order to be as objective and neutral as possible as is the intention of this site. Irishpolitical 02:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add to the body of the article (not the lead) that Barrett rejects the term "far-right", that might be acceptable, but Wikipedia is based on reliable, detached, unbiased, third-party sources, and all of them say "far-right". The reason why Barrett is not a reliable source for the claim that the group is not far-right is made abundantly clear in the title of the source -- no one wants to call themselves "far-right", but that is what all the secondary sources call them. Please read WP:PSTS. Our biases have nothing to do with it, but if you really want to know I was curious what was going on in my ancestral homeland with regard to the recent global surge in far-right nationalism, and searched Wikipedia yesterday evening. I had never heard of the National Party until about ten minutes before making the edit that you reverted, and my edit was not based on any preconceived notions, only what was in the cited sources. Your understanding of "the intention of this site" is apparently somewhat flawed: Wikipedia provides a neutral, due-weight summary of what appears in reliable secondary sources; it does not attempt to "balance out" the claims of reliable secondary sources with propagandistic claims appearing primary sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of balance and NPOV I think it should be mentioned that the National Party denies the far right label despite the fact that it clearly is.Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems acceptable, but I don't think we should present their own claim about themselves in a matter-of-fact, way like stating in the lead or the infobox that their position is "right-wing to far-right". Their position is far-right: that's what all the sources say, and the group themselves just happen not to like it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

All of you are just projecting your political opinions of the party as absolute truth. It is not "clearly" far right but since there is dissent and disagreement over this it surely makes the most sense to include both "right wing" and "far right". And for the record, the sources cited are hardly "unbiased", however it is baffling to exclude the party's own position as being "unreliable" but acting as if the Irish Times version of the party is absolutely true when they clearly have their anti-NP slant. This and the Justin Barrett wiki pages are clearly written by people who detest them and want to slander them. All I've attempted to do is to make the article more neutral, objective and fair. I'll compile alternative sources and such and then return to this at a later date.Irishpolitical 13:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: No, you are projecting your own assumptions onto the sources. I don't have a political opinion of the group -- I had never heard of them until I stumbled across this article yesterday, and my first edit to it, which you reverted, was made a matter of minutes later. Given that your first substantial edit to Wikipedia was to add the unsourced claim that they are "right-wing to far-right" to this article, it seems much more likely that you have an opinion of this group and came here to express it. Your username is "Irishpolitical" for crying out loud; I primarily edit articles on Chinese classical poetry, stumbled upon this article while browsing, and have not even visited Ireland since about a year before this group was established. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Irish Times is viewed as a reputable source. ____Ebelular (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a fierce whiff of duck off this page... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Untitled May 2023

The National Party aren't far right, as a member I may be biased but having been a member I can know about their views and being against unrestricted immigration simply makes them right wing, not far right. The accusations of being far right stem from Justin Barret making a comment on kicking out muslims from Ireland, which he later RECANTED and was never an official party policy. Yet again, Justin attending a far right meeting also doesn't make the party far right, all the accusations of the party being far right come from ONLY the past of Justin Barret, the party itself is not far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.152.75 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Members

I've set the elected representatives count back to zero. Seamus Treanor has form for racist attacks on immigrants all right, but I can't find anything saying he actually joined the NP, just this, the news reports of his "contributions" on radio interviews, and the photos of the top table at the Dundalk meeting. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"has form for racist attacks on immigrants all right", leave it out would you? Keep it to yourself. It appears at present that he is an independent councillor who simply addressed a meeting. Irishpolitical 13:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: No, you should leave it out. Write articles to reflect what the sources say. Don't write what you want and then find sources that could be interpreted as agreeing with it, and don't criticize other editors for engaging in civil talk page discussion of the article content. If you don't have a source that says Treanor joined the NP, then it doesn't matter whether it's conceivable that he could be associated with the group given his stance on immigration or not, and if other editors go out of their way to try to corroborate the article's claims and jump through hoops trying to make the connection ... well, WP:BLP applies to talk pages, but if we're discussing whether to remove unsourced contentious material from the article proper, then discussing those unsourced contentious claims themselves is kind of required. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Justin Barrett and neo-nazi

There's been a few edits reverted which had mentioned that JB was known for neo-nazi politics. This is the appropriate talk page section. I think a small mention should suffice. I don't think it's accurate to refer to "anti-abortion meetings" (e.g. this edit), since the sources don't say it's anti-abortion, but that it's neo-nazi meetings. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

He is not a neo-nazi don't be ridiculous. The inclusion of the links is obviously just meant to make him look like even more of an assholeApollo The Logician (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

ATL, go read WP:CONSENSUS. Seriously. Right now. When you've done so, as pointed out to you by several other editors recently, you might finally start to acknowledge that you can't just keep reverting something while saying "Get consensus". Keep on ignoring that and you'll end up blocked again.

On the issue at hand - the version mentioning that Barrett had attended far-right/neo-Nazi meetings is factual, sourced, and is the consensus version. Even when you take the SPA apologist into account. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how I am violating WP:CON.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the page? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If you wish to change the long-standing version then you need a consensus to change it. You don't have a consensusApollo The Logician (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I presume you omitted quotation marks in error, as it's actually you changing the consensus version, which, let's be clear, is to include Barrett's attendance at neo-Nazi events? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please show me evidence of this consensus.13:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Ebular added: "He had attended various neo-nazi and far right meetings in Germany and Italy." I support that addition. Irishpolitical wants to expand that to read "being a leading figure in Youth Defence and campaigning against the Treaty of Nice. Before the launch of the National Party, Barrett attracted controversy due to his attending of anti-abortion meetings in both Germany and Italy organised by the controversial far right parties the National Democratic Party and Forza Nuova respectively." So that's three people wanting to include relevant, sourced information on Barrett's far-right/neo-nazi links, and one person saying there's "no consensus" for inclusion. That is patently not the case. I'm nearly at the stage of wondering if you're just contrarily trolling at this point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I anD the IP editor oppose it. Thats not a con. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You're making no sense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is numerous sources, including Barrett himself, saying that he went to neo-nazi events. Yes it was a long time ago, but so was his anti-abortion activism, in fact it was at the same time. if you want to include anti-abortion, you should include neo-nazi links. I also think it's relevant considering this is an article about an anti-immigration, nationalist, political party. ____Ebelular (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't deny that it is well sourced. I deny that it belongs in this article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

First two lines of the Irish Times article, which is very much a WP:RS: "Mr Justin Barrett of the No to Nice campaign has confirmed that he attended an event organised by Germany's far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) but he denies any links with the organisation. Mr Barrett, who earlier this week declined to confirm or deny to The Irish Times his attendance at the meeting in the Bavarian city of Passau in May 2000, yesterday admitted he attended the conference, as well as an estimated two other events linked to the NPD." There is no consensus for removal of these facts from the article. WP:NOTCENSORED. IrishPolitical, please stop removing sourced content. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

source for the meetings being just anti-abortion

It has been written that the NPD/FN meetings were "anti-abortion meetings". But I haven't seen a source on that? Has anyone got one? You shouldn't add it to wikipedia unless it's sourced, and the national newspapers don't describe these meetings are just "anti-abortion". ____Ebelular (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Member figures

AnSochar - please actually read WP:PRIMARY: "Policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." And further, under secondary sources: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Barrett claiming 600 members in a YouTube video is a primary and self-published source and may not be used. Please do not re-add the putative membership figure without a reliable secondary source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair that speech could be used as a source for the statement: "The party claims to have over 300 members". ____Ebelular (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

At a stretch, I guess. When it finally registers, at any rate... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK to be a registered party in Ireland you need to have at least one TD, senator or counciller. So it is a little hard, to be fair. ____10:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The single-purpose account argued "The requirement for registering in Ireland is 300 members over the age of 18 (meaning they have 600+), the video qualifies as a primary source as it is Barrett)"; I started watching the video but couldn't maintain interest, I'm afraid :P Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 edits.

Denial that the Party is Irish nationalist.

Bastun seems insistent on rejecting that the party espouses Irish nationalism. It is quite evident that the Party is in favour of a United Ireland. Principle #1 states that: 'The National Party believes that the territory of Ireland consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.' It is a fact that the NP supports Irish nationalism. Rejecting this is your opinion but should not be featured in the article as fact.Irishpolitical (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And no doubt you can find a reliable secondary source for that, because all you have now is a primary one. But at least you've stopped pretending Barrett was only involved with far-right fascist parties in the 1990s, so that's something. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think one problem is that "Irish Nationalist" usually means (now-a-days) more like Sinn Fein etc. So the term might be technically, pedantically correct, but it's misleading. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have provided another source for Bastun in which the position of Irish nationalism is confirmed. Furthermore, I reject assertions that I'm "pretending" re the NPD/FN meetings. The citation referring to the events as having taken place in the 1990s are not my words, they are Justin McCarthy's. Check the source. Regarding the use of the term Irish nationalism, I disagree that Sinn Fein has the monopoly on the use of the term. Sinn Fein generally use the term Irish Republicanism anyway. Stating that Irish nationalism is somehow intrinsically left wing in the modern world is very flawed logic. There have been many different variations of Irish nationalism over the years, all sharing the aspiration for a united, independent and sovereign Ireland. This is Irish nationalism. This is clearly espoused by the NP in everything it says and does. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, yes pedantically you're correct. But in Ireland today, it sorta means something more specific than "in favour of an Irish nation", so using it a little misleading. ____Ebelular (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, given the NP's rejection of the GFA, it'd more correct to classify them as Irish republicans (a la Sinn Féin) or even dissident Irish republicans (a la the political wings of various paramilitary groups) rather than Irish nationalists (a la the SDLP and others which accept the GFA). Irishpolitical, the 1990s may not be your words, but you can't be unaware of the Justin Barret article and the text and references therein clearly quoting dates in the 2000s. Which you keep removing from this article. Stop. I've removed the reference you added as it doesn't mention Irish nationalism at all, and the vague quote you included in the reference doesn't refer to Northern Ireland at all. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

it's hardly pedantic when it is obvious the party bears all the hallmarks of Irish nationalism in all that it says and does. We only come into conflict if one mistakenly believe that to be an Irish nationalist one must also be a Sinn Feiner. Furthermore, please provide a source to back up the claim that the party rejects the GFA. Regarding the 1990s/2000s I haven't deleted a shred of evidence which say that he attended the 'rallies' in the 2000s, because no such evidence exists. My citation refers to the 1990s, and Justin McCarthy is hardly a far-right apologist... I disagree with this new and bizarre description of the party as being 'neo-nationalists', never have I seen a source refer to the party as such nor does the party refer to itself as 'neo-nationalist'.Irishpolitical (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

On further reflection, I can see the point you are making. I disagree that SF and the likes have some sort of domination over the term Irish nationalism/republicanism, and because these parties have since the 1990s generally shifted leftwards - that a leftist political agenda is somehow necessary to being considered an Irish nationalist. However, I believe a suitable compromise here would be to, as Bastun suggested, refer to them as a "far right Irish republican party", clearly differentiating them from the other republican parties (Sinn Fein, WP, etc.). It also serves to clear up the debate over the term 'Irish nationalist' referring to the more moderate strand of Irish independence activism - whatever one may think of the NP's ideology, it is safe to say they are anything but moderate. Therefore, I hope other editors will be satisfied with this compromise. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not remove "nationalist", as that's what the party primarily stands for, and it's well referenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see how NP is an "Irish Nationalist" party, but today, lots of parties support the idea of an Irish nation. Technically the Tories are in favor of maintaining the United Kingdom, but their 2017 manifesto says they would support a United Ireland if there was a vote ("Our steadfast belief remains that Northern Ireland's future is best served within a stronger United Kingdom ... We will uphold the essential principle that Northern Ireland's future should only ever be determined by democracy and consent."). Are they an Irish Nationalist party now? Does the term "Irish nationalism" have much meaning anymore? ____Ebelular (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Redux

The National Party is, unsurprisingly, a nationalist party. It's leader espouses racial prfiling, banning immigration by all Muslims, sending immigrants "home", and... well, most of this. These are all far-right nationalist policies - as distinct from Irish nationalism, a view which the party also espouses in its more Republican form. Please stop removing this. Next you'll be changing links to the Nazi Party to NSDAP! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Bastun has insisted on referring to the party as being "neo-nationalist". I find this label to be largely inapplicable, and furthermore no sources refer to the party as being neo nationalist. Is any party critical of immigration to be called 'neo-nationalist'? The description of far right (whether warranted or not) is largely sufficient to allow readers to determine the ideological bent of the party, coupled with the ideology of Irish nationalism or Irish republican (as it currently reads) as the party is an Irish one and espousing an Irish-Ireland ideology. "Neo-nationalism" holds no basis in sources, nor is it warranted - by looking at the content produced by the party it is evident that Irish nationalism is what is being espoused (commemorating Irish nationalists/IRA figures, content uniquely fitted to Ireland, etc). Also, Bastun implying that I am Barrett is incorrect and frankly unbecoming for an editor of Bastun's stature. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I refer to the party as neo-nationalist because a party that isn't merely "critical of immigration" but instead actually espouses:

• Racial profiling
• A complete ban on all Muslims coming into Ireland;
• Deportation of all immigrants

is pretty much the textbook definition of a neo-nationalist party and is well sourced. Please stop edit warring over this; you are at the limit of 3RR and in danger of a block. Your denial of being Barrett is accepted, but given your edit history, you can understand how I might have come to that conclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there anywhere in any of those articles in which the party is described with the label "neo-nationalist"? I would say Identity Ireland are closer to the label of neo-nationalism, although the term is bizarre, for the fact that the NP has a grounding in Irish nationalist politics and a continuation of a longstanding precedent of Irish far right politics. "Neo-nationalism" can not apply in this case, as it's in many parts the eventual political manifestation of the Irish far right which has existed for decades. Also on this accusatory note of me being Barrett, I would not usually bother with rejecting your misinformed assertions but for the fact that an individual should not edit their own Wikipedia article(s) - and if you're going to make accusations like that then you'll need to justify them. I'm glad you've gone off it, eventually.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be "they're not neo-nationalists because they're espousing old-fashioned extremist nationalism" (of the non-Irish kind). As they're a very new party with no prior existence, this argument makes no sense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

To refer briefly to your previous post regarding their espousal of a supposed "extremist and non-Irish nationalism" I must disagree. The question of whether it is extremist or not is ultimately subjective, the party's 9 Principles (generally opposing mass-immigration, abortion, supporting the death penalty, supporting a territorial claim on the six counties, etc.) would've been in lockstep with Fianna Fáil of 30 years ago. And nobody would deny that Fianna Fáil were nationalists of an Irish variety.

The articles you have cited in support of your claim to labeling the National Party as neo-nationalist firstly and most importantly do not contain that label. So it's a bit of your own initiative to apply it to the party. In fact the first article seems only to re-enforce my point that the ideology of the NP is far from 'neo nationalism', as is made abundantly clear in the article neither Barrett nor Reynolds are any strangers to Irish politics. The former having been involved in successive anti-abortion and euroscpetic campaigns and referendums, the latter being involved in various agrarian campaigns. The article also mentions such notions as the party claiming to espouse 'the true spirit of the Republic', which seems to me to be more of a flirt with traditionalist Irish Republicanism than any attempt at solidifying any so-called neo-nationalist credentials. The second citation used to bolster this claim of yours also fundamentally does not label the party as neo-nationalist. This article refers in its content to supposed policies of the NP and matters relating to the cancelled launch of the party. Similar to the other article it makes reference to fulfilling the 1916 Proclamation, a uniquely Irish republican position to take. The claim made in thejournal.ie article that the National Party in its "manifesto" wants to "deport all immigrants", this is debunked by the deputy leader Reynolds in an interview with Joe Finnegan (5 minute mark), conflicting information exists between the policy espoused by the Party officials and the one attached to it in an article by thejournal. The Criticism of mass-immigration is not enough to place one into the box of neo-nationalism, crucially for the reason that both the founders of the Party have had a long involvement in Irish politics and this new party venture is apparently only the culmination of decades long agrarian, conservative and eurosceptic campaigns. Most crucially, the party itself which rests upon the Nine Principles (as cited in the article) are the apparent cornerstone of the party's ideology.

A reasonable compromise in my opinion regarding the beginning paragraph of the article is to merely have it labelled as "nationalism". Not explicitly neo-nationalism nor either Irish nationalism. Therefore both sides will hopefully be satisfied and can read it as according to their own judgement and perception. Regarding further reading of the party's ideology I propose creating a section dedicated to Ideology which will contain both descriptions by the press and by the party itself. Include both views and source both accordingly. This will hopefully prove a reasonable compromise. I intend to make the suggested edits, if you or any other editors have an issue with the updated and improved changes I request further dialogue on this talk page.Irishpolitical (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what neo-nationalism means. It has nothing to do with the age of those involved, or the length of time they've been involved in politics. There is a huge difference between nationalism and neo-nationalism. The NP are neo-nationalists, and the sources support that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bastun, you frequently make this assertion but no sources actually back up this claim as I have demonstrated. I've gone through them source-by-source. Nobody except yourself has labelled the party as neo-nationalist, are we expected to take your word as gospel? Neither the party nor press sources related to the party express this view. Furthermore there is no precedent which would permit them to be labelled as 'neo-nationalists', even parties which are of a "similar vein" (as you might say) namely European right wing parties are not described in their opening sentences or anywhere as being 'neo-nationalists'. I think we both agree that party are fundamentally "nationalists", so let us just remove any leading links to their specific nationalism (be it Irish nationalism, ethnic nationalism, neo-nationalism or whatever else one considers them), and allow people to make their own conclusion from the article. I doubt I'm going to change your mind, but for the sake of adhering to the conflicting sources available a compromise ought to be reached.Irishpolitical (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made significant improvements and editions to the article taking into account both sides here. There is now a broader Ideology section dedicated to discussing the ideology and policies of the National Party. It includes both the party's "national idea" principles and also the description of neo-nationalism. If the introductory section of the article still causes trouble the solution may be simply to remove references to ideology from that section and leave it purely to the infobox and Ideology sections, Identity Ireland for example simply reads "an Irish political party". Hopefully this will not prove too problematic and will be agreeable to us all.Irishpolitical (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You have not. You have attempted to whitewash the article. WP uses what secondary sources say, not primary sources. Gain consensus for changes to the article when they incorporate reliable secondary sources, and don't remove 'neo-nationalist' without consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I reject this bizarre and unfounded assertion that I am whitewashing the article. You are infact the one gratuitously applying labels and descriptions of your own concoction to the party and unfairly removing thousands of words of sourced edits made by myself. And only a small portion of the info added yesterday related to the neo-nationalist discussion, So don't revert everything and throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to make changes to the sourced improvements made on the 26th then please do so, but don't just revert all of it. And for the record yesterday's edits retained the description of the party as being neo-nationalist, in the Ideology section. I'm going to re-introduce these sourced improvements made on the 26th, I request you edit that individually if you have qualms with any particular sections. Thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Reject all you want - the diff where you removed "neo-nationalist" from the article is right there in the history. If you don't make multiple changes to different sections in the one edit, they won't all get reverted when I undo whitewashing edits. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What the party says about itself is all WP:PRIMARY and needs interpretation/commentary by reliable secondary sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources you are citing which allegedly support your claim that the party is 'neo-nationalist' do not contain the word. They do contain the label far-right but not neo-nationalist. Therefore you need to find a reliable secondary source which backs up your assertion that the party is a neo-nationalist one.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the section "Description by the party", you are mistaken to lump it all in with WP:PRIMARY, WP:Primary isn't a blanket ban on all sources of this nature, in this case the official website of the Party. Furthermore, precedent has been set by the fact that a great number of other Irish political parties in their own "policy" or "ideology" sections draw exclusively from Party sources (most commonly - the official website), examples include Republican Sinn Fein, Renua, the Social Democrats, Fianna Fáil, etc. So if you are to take this ultra-strict line regarding the National Party it is only fair you remove all the alleged violations of WP:Primary from other political party's articles. We wouldn't want people to think you are somehow biased against certain political parties!Irishpolitical (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of how WP:PRIMARY works, thanks. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The Republican Sinn Féin policies section is indeed sourced only from the their website and need's improvement. I'll tag it. Renua Ireland's policies section is only sourced from their website, true, but it's linking to a general election manifesto and a pre-budget submission, rather than a wooly "This is who we are" web page which talks about "the 'National idea'" as if we're all supposed to know what that means. The Social Democrats (Ireland) ideology section has five different sources, only one of which is the party's website. The FF ideology section has 13 references, including academic journals as well as media, and only two of which are from the party's website. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the line about the National Idea is qualified by the proceeding descriptions by the media. The current section description by the party for example contains a very clear and straight forward description of the 9 Principles. Again, it's not as if the ideology is being drawn entirely from the website, because there are press sources to qualify it. That coupled with the precedent set by most other Irish political parties re their websites as sources, I don't see it as being problematic or confusing to the reader.Irishpolitical (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

People needing to read different sections to get a balanced view of an obscure idea is not permitted by WP:PRIMARY. Your point re other articles has already been refuted and/or addressed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well it's permitted on other pages. Also, if you feel it is permissible for other parties to use their own website (primary sources) in their party article so long as secondary sources exist in the same section (e.g. Social Democrats, Workers Party, Green Party, etc.) then I see little reason to remove the section. You've mentioned your qualm is perhaps that concepts like the 'National Idea' are too "wooly". Well if that is the case we can leave that bit, but really there ought to be something there about the 9 principles from the website because it's the cornerstone of the party's ideology - and ignoring it is bizarre. I'll make relevant edits drawn from this discussion.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are problems on other pages, address them on those pages. You can't just ignore WP:RS here. The insertions you've made read like an essay written by the party itself. Find reliable secondary sources. Until then, they stay out. Per policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright I will take the same absolutist approach to other parties' articles which you are taking on this particular party's page. In my most recent edit the only thing I have included which was based off the primary source in question was reference to the Nine Principles, which is hardly a violation of standards or precedent. The revision which you keep reverting to is breaking your own rules, and some of it was written by yourself but relies off the primary sources. Also for example on FF's wiki page there is a statement of "according to FF" taken directly from the party's website, so your claim that on Irish political parties page what the party says about itself is disallowed is contradicted.Irishpolitical (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Be aware you've broken 3RR; I advise you to self-revert, discuss here, and get agreement rather than trying to force changes through. Your threat to disrupt articles to prove a point is also noted. Please don't put words in my mouth. Your claim that there are other sources in the section is bizarre - they're only in the same section because I removed the subheadings you artificially inserted! All of what you've entered, bar the sentence on "gay marriage" (whatever that is), is sourced only to a primary source. You can't do that. Revert, discuss, get consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's striking that you'd see my attempts to hold other articles to the same standards you hold this one to as "threats" to "disrupt". If I'm disrupting by following your guide then you're seriously disrupting here. My edit as differing from the previous revision is incorporating a new secondary source as well as reusing others - the previous revision is flawed by your own standards yet you seem to find it permissible. As for the gay marriage section, it says gay marriage in the article so that's what I'm going with.Irishpolitical (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So you're going to continue to be disruptive here too? Again - stop putting words in my mouth. Whatever about the previous version, your new one reads like it was written by a party member (odd, that) (clue: if the party uses terms like "gay marriage", or "Nine Principles", try putting them in quotation marks!) and is still far too reliant on primary sources. I'm going to revert, as you've not addressed any of the concerns raised. WP:PRIMARY is an actual policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Undoing removal of sourced information and reintroducing the section break down of specific referenced policies. Your objection to the terms gay marriage / nine principles is bizarre as that's what they're called in the respective secondary sources. And we have to go by the secondary sources!Irishpolitical (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Redoing removal of material sourced only to WP:PRIMARY sources. Section breaks are not necessary for material that's each only one or two sentences. The secondary sources are quoting party sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Irish Times are the ones calling it gay marriage, not the National Party. So you're making a very bizarre claim here to say this is somehow a term only the NP uses, when in fact it's sourced from the IT. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting". From the Wikipedia page on same sex/gay marriage. Have you not heard this term? It's not just a term used by the NP. In fact the term was used by the Irish Times - not the NP. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No reason not to link to the most appropriate article - i.e., same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland; and The Sun source uses "marriage equality", rather than "gay marriage". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Bastun seems to have taken issue with the changes I have recently made to the opening paragraph of the article. As someone who frequently speaks of the need for secondary sources, I'm sure he will understand the necessity of bringing the article's opening paragraph into line with those sources. I am changing this article to reflect that. If you have issue with it please provide alternative secondary sources which bolster your rationale. Until that point the article ought to reflect the sources. Thank you. Irishpolitical (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Yes, I do take issue with you. You used an edit summary of "Bringing opening paragraph into line with secondary sources" but what you actually did was remove sources from that paragraph! That's just downright dishonest! (Not to mention, you also made changes throughout the article with the same edit). You do not have consensus to remove "neo-nationalist"; or to change this article to suit your own agenda. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You're accusing me of having an agenda here? Rich! ZERO of your sources back up the claim of "neo-nationalist". And you never got consensus for the change in the first place. The only sources I removed were because they weren't relevant to what you are claiming You're just projecting your opinion onto the sources. The sources say nationalist. We should follow the sources. Irishpolitical (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again - you don't have consensus to remove "neo-nationalist", and you have removed sources. I refer you once again to the opening paragraph in this section. The party espouses racial profiling, banning immigration by all Muslims, sending immigrants "home", and... well, most of this. These are all far-right neo-nationalist policies - as distinct from Irish nationalism, a view which the party also espouses, in its more Republican form. I must ask again - do you need to declare a conflict of interest on this article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been no consensus on the label neo-nationalist - nor is it found within the sources. However, there are sources which do use the label nationalist, there are sources which say far right and there are sources which say right wing. But not neo-nationalist. This is you projecting your own opinion here. I have attempted to compromise with you, I originally requested Irish nationalist be used - however in the interests of compromise I have suggested nationalist. The party is undeniably nationalist. The situation here is that the relevant secondary sources say nationalist, not neo-nationalist. We ought to go by what the relevant secondary sources say as you've been so insistent on earlier. I requested in the past that if you want to include neo-nationalist to please provide a relevant secondary source to support that label, and you did not do so. Please stop reverting my edits, which are actually taken from the relevant secondary sources. And I am not the one with a conflict of interest here, I am going by the sources - you are the one who is ignoring the relevant secondary sources in favour of your own personal biases and opinions. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you've been reverted by three different editors within the last 24 hours would suggest there is indeed no consensus for removal for WP:SKYISBLUE facts. As an aside - can you explain your naming convention for references? It's not obvious at all how you're arriving at the names, and it's evidently leading to errors. Most of us use something rather more obvious, such as the initials of the publication combined with a date. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Claiming this is a WP:SKYISBLUE issue is wholly untrue as no relevant evidence exists for your claim. The party do not use the label neonationalist. The press do not use the label neonationalist. The only person I see who uses the label neonationalist is Bastun. Can you provide a relevant secondary source which calls the party neonationalist? Because I have provided a secondary source citation that the party is nationalist. In the interests of NPOV and the fundamentals of following the secondary sources we should be using the label nationalist as it is what reliable sources use. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is in the policies espoused by the party and its leader and have been outlined above, multiple times now. There is consensus to retain the label neo-nationalist. There is no consensus to remove it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The policies espoused by the party and its leader have been categorised as nationalist by a secondary source. The only person who is caracterising them as neonationalist is yourself. I am imploring you to either find a secondary source which backs up your neonationalist label or remove it in favour of the actual sourced label of nationalist.Irishpolitical (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This tweet by the party leader Justin Barrett I would argue is a further example of the party being quite different from the parties listed on the neonationalist wiki page. Whether the things cited ("Tradition, Family, God and Country") are indicators of Irish nationalism or are merely nationalism being espoused by an Irish party is debatable, but it's evidently not indicative of neonationalism. Anyway, the sources are saying nationalist as opposed to neonationalist. It's time we changed that label in the opening paragraph which is only being so stridently argued for by you, without backing it up with relevant secondary sources.Irishpolitical (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. It's almost like that tweet was crafted just to be used in an argument about whether the party is neo-nationalist or merely nationalist on some other venue. Whatever. The party leader (whether in Paddy Pearse pose or not) still espouses neo-nationalist values, as does the party he leads. No consensus for removal remains the case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're suggesting I told him to do it I did not and I reject that assertion. Anyway, I'm not using it necessarily as a source, but merely an attempt to show you the error here (in case you honestly couldn't see the error). Anyway, you're saying there's no consensus for nationalist - yet you claim there is for neonationalist. The reality here is that the secondary sources say nationalist. You claiming these certain policies are neonationalist is merely your interpretation of the policies. However the fact is there are sources for nationalist. We ought to go with that. You're being deliberately obtuse here. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the page to reflect the reliable secondary sources here. The previous edition violates WP:NOR. Whether you see the party as neonationalist or not is your own opinion, but the sources say nationalist. So that's what we use. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And I've reverted again. You've been reverted by three different editors and don't have consensus to remove "neo-nationalist" - something you keep ignoring. I can't speak for the other editors, but I'd agree to a compromise where the party is described as "a right wing to far-right neo-nationalist, Irish republican political party that self-describes as Irish nationalist" but that seems somewhat tautological when "Irish republican" is right there anyway. If you persist in trying to force your version onto the page, you may well end up blocked for disruptive editing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the reversion of the other two was because I removed those gratuitous sources which you were using to supposedly support neonationalist. The only person consistently reverting sourced edits is yourself. I've tried to compromise and level with you on multiple occasions. Even I find describing them as nationalist as opposed to Irish nationalist insinuates that only a certain type of party can be irish nationalist. The fact of the matter is here that I've presented to you reliable secondary sources which describe the party as nationalist. I've asked you on multiple occasions to please provide a reliable secondary source which describes the party as neonationalist and it has not been done. Even if you view that page neonationalist and view the parties characterised as such, on none of their respective articles are they described as "neonationalist" as opposed to "nationalist". How is this for a compromise: to say "a right wing to far-right political party in Ireland". There is precedent for not going into the specific ideology of the party in the opening paragraph on other similarly sized Irish political parties' pages (e.g. Christian Solidarity Party, Identity Ireland, Saoradh, Direct Democracy). We already have a separate section on policies and ideology which deals with that more in depth anyway. We both agree the party ranges from right wing to far-right (as evidenced by secondary sources). Irishpolitical (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My further attempt at compromising on this opening paragraph issue was once again rebuffed and gratuitously reverted. I am going to once again lay out clearly why the current version is inadequate. Firstly the original claim for Bastun's use of the label neonationalist was that it was the label which best described the policies espoused in secondary sources, however Bastun could not and have not to this date provided a secondary source which describes the party or its principles as neonationalist. In response to this lack of a source I have stated it ought to be removed and replaced with the more appropriate nationalist label, as the nationalist label is explicitly used by a [reliable secondary source] to describe the programme of the National Party: "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform." Bastun's continued insistence of the neonationalist label (unsourced) as opposed to the nationalist label (sourced) is breaking WP:NOR. Bastun has stated that there is no consensus for the removal of his favoured neonationalist label, however no consensus was achieved originally for the introduction of such a label -as it was forced into the article rather aggressively despite not being found in any secondary sources and a better secondary source existing which has been selectively ignored. In hopes of achieving consensus I have proposed many alternatives all of which have been rebuffed and reverted by Bastun. For these reasons as outlined above it is clear that the neonationalist label should be removed from this article. If again these edits are gratuitously reverted I'll take it up on WP:RSN. Thank you. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. I refer you again to my comment of 3 April. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly there was no consensus for your original pushing through of your chosen neonationalist description. Secondly, realistically there are only two editors here who are debating this issue - you and I. Nobody else is weighing in here. Until that point, it only makes sense to follow the secondary sources.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Jebus. That's not how consensus works. You've been reverted by - count them! - three editors! It's 3-1 in favour of the version using neo-nationalist. Revert, discuss, get consensus for your proposed change. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous with this one, Bastun. Those three reversions were made by people who saw the removal of two sources and took issue with that fact. I removed those sources as they weren't relevant to the claim they were meant to be supporting. However, for the last edit I made I added an extra source to it and retained the already present two sources. That source which I have added explicitly calls them nationalist "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform". Whereas no source says neo-nationalist. If these other editors had an actual issue with the changing of the label neonationalist to nationalist they should post here to that effect. As the only person who is currently reverting this edit is yourself. I've been attempting to get consensus from you as you're the only other editor who's engaged here yet you are merely reverting and ignoring my points.Irishpolitical (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bastun:, I'm attempting to reach a consensus with you here over neo-nationalism vs. Irish nationalism vs. nationalism. My original point here and the one I would still consider most applicable is to label the party as Irish nationalist for the reason that Irish nationalism is the Irish variant of nationalism and the party has proven to have a distinctive Irish character. However, just calling them nationalist is acceptable as it's found within the secondary sources. But this neo-nationalist label as I have explained is not recorded in the sources. For you to say "they have these policies as found in the secondary sources ergo they're neo-nationalists" strikes me as breaching WP:NOR. Also, it's selective as you are removing a reliable secondary source which describes those policies as being "nationalist" as opposed to "neo-nationalist": "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform." This is me attempting to reach a consensus with you over this issue. My proposal is to just use nationalist as evidenced by the sources, over neo-nationalist or Irish nationalist. Is this acceptable to you? Do you have any alternative proposals? Thanks.Irishpolitical (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No takers from your forum shopping then, after prompting from the blocked sockmaster? I wonder if Jon C. and MatthewVanitas would agree with your assessment of their edits? Why not ask them?

Obviously it is not acceptable to me whitewash the article and frankly, I still suspect WP:COI here. The party is a neo-nationalist party, as demonstrated by its policies - racial profiling, banning Muslim immigrants, sending immigrants home, etc. So that's remaining. I am not aware of any other Irish nationalist party that espouses such policies - maybe you can point one out? The SDLP are an Irish nationalist party. They've accepted the Good Friday Agreement, as voted on by the people of Ireland, north and south. Sinn Féin are an Irish republican party. They've accepted the Good Friday Agreement, as voted on by the people of Ireland, north and south. The National Party don't accept the Good Friday Agreement, as voted on by the people of Ireland, north and south. That puts them in the same camp as the likes of Éirigí and Republican Sinn Féin. Dissident republican would fit? So we could say that "The National Party is an Irish far-right neo-nationalist and dissident republican political party, that itself claims to be Irish nationalist". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bastun:, the supposed policies you reference (racial profiling, Muslim immigration halt, repatriation of immigrants) you are correct are not shibboleths of Irish nationalism, but I am not advocating that we call the party Irish nationalist. What I am advocating is we refer to them as nationalist, because of the reason that it is a description which is found within a reliable secondary source. Neo-nationalist is the label you are projecting onto the party, yet it is not backed up by any secondary sources. The label of nationalist (not Irish nationalist) is backed up by at least one secondary source. Until the point that you can provide a secondary source which describes the party or its platform as neo-nationalist then the appropriate description to use is the one which is found within the secondary sources. Regarding dissident republicans, that description applies to political groups which are party fronts for IRA splinters, Éirígí has links to the Real IRA and likewise RSF with Continuity IRA. Also the bit about it "claims to be Irish nationalist" is strange, as the NP is objectively an Irish nationalist party - as according to most definitions the act of supporting a United Ireland constitutes Irish nationalism - and the party supports a United Ireland ergo they are Irish nationalists (as are the SDLP, SF, etc). I'm willing to compromise here in many different ways with you in hopes of reaching consensus and have made many compromise proposals. The most objective opening description would be something like "is a far-right nationalist political party founded in 2016". Surely this is satisfactory to you? It's the same sort of description used by other parties of this type around the world (e.g. the Dutch Party for Freedom, the Swedish Democrats, etc). Another common label used for parties of this sort is national-conservative (e.g. Polish Law and Justice party, National Alliance (Latvia), etc), maybe this could serve as a good description of the NP given its opposition to immigration but also its conservative positions (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage, etc)? Would you be content with the use of national-conservative? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bastun: You're being deliberately uncooperative with me. Likely that stems from your belief that I have a WP:COI here but I have assured you I do not. All I've been trying to do here is adhere to WP:NOR. I understand you'd be concerned about white-washing for this article, but nothing of what I've been arguing for is a white-wash. If you recall I was one of the people in favour of adding about Barrett's background with far-right rallies in Germany/Italy in the article, as opposed to ATL who was insistent on leaving it out, as I felt it was important for the article and WP:NOR. I have been attempting to be cooperative and gain consensus with you, but you frequently rebuff these attempts. This is WP:NOTAFORUM, we're here to try and improve the article. Please review your position here and try and be more cooperative with me on this. Thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

TL;dr version: "My arguments have failed to convince you to change your mind, so please just change your mind anyway." No. Barrett is a far-right neo-nationalist, as demonstrated by the policies he and the party he leads espouse. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The crux of your rationale rests on that line "as demonstrated by the policies he and the party he leads espouse", however you are yet to provide a secondary source which characterises these policies as being neo-nationalist. You are deliberately ignoring a secondary source which characterises them as being nationalist. I've attempted compromising, reaching consensus, etc. multiple times despite the fact your sources for your claim are entirely baseless, you merely asserting it does not make it reality. We will have to take this to some higher board of arbitration if you continue to revert sourced content in favour of what is your original research. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spleodrach:, could you please explain why you reverted my edit? Given it was drawn from adding a relevant secondary source. Could you please provide your rationale for reverting sourced information? Irishpolitical (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My reasons are the same as the other editors who have reverted your changes. There is no consensus for your edits. You've been reverted by 4 editors now, so stop edit warring or you will reported to ANI. Spleodrach (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jon C.:, could you also please weigh in here. I've been attempting to gain consensus, however it's just been me and Bastun. Bastun has been frequently rebuffing my attempts at compromise, consensus, etc. Despite the fact there are zero sources which characterise the party as neo-nationalist, yet there are sources (being ignored) which characterise it as nationalist. Please read over some of this Redux page and weigh in on this topic, as I'm getting nowhere with Bastun. Thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you accept the fact that the label in question of the current revision (neo-nationalist) is Bastun's unsourced characterisation of the policies espoused by the National Party (as evidenced in the secondary sources)? Yet a characterisation of those policies is provided in at least one source, and that characterisation is "nationalist". So the current revision is using an unsourced description and ignoring a sourced description. For what good reason is the sourced description ignored in favour of the unsourced one? Irishpolitical (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Economic policy and United Ireland?

At present the article only really covers what the parties policies on social issues such as abortion and immigration are; which to be fair is what the party is most famous for, compared to the openly EU and British proxy parties in Ireland. But the article doesn't get into what their views on economics are and United Ireland? Barrett got his start in politics in the youth wing of Fine Sasanach, which it is fair to say, has a dubious record when it comes to the issue of the sovereignty of the Irish Republic. What is the view of this party? Also what are the economic views of the subject? Do they support capitalism and economic liberalism, whereby Ireland is an economic colony of London or Brussels or do they support an idea closer to an Irish Socialist Republic (keep in mind the add-ons of abortion-homosexuality-immigration are Anglo-American liberal capitalist projects and have never been tied to the historical idea of an Irish Socialist Republic, so there isn't a contradition in terms). To improve the quality of the article, it would seem these areas need inclusion, to see what the agenda of this group is. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There are specific references to the support of a United Ireland. Indeed their first principle is in favour of claiming the 32 counties as the national territory. References have been made to economic policy on the website and so on but I imagine Bastun will veto their inclusion because they weren't scribbled down on an Irish Times piece published 2 years ago.Irishpolitical (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If the NP has an economic stance, and nobody outside the NP ever talks about it, we're looking at an if a tree falls in a forest. If nobody outside the NP has found feature X worth noting, it's literally not WP:Notable.

That said, I think economic stance would be a great addition to the article, provided they have some noteworthy views that outsiders have found significant enough to take notice of. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This particular page of the National Party website is ripe with useful information for determining the ideology and policies of the party, it includes matters mentioned above such as United Ireland, economics, etc. However, some editors are more content to ignore the reality and instead opt for a caricatured image to better used their own narratives - pity! But there it is, if one feels it contains information which is useful or could be of help then I'd implore them to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishpolitical (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Irish republican party?

The National Party is a fasicst nationalist party, not an Irish republican. The citation provided does not even use the phrase "Irish republican" and nothing in the source indicates the party is an Irish republican one. I would remove it myself but for some reason it will not let me.185.145.202.171 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The source, the NP's Principles page, says The National Party believes that the territory of Ireland consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Wikipedia says: Irish republicanism (Irish: poblachtánachas Éireannach) is an ideology based on the belief that all of Ireland should be an independent republic.

Seems to make sense to me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In Irish politics the phrase "Irish republicanism" has certain connotations. Irish repubicanism is associated with support for groups like the Provisional IRA. I think Irish nationalist is a better term.185.145.202.171 (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well they were opposed to the GFA and also have done things like commemorate Seán South and Francis Hughes. I'd be inclined to agree we should use Irish nationalist but not because they're a less radical party (as in SDLP) but because they've frequently touted themselves as Irish nationalist. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I can not seem to find any evidence they have commemorated those figures. Could you provide a link?185.145.202.171 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the nod to Francis Hughes was in a speech on their Youtube channel. But looking at their social media they've commemorated republican heroes such as Liam Mellows, Dan Breen and Sean South. So I would say it's apparent they have an Irish republican ideology. Even the description in the post about Sean South "died fighting for Irish freedom and unity in the border campaign" is a very republican statement to make. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post article

I removed "...right wing to..." as OR not directly supported by any source (none of the sources support the assertion that they exist somewhere on a "spectrum"), but also because the sources were not great for the assertion anyway. WP is a reliable enough source for American politics, but this topic is so peripheral to their primary area of interest that I would assert they are not reliable for that kind of stuff anyway: the statement that The National Party supports banning abortion is laughably anachronistic, and even our article could have corrected them on it, as abortion already is banned in Ireland; the party actually opposes the legalization of abortion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If a source says it, it should be added. Simples.Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Shinnerfeiner: Well, can you locate a source that says it then? Regarding this sarcastic edit summary: May 2017 may have been a long time ago, but it's more recent than either of the sources your text cites that don't support the clarification. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait... unless you are referring to the bogus claim that Ireland doesn't currently have a ban on abortion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is common practice. Look at Fianna Fail for example.Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

"Centre-right" is not a subset of "centre", so those sources are not all saying the same thing, just some in a more vague manner. It is WP:OR to take a group of sources that specify that the group is "far-right" and some other sources that less specifically (because the group didn't officially exist yet?) say "right-wing" and interpret this as placing them "somewhere on the spectrum from right to far-right". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What about National Front (France) then? Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE. I haven't checked those sources, and I doubt you did in the two minutes it took you to fire off the above response, but given how old and well-established (some might say notorious) FN is I would be surprised if all of the four saying "right-wing" were either (a) superficial foreign sources that got basic (relevant) facts about the group wrong or (b) predated the group's founding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it's a bit weird to have a brand new account with less than ten edits before this week telling me what is "common practice" on Wikipedia. Have you read through any of the policy pages I linked you to? They might help you form more convincing arguments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

BT2W, your revert of my edit but not the intervening edit by AnomieBOT inserted a redundant citation. I would fix it for you, but you haven't convinced me that your edit should not just be reverted a third time. I could revert you again and if you reverted back you would run afoul of WP:3RR: the only reason we are here is because I am choosing to discuss rather than revert, but you don't seem to be offering very compelling discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In what way is that odd? I have read wikipedia for a while, just like everybody else. BTW your own link states "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Did YOU read your own link?Shinnerfeiner (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

May be valid or invalid. In this case, for the reasons I outlined above and you appear to have ignored, it is the latter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two sources which describe the party as right-wing. One local Irish source, another an international sources. You cite the (largely semantic) error given by the WP, however as we have seen there are citations here which also contain vast errors regarding the policies of the party. Such as the "deportation of all immigrants" policy as said in thejournal.ie, which has been qualified and corrected by the party. Are we to believe that a glorified blog is a more truthful source on the party's actual policy than the party itself? I do not think so. Many of these sources are riddled with errors but we work with what we have. There are sources which say "right-wing", there are sources which say "far-right". It makes the most sense to include them both, as the party does exist on a range here. If you look at Nazi Party it's just "far-right" there's no dispute, to suggest that the National Party in Ireland are also far-right with no dispute we're heavily implying these people are just one step off genocide - which is a very heavy accusation to imply. Let's just retain the right wing to far right description as it is evidenced by secondary sources and is more in line with WP:NPOVIrishpolitical (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: If you look at Nazi Party it's just "far-right" there's no dispute, to suggest that the National Party in Ireland are also far-right with no dispute we're heavily implying these people are just one step off genocide - which is a very heavy accusation to imply. I don't think it implies that at all: would you say that our article on the British National Party "implies those people are just one step off genocide"? Plenty of sources could be found that simply consider "far right" to be a subset of "right wing" and so freely refer to them as "right wing"; the distinction you are imposing is artificial and wholly original. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You are still removing a source from a very reliable journalist and newspaper which refers to the party as right-wing. You made the claim that because that particular WP article refers to the party's wish to ban abortion in Ireland, then you say that it must be flawed given abortion is already banned. Well the party has stated its wish to repeal the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (2013) which provides limited abortion, they have also advocated a reversal of the X-Case Judgement. So to say the party supports banning abortion in Ireland is a correct thing to say. Removing the WP source seems to me to be rather an artificial way of conforming the party to notions. I'm not advocating for removal of far-right, but merely that we ought to include right wing as well as there are at least two sources which refer to the party as right-wing.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject. It is impossible to discuss with you when you do that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

there are citations here which also contain vast errors regarding the policies of the party...which has been qualified and corrected by the party. Are we to believe that a glorified blog is a more truthful source on the party's actual policy than the party itself? Primary sources (the party's stated policies), are a form of self publishing./ source about itself.WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE caution that such a self source shouldn't be used if it is unduly self-serving. So yes, the party's "[stated] actual policy" shouldn't be taken as gospel. ____Ebelular (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ebelular: of course that makes sense. It would be helpful if secondary sources complimented the party's official stances on certain issues, so as to translate them into more objective terms and to dispel self-serving descriptions of one's own policies or self. However, that's not the situation we're in. We're often faced with a situation here that a newspaper has written something claiming that the party supports a particular position, meanwhile the party says something wholly different. I'm not talking about the party trying to sugar-coat its policy, I'm talking about something objectively incorrect. Like the claim made by thejournal.ie that the party supports sending home all immigrants, this is not something (to my knowledge) the party has ever advocated. Regarding the actual topic here, the WP article seems to me to be a relevant and high-quality secondary source and chucking it out strikes me as a rash and bad decision. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: To deny a policy, or belief, is a form of "sugar coating". One shouldn't just dismiss it out of hand. The party's stated policy, it's self description is not gospel. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ebelular: That's a problematic statement to make. If an article were to be published that said the National Party was in favour of a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum, yet the party denies that is the case and instead advocates a No vote who are we to believe? Discarding party/media relations and rights of reply, just we as editors - which side are we to believe in this instance? Irishpolitical (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What? What's that got to do with anything? What if the moon was made of cheese? This hypothetical is irrelevant. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, I still am contending the gratuitous removal of a reliable secondary source. You haven't reached consensus here, neither I nor @Shinnerfeiner: agree that the source ought to be removed. The WP is a very credible source, not just for American politics but also for international affairs. Your argument that because the article says "ban abortion" as opposed to "keep abortion banned" doesn't add up given the fact abortion is already semi-legal here with the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 which the NP has vowed to repeal, the X case judgement the NP has vowed to overturn, etc. Therefore it would be reasonable to say the NP's policy on abortion isn't satisfied to keep things as they are, but in fact to make an even more strict abortion law and ban it outright, so it isn't a mistake on their part. The assertion that the party is merely far-right without dispute is an unfair characterisation, some sources have said "right-wing" whereas (most) others have said "far-right", suggesting there exists a rang between which it falls. We should therefore include both for the purposes of WP:NPOV. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

By misrepresenting the problem as you have above (the gratuitous removal of a reliable secondary source) you demonstrate that it is not worth attempting to discuss with you. Either you have read my comments and completely misunderstood them, you lazily did not read them, or are deliberately misrepresenting them (either to push a POV or just to troll, it doesn't really matter): in any case, I am not going to respond to a straw man. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The NP "has vowed to overturn" the Supreme Court's decision in a case; overriding the separation of powers and interfering in the courts process would strike me as far-right... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll let the talk page know that Shinnerfeiner was a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician and is currently blocked indefinitely, whose edits included POV pushing in Celtic/Gaelic articles. -Jamez42 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, beware 80.111.x.x IP addresses... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There is debate here over what exactly the ideological position of the party is. There are sources which exist which call the party right wing: One being from an international source The Washington Post, the other being from an Irish source The Leitrim Observer. Also, various sources refer to the party as far-right. The party is obviously considered far-right by many, but not by all. In the interests of WP:NPOV we should retain the two sources which describe the party as right wing, while also including the sources which refer to it as far-right in order to present a more balanced and neutral view.Irishpolitical (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Give it a break already. Sources that say "right-wing" are not disagreeing with sources that say "far-right", since the latter is a subset of the former. You've literally been edit-warring and arguing over this for a year at this point, so maybe it's time you just dropped it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The article said right wing to far right for a long time before you changed it. Saying that far right is a subset of right wing, therefore sources which say far right overrule all that say right wing is a bizarre point to make. Including both deceptions as both are reliably sourced for the purposes of WP:NPOV is what makes the most sense Irishpolitical (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not "a long time". Two months. And even during that time it was not stable. You need consensus for these edits, but so far not a single non-banned editor has agreed with your edit in a whole year. If you edit-war over this again I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Same goes for your removal of neo-nationalist. You're the only editor removing it. You have no consensus to do so. Sneaking it in, in the midst of a formatting change to the infobox? Low. Stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, not exactly. Please see the following section. I have agreed with replacing neo-nationalist with nationalist, for reasons stated there. Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I also agree with removing "neo-nationalist". The question is really whether the use of "nationalist" in Junior Cert history and geography textbooks (and their preferring "proponents of the nation state" or whatever when describing non-Irish nationalists) makes that sense the only correct one for the word as used in Irish English, which would effectively prevent us from using it here. I would say it doesn't. Irish news media and scholarship use the word "nationalist" in the same way as non-Irish all the time, so there's no need for us to come up with an "alternative" to distinguish this group's nationalism from pro-unification "Irish nationalism". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As for calling the party nationalist it is generally the consensus in the Irish media to refer to "far-right nationalists" as different from "Irish nationalists", the latter being mostly used in the north (SDLP for example). There's multiple sources for "far-right" and there's at least one for "nationalist". It's generally the used description for similar parties of this nature in the world. Also, I am still saying we should include "right-wing" here, given there are sources for it. Why are we removing sourced content here just to further narratives? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Scolaire and Hijiri88, I urge you to reconsider your support for use of the term "nationalist" over "neo-nationalist". Irishpolitical has been edit-warring over this for months, sneaking in removals amidst other edits as recently as yesterday. As even Irishpolitical admits the NP are "far-right nationalists" rather than "Irish nationalists" (like, e.g., the SDLP) and their policies include racial profiling, a complete ban on all Muslims coming into Ireland, and deportation of all immigrants. I can't imagine Colum Eastwood, Micheál Martin or Mary Lou McDonald calling for the same... Irishpolitical, your removal of the term neo-nationalist has also been reverted, I believe, by Jon C., Spleodrach, and MatthewVanitas so no, you still don't have consensus for removal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that Irishpolitical has been and continues to be disruptive. It is not, however, good policy to oppose a reasonable compromise on the grounds that it is proposed by an unreasonable person. When Jon C, Spleodrach, and MatthewVanitas reverted the removal of "neo-nationalist", did they revert a change to "far-right nationalist" or a change to "Irish nationalist" or "Irish republican"? There is a world of difference; "far-right nationalist" does not embrace Colum Eastwood, Micheál Martin or Mary Lou McDonald, but it does embrace, for instance, the British National Party. I oppose "Irish nationalist" or "Irish republican" on the grounds that there are no reliable secondary sources that use those terms to describe the party. Irishpolitical has reasonably pointed out that there are no reliable secondary sources that use "neo-nationalist" either. We have to be consistent in how we apply WP:V. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

At any rate Neo-nationalism, despite its 84 references, is a very vague article about a very vague concept. At the start, it appears to be about Donald Trump and Brexit, but once it goes into list mode it includes the entire political spectrum from Xi Jinping to Viktor Orbán, including Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been around since the 1980s! Even Alternative für Deutschland and Vlaams Belang, which appear in the list, are not described as neo-nationalist in their own articles. So, as a link, it's not awfully useful at all. Scolaire (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not "sneak in" nationalist yesterday, this was agreed upon in the section below. Bastun is making a false equivalency here, as if I am arguing for it to say "is an Irish nationalist party". That I am not. Also, you claim these people (Jon C., Spelodrach, and MatthewVantias) are in favour of using the label neo-nationalist yet they haven't said that anywhere on the Talk page. The fact of the matter is here that the label neo-nationalist is unsourced, using it is OR speculation. Nationalist as a label is found in a secondary source yet is being routinely ignored. Are we actually trying to follow the sources and agree on a consensus-driven compromise here or just push unsourced narratives? Irishpolitical (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not a nationalist party. I would describe the SDLP as nationalist, this crowd - no. Neo-fascist is probably more accurate here. Spleodrach (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Spleodrach What you're talking about is Irish nationalism (i.e. SDLP), and that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the label of "far-right nationalism", which almost all would concede is applicable, indeed it is referenced by a secondary source. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference between "far-right nationalism" and fascism is what exactly? Spleodrach (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You did sneak the change in, in the middle of another major edit, with no edit summary. I made no such claim about the other editors - what I wrote is right there in black and white a few lines above. Stop putting words in my mouth. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok well there are at least three editors who have stated that neo-nationalist ought to be removed from the article, as it is unsourced. You are the only person who has actually argued in favour of using the term, despite it being unsourced. The term isn't sourced, the consensus is to remove it. So it's time to remove it, as discussed here.Irishpolitical (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your maths is as flawed as your SPA hero-worship. You don't have consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Irishpolitical, Scolaire, Hijiri88 aren't in favour of use of neo-nationalist. Jon C., Spleodrach, and MatthewVantias and I have all restored that version. Somehow that's 3-1 in favour of removal?! Get a grip. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Potentially we could skip "neo-nationalist" and use "far-right nationalist" and fascist instead, Spleodrach and Hijiri88? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait ... do you mean making the lead sentence read "[is a] far-right nationalist and fascist [party]"? That is not clear from the above if so, and I don't agree. Saying it has been called fascist by X somewhere in the body might be OK. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The label "fascist" is only used by Shane O'Curry as a quote within thejournal.ie article, it isn't a reliable secondary source independent of the subject that uses it. I'm against using it, using it is just agenda pushing and totally flies in the face of WP:NPOV, whether you personally think the party are "fascists" or not. The current edition of the article is the result of compromise and consensus and while it's not going to satisfy everyone it at least presents a sourced version of the party instead of OR speculation or narrative-pushing.Irishpolitical (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

totally flies in the face of WP:NPOV, whether you personally think the party are "fascists" or not Umm ... no, that's really not the problem. The problem with the lead calling them either "neo-nationalist" and "fascist" in Wikipedia's voice is that they are both basically unsupported by sources. "far-right nationalist" (which is supported by all the sources) is almost as bad as "fascist" anyway, so NPOV has nothing to do with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Irish republican party 2

The National Party is a reactionary party, one of whose objects is a reversion to the old Article 2 of the Constitution: "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas." This is not enough on its own to call it "Irish republican" or "Irish nationalist". Apparently, from earlier comments, it has used the rhetoric of republicanism on its Facebook page. This is not enough to make it "Irish republican" or "Irish nationalist" either. When a reliable secondary source says that it is "Irish republican" or "Irish nationalist", this article can. Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a 2004 An Phoblacht article referring to Justin Barrett as a "right-wing, self-styled republican". It's obviously useless as a source for this article, but it does suggest a way of describing the party – in the article body, not in the lead or the infobox – if a reliable secondary source could be found to support it. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I already said elsewhere that using "republican" (even "Irish republican" and wikilinking so it looks like a compound word even when we don't write it that way) in the sense of "pro-unification" is problematic when it doesn't necessarily also mean, y'know, republicanism (theocracy and fascism are basically antithetical to republicanism). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well by what merit are you defining "Irish nationalist" if not supports a United Ireland, which the National Party does? That is the metric we've used for all Irish nationalist parties, therefore why not include the reality here? To remove it suggests they are anti-reunification which couldn't be further from the truth. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

My proposal here would be to just say it's a right wing nationalist party. While not directing Irish nationalist necessarily. The current neo-nationalist label for example is not substantiated in the secondary sources, and is basically OR speculation. Whereas there is a secondary source describing the party as "nationalist, eurosceptic and anti-immigration". Irishpolitical (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

or rather an "unregistered far-right nationalist party". All of these descriptions are unambiguously found within the sources. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Irish nationalist" and "neo-nationalist" have the same problem, which is that neither is stated in reliable secondary sources. "Unregistered far-right nationalist party" is probably the best description for the opening sentence. "Right-wing nationalism" should be changed in the infobox, not because it is inaccurate, but because it redirects to Nationalism#Varieties, which doesn't actually talk about right-wing nationalism. I suggest it be replaced with [[Right-wing politics|Right-wing]] [[nationalism]]. Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine. There is at least one source which characterises the party as nationalist (among other descriptions). Let's just use "unregistered far right nationalist" party then. As for the inclusion of Irish nationalism in the infobox I would regard it as being acceptable given there are sources which show the party's support for a United Ireland. Another alternative could be to just include United Ireland in the infobox, it's a referenced description. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject that say it is a United Ireland party? If so, what are they? Scolaire (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire:This source contains information about the party supporting "unity by consent". Irishpolitical (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Irishpolitical, that source contains a quote from a press release by the party that references "unity by consent". Is there a reliable, secondary source independent of the subject that says, in its own voice, that it is a United Ireland party? Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire:I understand there are rules surrounding WP:PRIMARY, however it has already been mentioned in the Ideology and Principles section that the party supports a United Ireland in [its assertion http://www.nationalparty.ie/principles/] that the national territory is the whole island, territorial seas, etc. This is a pretty unambiguous statement in favour of a United Ireland by any metric. This coupled with the journal.ie article which mentions their support for "unity by consent" is obvious evidence of the party's professed support for Irish Unity. Irishpolitical (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand WP:PRIMARY. That puts that to bed. So, is there a reliable, secondary source independent of the subject that says, in its own voice, that it is a United Ireland party? Scolaire (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire: There are parts of the article already which mention the party's support for a united Ireland under the Ideology and policies section. I see no reason not to include something about their support for a 32 County Ireland, whether we call it Irish nationalism / Irish republicanism / United Ireland. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead is not a reproduction of the article body. Neither is the infobox. Racial profiling, anti-abortion and the death penalty are not in the lead or the infobox. United Ireland, like them, is fine in the Policies section. Scolaire (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I'm speaking specifically about the infobox here. However, we can determine policies like anti-abortion are social conservatism and therefore that's in the infobox, it's criticism of the EU and anti-euro currency is therefore Euroscepticism and that's in the infobox. Similarly I would add it's support for a unified 32 county state is Irish nationalism/United Ireland/Irish republicanism/pro-Irish reunification and therefore it ought to be included in the infobox.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It fits under right-wing nationalism just as well. There's no need to add a separate ideology for it any more than there's a need to add one for racial profiling, anti-abortion or the death penalty. I'm not going to keep going round in circles with you. Continue to talk to yourself if you want. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Death penalty

Per this source and the associated The Jim Jefferies Show video linked from that article, Barrett has called for the death penalty for (specifically) doctors who carry out abortions. They're his words. On video. Irishpolitical is changing that, both on this article and on Justin Barrett, to "those who carry out abortions". Despite it being pointed out that that's not what the source - Barrett's own mouth - says. Instead we're getting "The "policy" obviously would refer to all who perform abortions, not just doctors. If they believe abortion is murder, they believe the penalty for murder should be death."

Sorry, IP - that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "Doctors" is literally straight from the horse's mouth. Please stop edit warring on these two articles. Or it'll be AN/I and tban time. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Either way it's a violation of WP:PRIMARY and you've admitted that fact numerous times above. Does a reliable secondary source say that he supports the death penalty for abortion doctors? No? Until that point it should simply be removed, given WP:INTERVIEW. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:INTERVIEW: "Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself." What was it that the source said? He was asked a question and stated an opinion: "Doctors who perform abortions should receive the death penalty." What are you changing it to? "Those who perform abortions whould receive the death penalty." OR and SYNTH, and a misreading of WP:INTERVIEW. Stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying now is it should be deleted as it violates WP:PRIMARY, as you've demonstrated above. Can we find a reliable secondary source which validates this claim or is the best you have a quote taken directly from a YouTube video? Hardly a credible source. It should be removed. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying now is the same as I said back in August of last year, available above: "Policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Barrett as a source for his opinion that doctors performing abortions should receive the death penalty is perfectly allowable per WP:PRIMARY. You interpreting that to "he actually meant everyone who performs abortions so I'm changing it from 'doctors' to 'those'" is interpretation and needs a secondary source. As for the source - I can fully accept you're not familiar with The Jim Jefferies Show, but it's not a "YouTube video", it's a Comedy Central TV show, also available on Netflix. An allowable primary source. But we're not using that. The source we're actually using is the Daily Edge report about the segment on the TV show. I.e., a secondary source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Claimed membership

The insertion of the claimed membership of 1,000 people into the infobox has been reverted by three different people now. It should of course have been discussed here after the first removal before reinserting it - never mind re-inserting it after it was removed by a second person. The most that can be said about membership is in inline text, along the lines of "Barrett claims that the party has 1,000 members, though it has not yet registered as a political party." Including it in the infobox, where it appears as a 'fact' is misleading. But as demonstrated elsewhere on this talk page, Irishpolitical, you don't seem to quite get the difference between primary, secondary and self-published sources and what and isn't appropriate for use. The continual push by your largely single-purpose account to paint the party in the best light possible and remove content that you don't like is bordering on the farcical at this stage. A topic ban will have to be sought if it persists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I imagine the reason it was reverted on 29 May was due to no source being given, which is a totally legitimate reason to do so. However, now a source has been provided. It is the custom on many other political party pages to have "(claimed)" next to the membership figure if it cannot be independently verified, as in this case. The membership figure of ~1000, as claimed, is described in a secondary source. If you don't believe the claim that's fine, but until you can provide a source for that please stop removing sourced content. Conversely to your unfounded points that I'm just trying to "paint the party in the best possible light", you merely attempt to paint it in the worst possible light and run-roughshod over rules and standards because you don't like what certain sources say. Basically you've been trying to build a caricature of this party to suit your own narrative and the reason I am spending more time here than elsewhere is because I have to keep fending off your narrative pushing and violations of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Anyway, until the point that you can provide a better source for membership figures, please refrain from removing sourced information. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You imagine wrong. You made this edit, including use of the same source you reinserted since. Guliolopez reverted you, with an edit summary (you should use those more!) of "Dubious and self-published claim. Unsupported by anything. In the same quote Barrett claimed that the group were “in the process of registering as a political party”. A statement also unsupported by any evidence." You ignored that, paid no heed to WP:BRD and reinserted on 7 June without addressing Guliolopez's concerns. I reverted. You re-inserted again, still without discussion. Grayfell reverted you, and you're only discussing now because I created a talk page section. So please stop being so disingenuous. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So without all the "so and so did this", what actually is the crux of your opposition to this source? Especially given it is common with various political parties to have a claimed membership tally in the infobox. This source provides a claim for that, published in a secondary source as a claim. Therefore it is useful to readers to know how many members the party claims to have. If you have a better source for membership figures please provide it. Until that point I see no reason to ignore this source. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I can agree with Grayfell regarding the use of template:increase, given this is the only source (that I have seen) referencing the claimed membership figure. But I see no reason to not include the claim in the infobox, especially given it's listed in a secondary source which makes quite clear it is a claim rather than an objective statement.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not going in the infobox. It's a dubious claim from the party itself without any them providing any supporting evidence. As Bastun suggested, an inline sentence saying "the party claims to have a 1,000 members" is all that can be added here. Anymore edit-warring and I will be supporting a topic ban. Spleodrach (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to take that sort of strict line there is basically no supporting evidence for half the things written about the party which are presented in the article as objective reality. If you find it acceptable to include the claim in the article body, then why not the Infobox - given the infobox is there to provide quick information at a glance? Very inconsistent and arbitrary to selectively ignore a source.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As per Spleodrach, Bastun, and others (and indeed my own previous edit-summary) the claim made is dubious at best (and overtly spurious at worst) and has no business being in the infobox. We should not be adding claims which are inherently dubious. Other than to state that the dubious claim was made. Also, FYI, the membership details of other parties is not left to self-published or "claimed" sources. The attendance to Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis events is a matter of observable public record - as is the number of members that contributed to the 2017 Fine Gael leadership election for example. Other/smaller parties do not have infobox entries for membership - likely because they are not verifiable independently. This "OSE" argument is both inappropriate and invalid. Further, continued adherence to "I didn't hear that" or "I don't like that" type arguments (in particular in relation to questioning the applicability of otherwise reliable sources) is not helpful. There has been significant discussion and effort applied to keeping this and related articles balanced and factual, and disruptive or warring patterns which is contrary to policy, is unlikely to be successful relative to this goal - and could potentially result in escalation. (For myself I first thought Bastun's TBAN proposal a bit harsh. But this continued IDHT tone and seeming unwillingness to even acknowledge the counter argument (not to mind to propose compromise or seek consensus) is starting to make it sound less so. Please note that the revert button is very close to the self-destruct button...) Guliolopez (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If I am over-ruled here as a matter of consensus then I accept the views of other editors. However, I still maintain that the source is not any more dubious than any other claim made in the article. It's not self-published, given it is from a reliable secondary source, the source is merely from within the party itself. Nowhere have I argued that this is a perfect metric to assess the party's membership numbers, I do however challenge other editors to provide a better source. Until the point a better and more reliable source can be provided I would argue it's fair to include the claim in the article infobox. That is my position and it's within the scope of WP established customs. Until the point that other editors concur with me or until there is another source available re membership numbers I shall refrain from re-adding the claimed membership no. to the infobox. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideological position

The party's position on the political spectrum has long been a point of contention in this article. I'm advocating for the inclusion of sources which describe the party as "right-wing" as they are currently being selectively ignored. I'm not saying we should remove the sources saying far right as some editors have suggested, given they're well backed up per WP:V. However the current edition of the article does ignore multiple sources which use the term right-wing. In the interests of WP:NPOV I suggest using the description "right wing to far-right" in the infobox. Also, it's obvious consensus hasn't been achieved on this given editors have often changed the political position to something other than "far-right". Per WP:V I'm arguing in favour of using the sources which describe the party as right-wing and far-right (or just right wing or just far-right).

Below sources have referred to the party as right-wing:

Carney, Orla. "Justin Barrett on his return to right-wing politics". Today FM.

Heavey, Fiona. "New right wing party to launch tomorrow". Leitrim Observer.

Fahrenthold, David A. "Trump's Irish golf course lost $2.3 million in 2016". Washington Post.

Irishpolitical (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The Carney/Today FM reference (which is about Barrett, not the NP!) refers to Barrett as right-wing in the headline, but to far-right in the expanded sub-heading.

Likewise, the Heavey/Leitrim Observer reference: the body of that same article describes the party as far-right. But then you knew this, as it was already pointed out to you. "A headline is not a source. Headlines are often shortened for space reasons. The article is the source. Don't start another edit war." Another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?

As to the Fahrentold/Washington Post article - you're not seriously suggesting that a passing colour comment from an American business correspondent, reporting on losses in some Trump businesses, is a valid justification for including right-wing, are you? Because that tban is drifting ever closer... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

First source, ok I accept that one. As for the second, yes it refers to them as far-right in the article, but it also refers to them as right-wing. Why do you say far-right supercedes right-wing in this circumstance. The amount of characters in "right wing" is literally more than in "far-right", so it obviously wasn't for space reasons - and to claim that is self-defeating. My point is that if there's a source that describes them as right-wing then we should use it. For the last source, if you take issue with the source itself then WP:RSN is the place to discuss it, but the source refers to them as right-wing and therefore I see no valid reason to exclude it. Also, stop gratuitously threatening a TBAN every time I make a sourced contribution to this article. So if you can find an actual reason to exclude these two sources that aren't just your opinion on them, then please provide it. Until that point the sources should be included. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Far right is a subset of right wing. You do know that, yes? So every far-right party is also a right-wing party. That is not a justification for saying "right to far-right" when there is an occasional reference to them as "right-wing"; in particular, obviously, when they are described as "far-right" in the same piece. By your logic, the Fascist Party could be described as "right to far-right". If the consensus of reliable sources is that they are far-right, then that is what they are. Scolaire (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Really what we need is an academic source here, not just snippets from newspapers from two years ago. But I don't think they'r relevant enough to warrant any academic research yet. Anyway, if we'd like to focus on the modern day for comparisons and examples instead of past historical regimes it may be more helpful. The Italian Lega Nord is frequently described as "far-right" in certain sources, but as right-wing in others. Some even use both terms. Just because both terms are present doesn't mean one automatically supersedes the other, which seems to be what you're advocating here. We shouldn't let consensus group-think trump WP:V. There is at least one source which describes them as right-wing and not as far-right at all. Therefore, that source should be included in the infobox, if you dispute the accuracy of the source then take it to WP:RSN. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't let consensus group-think trump WP:V. Actually, WP:V and WP:DUE specifically say that Wikipedia goes by the consensus of reliable sources. Far right is a subset of right wing. You do know that, yes? So finding an article in an American paper – not primarily about the party – that omits "far" does not trump the consensus of the sources that we have at present, which is that the party is far-right, not "right to far-right". Scolaire (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not make mention of topic banning every time you make a sourced contribution to the article. I make mention of topic banning when you attempt to whitewash the article, own the page and continue to edit disruptively against consensus. We've already discussed the use of the Washington Post reference - it even has its own section - ad nauseum, but you reinserted your version again anyway, against consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

United Ireland again

I'm proposing a few minor-ish edits to their policy re an all-Ireland State / United Ireland / whatever you want to call it. I think Scolaire on 12 May made an assertion which isn't wholly accurate and it's still lingering on in the article. Namely, that the party supports a restoration of the old Article 2 of the Republic's constitution. The source itself does not actually say that, it merely asserts that the National territory is "Ireland, its islands and territorial seas". The wording is the same, but it doesn't advocate for putting that back into the Constitution in the Principle. Also, another piece of problematic language in the current version of the article is that "the party makes an irridentist claim on Northern Ireland", this seems to imply the party are the ones claiming the north. It's also just a roundabout way of saying they support Irish re-unification. Therefore, my proposal is to remove the sentence linking it to the old Constitution as it's misleading and implies they wish to just restore the old claim on the north a la De Valera, whereas the party doesn't actually say that and saying it anyway could be construed as WP:OR. I don't think it's necessary either to quote the principle as if it's Holy Writ. We should just say "the party supports a United Ireland and advocates in favour of the Irish nationalist/Irish republican irridentist claim on Northern Ireland". If there's no objections I'll make these edits.Irishpolitical (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither my edit nor the current version says or implies that the party advocates the restoration of the old Article 2, only that it copied the wording on its website. The "National Party Principles" on its website begins, "The National Party believes that the territory of Ireland consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas." The old Article 2 of the constitution says, "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas." There is nothing to interpret here; the two are identical, word for word, and since the National Party "principle" came 80 years after the constitution, it was copied from the constitution, not the other way round. We don't need a reliable secondary source to say that what is a word-for-word copy is a word-for-word copy, but we certainly would need one if we were to say or imply that it was "unconscious plagiarism". And that statement of itself is an irridentist claim on Northern Ireland, regardless of its provenance. We also don't have any source at present, other than that page and a couple of tributes to dead heroes on the party's Facebook page, that the party actually has publicly advocated Irish unity. So yes, I object. You're repeating the same arguments that have repeatedly been rejected. Find something new or let it go. Scolaire (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC) [edited 19:14, 3 July 2018‎; forgot to log on]

I was referring to your first message on this particular Talk section when you called them reactionary and said they support a restoration of the Old Article 2. But that isn't what the source says. It merely asserts that the whole island of Ireland is the national territory. So the parts of the actual article referring to the Old Article 2 does imply the policy is a reversion to the old constitutional article, which is not necessarily true. Do you see my point? I'm not saying you're wrong in the fact the language is the same, I'm saying we should re-word it in a way that doesn't make reference to Old Article 2 - that the language is the same isn't really necessarily relevant, after all how many ways can you say that Ireland is Ireland? Also, there are sources stating they support "unity by consent", that in conjunction with the Principle #1 I would consider to be a pretty open-and-shut case that they support Irish re-unification as a basic principle, is that in dispute? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Referring to your edit today, @Scolaire:, I did not sneak anything back in while "people weren't looking". I only moved the prominence of it in the infobox to coincide with its place in the party's principles, it's been in the article for a week or so now and there have been many edits since it was originally added. Various parties, such as Fianna Fail and the Social Democratic and Labour Party have the ideology "United Ireland" in their infoboxes, so I don't see why you find the term so objectionable, given sources have been provided which contain reference to the party's support for 32 county unification? If you wish to imply the party are Free Staters or don't support a United Ireland then please provide a source which states as much. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A good source would be if they ever actually register with the UK agencies in the north. We have other sources about UI as outlined above, however if they register in the north would editors consider that to be an acceptable source for support of Irish nationalism / a United Ireland? Although honestly, the idea of a supposedly Irish nationalist party needing approval from a UK state in order to be considered Irish nationalist really is farcical to me. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(1) I didn't say you snuck it in today. You snuck it in on 21 June, at a time when all the talk page discussions were at a lull, and without posting to the talk page to announce or explain the edit. That was underhand. I wouldn't have noticed it it you hadn't moved it today. (2) I never said that they support a restoration of the Old Article 2, I said that their object is a reversion to the old Article 2, i.e. to the territorial claim expressed in it. Using the identical wording is a dead giveaway, and it is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that anybody supporting a united Ireland would naturally use the same wording, or that there is no other way to express that aspiration. And in any case, that is not what I put in the article, so it is silly to ask for citations. (3) What I said in the previous discussion is still true: their "first principle" fits under right-wing nationalism in the infobox just fine; there's no need to add a separate ideology for it any more than there's a need to add one for racial profiling, anti-abortion or the death penalty. (4) Nobody is saying that they're Free Staters, so that's a straw man, and whether they organise in the North or not is of no relevance whatsoever. Now, you have not brought anything new to the table. You think you can make up in verbiage what you lack in original argument. You can't, so please stop. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You expect me to walk on egg shells and discuss every little minor edit? Per WP:V and the fact there was a source I saw no reason to discuss it on the Talk page before making the edit. You say the use of language is a "dead giveaway", but really I don't see how it is. You're making a quite a serious assertion but it really just stems from your interpretation of the Principle. Frankly it's a bit ridiculous that this article doesn't contain in the infobox some reference to either a United Ireland or Irish nationalism or Irish republicanism or Irish re-unification - whatever way you want to word it. They have made the assertion in favour of a 32 county Ireland in the first principle, there's a source of them talking about "unity by consent", everything they put out is either focused on Irish nationalism / far-right immigration policies / social conservative policies. We have the latter two, but are gratuitously ignoring the former. I implore you to stop excluding this pretty central policy of their platform. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I expect you not to edit against consensus, and Wikipedia requires you to obtain consensus for any and every controversial edit (this was not a "little minor edit" and you know it). Now, once again, is there a reliable, secondary source independent of the subject that says, in its own voice, that it is a United Ireland party? If not, then that doesn't belong in the infobox. What the party says on its own website and press releases is appropriately dealt with in the Ideology and policies section of the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What's a Free Stater? Also, can you provide a reliably secondary source for these UI claims? Spleodrach (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And again

(And again...) Blight55 - please read WP:BRD. There is no consensus to insert "United Ireland" into the infobox, despite your claim to the contrary. You'll notice it's similarly absent from every other Irish political party's infobox, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no consensus to remove it. :Blight55 00:34 08/12/2018 (UTC).

Clearly, there is. Spleodrach (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you are conflicting with other editors. :Blight55 00:34 08/12/2018 (UTC).

Blight55, as has been pointed out to you, you're editing against consensus (3 editors have reverted your changes) and WP:PRIMARY applies. You're also breaching 3RR and WP:BRD. Strongly suggest you seld-revert. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Most editors agree with me but they actually have lives so don't edit this page all day unlike you. It doesn't apply because a statement of a belief is self-evident and doesn't require outside validation, especially from a political party. "Consensus" between editors is irrelevant, sources are where information comes from. You haven't given an actual reason why it's incorrect, other than your personal political feeling. Blight55 00:48 08/12/2018 (UTC).

Bastun is incorrect here. United Ireland is on Fianna Fáil’s infobox. Irish re-unification is on Fine Gael’s infobox. Neither of these parties are raison d’etre Irish nationalist parties (maybe historically), whereas the NP are. I see no reason to exclude it here. Hardly contentious, nationalist party supports a United Ireland, shock-horror! Irishpolitical (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I meant Sinn Féin. I have now removed it from FF's page, though. Blight55, again, I'm inviting you to self-revert in compliance with WP:BRD - you were bold, you got reverted, now it's being discussed. You need to wait for discussion to conclude rather than forcing your version in. Arguments such as "most editors agree with me" don't carry any weight. Consensus is not "irrelevant", it's actually a Wikipedia policy. You don't get to pick and choose which policies apply to you. Note that you're also in breach of the three-revert rule and will end up blocked if you continue down this line. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:V takes precedence over any faux-'consensus' and you should know that. Blight55 15:09 08/12/2018 (UTC).

Removing support for a United Ireland from other parties' articles now is WP:POINTY. Bastun opposes United Ireland specifically in the infobox but he seems to not mind Irish re-unification being in the infobox of other parties? Semantics. The party is anti-partition, that much is verifiable, the infobox should reflect that. I would be willing to accept United Ireland, Irish re-unification, Irish nationalism, or Irish republicanism as acceptable labels to describe their ideology as goes the north and broader island-wide nationalism; the latter two are preferable as they are verifiable -ism ideologies. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Support for the goal (not an ideology) of achieving a united Ireland is something shared by FF, SF, FG, Labour and various others. Including it is pointless. Blight55, you've been ignoring BRD. Last ask - self-revert. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"United Ireland (also referred to as Irish reunification)[1][2][3] is the proposition that the whole of Ireland should be a single sovereign state." "United Ireland" is a proposition, not an ideology so supporting that proposition makes it appropriate to include. You've just created some imaginary definition of what the "ideology" of United Ireland means, and deemed everything which falls outside that invalid. Blight55 17:24 08/12/2018 (UTC).

Bastun you're engaging in WP:OR and splitting hairs with other editors about your personal definitions/views. But it's verifiable the party is anti-partition/for a United Ireland/for Irish nationalism. We should add Irish nationalism or Irish republicanism to the ideology box as it is an ideology and warrants inclusion. Or failing that then United Ireland. United Ireland is hardly an irrelevant point to include given its a major part of this party's programme (where it isn't with other parties, e.g. Labour). Irishpolitical (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No OR here. We've already discussed the NP's version of nationalism here and it's not the same as that of Sinn Féin or the SDLP, but much more right-wing than that. Possibly what's attracting people to the article and party, actually, judging by certain editor's user page histories. Jebus. Anyway, Blight55, consider this your 3RR warning. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You haven't "discussed anything, all you've done is give your poorly formed view as a refutation of sourced information. Which you repeat here with your vague irrelevant statements. By the way how does "certain users" edit history have any bearing on the validity of the verifiable information which you change? Blight55 20:28 08/12/2018 (UTC).

So is your implication that to be an Irish nationalist or an Irish republican one must be left-wing or at least not right-wing? Do Sinn Féin or the SDLP have a monopoly on Irish nationalism? Because that's total WP:OR and allowing your own opinions to trump WP:V. Anyway, I'm not saying it's even the party's primary ideology necessarily; but there is zero reason to exclude it. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It would be OR, which is why that's not what I said. The differences between the NP's far-right nationalism and Irish nationalism have already been discussed at length on this page and I'm not rehashing those arguments again. There is a clear consensus to omit "United Ireland" from the ideology of not only the NP article, but also from other Irish political parties - registered or not. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, Blight55 has been blocked for edit warring. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Bastun you are engaging in WP:OR by claiming the NP cannot be Irish nationalist because it doesn't conform to your ideas of what that is. The implication being the party is therefore pro-partition or against a United Ireland/the historic independence struggle? But that's plainly untrue. You've said before you recognise the party are Irish republican, why not just include that then? It's a fine description for their attitude to the unity question. And it's differentiated from the right-wing populism policies of the NP which are separate in the infobox already. If you can provide tangible reasons to oppose this other than your opinion please do so, otherwise there's no reason to exclude it apart from your OR. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not engaging in OR at all, and I'm not making any suppositions about their position. Stop attempting to set up this straw man, please. This section of the talk page, btw, is about use of the term 'United Ireland'. I'm neutral thus far on including Irish republicanism but would be interested in seeing the views of other contributors to the article, including Spleodrach, Scolaire, Hijiri88, and Ebelular, all of whom contributed previously on such discussions. I take it, then, you're willing to omit 'United Ireland' from the infobox? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If we're re-hashing the same arguments again, then let's do so. Opposition to immigration, opposition to abortion, and restoration of the death penalty are all in the nine principles, but none of them are in the infobox. Irishpolitical says they fall into "social conservatism", which is in the infobox, so that's all right, he says. By that same logic, an irredentist claim falls under "nationalism" (including "right-wing nationalism"), which is in the infobox, so that's all right. None of the other five principles are even mentioned in the article! So why should one of the nine be elevated to the status of major ideology plank? Calling them Irish republican is just pure stupidity. The party has nothing in common with Sinn Féin, Republican Sinn Féin, IRSP or 32CSM (did I miss anybody?), none of whom would touch them with a 40-foot pole. This has all been thrashed out at great length on this talk page. The fact that a newly-arrived editor wants to edit-war to replace an infobox item that was removed by consensus does not mean that consensus has suddenly changed. Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Scolaire thinks supporting a United Ireland is the same as irredentism (which is total OR) and then he cites other parties which are left wing republican and says because the NP differentiate on the point of not being left wing they cannot be republican. Well the two are not mutually exclusive and that's evident throughout the history of Irish republicanism, especially given the leftist influence really only came about in the 1960s, before that republicanism was almost exclusively right-wing and more "far-right" than anything this party has ever done. The Provisionals were founded as explicitly anti-communist in reaction to left republicanism, they were rather Catholic and only became more socialist over time under Adams. Gerry McGeough in particular is a good example of a right republican. I see no reason why this party ought not to be listed as republican because its ideological grounding on the National Question quite plainly is republican.

As for United Ireland, to respond to Bastun, no I don't think it should be removed from the infobox; Irish re-unification hasn't been removed from Fine Gael's infobox despite the fact Irish reunification is minuscule on Fine Gael's modern or historical agenda. United Ireland is an ideological position to take, especially in the north. No reason to exclude it other than the WP:OR which we've witnessed here and the flaunting of WP:V. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No reason to include it when none of the other eight principles is there, and five of them aren't anywhere in the article. How about addressing what I actually said? It's easy to bang on about my use of a word being OR, and trot out some OR musings of your own, rather than respond to my substantive arguments. Scolaire (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What would your proposal be to include other of the party's principles in the infobox? I would suggest 1. Irish nationalism, 2. Republicanism, 3. Nationalism, 4. Subsidiarity, 5. Euroscepticism, 6. Fiscal conservatism/economic nationalism, 7. right-wing populism/nationalism, 8 and 9. social conservatism. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My proposal, as you are well aware, is to leave the infobox exactly as it is. There is a consensus, as you are well aware, that the current version of the infobox does just what an infobox is supposed to do. I suggest you write something about the missing five principles in the article. If you actually care about the article, that is. Scolaire (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Waffle

So before I get to the meat of this section, I have to again remind Irishpolitical of BRD. You were Bold and inserted content. You got Reverted. So the next step is Discuss on talk. It's not "edit-war by re-revert to restore my preferred version while telling the other person to take it to talk." So I'll be restoring the status quo version while this is discussed, both on this article and the Justin Barrett one.

Your edit inserted: "According to the National Party, Barrett decided in 2016 that the time was right to launch a new political movement. As he had "long advocated the development of an authentic nationalist party", but he believed the conditions until then had been "unfavourable". Barrett claimed to have been "encouraged" by the response from "a new generation of nationalists", and therefore publicly announced the Party’s foundation in November 2016." (sourced to the NP's website)

In plain English and without all the quotes, this amounts to: "Barrett had long wanted to set up a party, but thought the time wasn't right, then he changed his mind, so he did." Only in more waffley language. It's unencyclopedic twaddle.

Further, your edit on Justin Barrett inserted the same content but removed "In a press release in November 2016, Justin Barrett announced that he was President of the newly founded National Party, a political party that will oppose multi-culturalism and abortion."

Removing content that might be viewed as unfavourable and replacing it with content painting the subject in what you deem to be a favourable light? It's almost like there's an election in the air... Save the flowery prose for the hustings and leaflets, Wikipedia isn't the place. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok firstly, you throw out BRD as your rationale to basically control these articles and stop them from being improved by editors such as myself.

Your summation of the point is your own, but it's inaccurate to call it waffle. The paragraph explains why they launched when they did. The current article gives no such reason and merely reads as if the party just dropped from the sky one day. You seem to take an incredibly negative view of using sources here such as this one yet are happy to use countless primary sources (such as tweets) on the Gemma O'Doherty article to make negative insinuations.

I oppose your reverting of my edits. I formatted them in such a way to keep up with Wikipedia's style and WP:NPOV.

Also, you implied in your reversal that I, Irishpolitical, am Justin Barrett. And now you seem to be suggesting I'm going to be "on the hustings stage". Am I inferring this correctly? Because if so I find your logic ridiculous... any edits that aren't purely negative slander must be not only a party members with WP:COI but in fact the party leader himself! It's a very strange and naïve logic which actually betrays a lot about your biases. I am not Justin Barrett nor a member of the NP - although naturally I have political opinions, just as you so obviously do. Anyway - accept that. And I find your rationale and characterisation inadequate. If another editor would like to weigh in it would be appreciated. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

FF: "The party was founded as an Irish republican party on 23 March 1926 by Éamon de Valera and his supporters after they split from Sinn Féin on the issue of abstentionism,[20] in the aftermath of the Irish Civil War."

FG: "Fine Gael was founded on 8 September 1933[19] following the merger of its parent party Cumann na nGaedheal, the National Centre Party and the National Guard (popularly known as the "Blueshirts", a name still used colloquially to refer to the party)."

Labour: "Founded in 1912 in Clonmel, County Tipperary, by James Larkin, James Connolly, and William X. O'Brien as the political wing of the Irish Trades Union Congress,[8] it describes itself as a "democratic socialist party" in its constitution."

SF: "The original Sinn Féin organisation was founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith. It took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party (with the other side becoming the Workers' Party of Ireland) and has historically been associated with the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)."

All are matter of fact statements outlining the formation of the four oldest parties in the state, using 2/3 or less of the length you used. None wax lyrical about the need for a party, the timing of it, etc. Same for all of Ireland's more recent parties. It's a bizarre inclusion, imho, and seemed jarringly out of place - as I said, more appropriate for an election leaflet than an encyclopedia. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit involved wholesale copying of text from this web page. That raises two serious issues of policy:

1. WP:COPYVIO states, "inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing...Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." WP:Close paraphrasing says, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy" (emphasis in original). That web page has a clear copyright notice at the bottom; the edit is a violation of that copyright.
2. The edit is not NPOV. Justin Barrett's view of Justin Barrett and his party is very different from the views of virtually everybody who writes about him. Taking stuff off his web page and presenting it as unblemished fact is the very opposite of NPOV. As Bastun says, a statement of the foundation of a party should be concise and strictly neutral; it should not contain commentary copied from the party leader such as "he had long advocated the development of an authentic nationalist party" Just prefacing it with "according to the party" does not offset that.

Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Well let's be constructive here, which is the whole point of these talk pages. Currently the reference to the party's foundation appears rather abrupt. Do you object to a paragraph merely stating the party believed the time (2016) was ripe for the emergence of what it deems an "authentic nationalist party" in Ireland? Irishpolitical (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think possibly a tit-for-tat is feasible. A new second sentence in the first paragraph in that section might say, 'According to the party's website, Barrett believed in 2016 that the conditions existed for the creation of what he called "an authentic nationalist party" in Ireland.' The final sentence, 'The party's press release claimed they seek to espouse the "true spirit of the Republic"', would then have to be removed. There is only room for one self-description in the paragraph; otherwise it becomes undue weight. --Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm content to leave it as is in that case.Irishpolitical (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Death penalty 2

The reliability of a comedy show (or an article discussing the comedy show) was always dubious, but given the recent exposé of Jim Jeffries rearranging the answers in an interview to make someone look like a racist, his show can't be seen as a reliable source. If this is Barrett's position (abortion doctors should get death penalty), then surely he's said it somewhere else. Great floors (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

How about a centralised discussion rather than in 3 separate locations? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have explained my removal of the content in that thread. Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS

Given that a blog was recently added as a source here (in support of an otherwise unsupported claim that the subject is a "target of both the media and Big Tech"), and as that claim/source was re-added (on the basis that the publisher of the blog is not overtly listed alongside other sources which the community deems unreliable), I feel compelled to seek consensus on a position here.

While I am itching to query how/why an editor with -effectively- 2 prior edits is even familiar with the concept of RFCs (not to mind the outcomes of very specific ones), I am interested to understand how the general policy (that blogs and UGC in general do not meet RS) would not be applicable here? Is there consensus for the inclusion of statements which are supported solely by a single blog-based source?

Are there no other reliable sources to support a claim that the subject here is somehow the target of -what- some kind of conspiracy by "media and Big Tech"? Contributions to gain consensus (ideally from non-socks) would be greatly appreciated. On whether:

• this is even valuable content. And,
• whether (if it is) how it can be supported/sourced.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I followed the WP:RS link to a list of reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources, on this page the source is listed as biased/opinionated and so therefore should be properly attributed. The edit did attribute information and so therefore I think it should stand.

I read this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability which said that blogs can be acceptable especially if it is from a media organisation which Media Research Centre is. I think it is a reliable source when used with attribution and quotation as is suggested in the perennial sources page.

As for value, it is value adding because it adds sourced material to the ideology section

I don't see why how many edits I have or not is relevant as long as I give a reason for what I am doing. SeanBreaslain (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for your note. RE: "don't see how many edits is relevant". In honesty its not. I raised it (and perhaps shouldn't have) only because relatively new editors are typically not expected to be able to source/quote/reference complex community policies. And being able to do is sometimes considered an indicator of less than altruistic goals. That being said, if my note indicated a less than good-faith perspective on my part, and is without basis, then I can but apologise. RE: "it is a reliable source when used with attribution". Personally I'm not seeing it. A claim, which seems to suggest that the subject has been the target of some kind of main-stream-media/big-tech conspiracy, would seem to need more than one blog post to support it. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGESOURCE. Which deal with sourcing of opinions or positions which are less widely held. Not least when Occam's razor and Hanlon's razor would suggest that enough people (who disagreed with the video's message) simply decided to mash the "complaint" button in YouTube. For divilment or otherwise. Rather than some broader conspiracy between "big tech" and "the media" to hamper the subject's YouTubing activities. Anyway, lets see if a consensus on how to proceed is forthcoming.... Guliolopez (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If the claim that they have been targeted needs more sourcing then I would propose the removal of this part of the edit "", it has experienced a rise in popularity from urban youth to rural farmers, which has made them a target of both the media and Big Tech"". That is a more editorial/opinion based statement in the source. The source is more than adequate for the rest of the edit considering that is a perennial source which is not restricted and is just advised to be used with attribution.SeanBreaslain (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Media Research Center (sic), but they seem to be a tabloidy, right wing, foreign publication. They seem to write nearly entirely only about the USA, and they're knowledge of Irish culture/society seems quite poor (That article refer to "Gerry" Adams, wha?) I don't think this is a very reliable source. I think you'd need to have some much more reliable sources than that. Ebelular (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well and is problematic about the edit I made? The video objectively was restricted by YouTube. One doesn't need an in-depth knowledge of Irish politics to see that. So I am struggling to see the particular objection here other than the source is 1. American and 2. conservative (not big deals). Irishpolitical (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Bizarre claims ("it has experienced a rise in popularity from urban youth to rural farmers, which has made them a target of both the media and Big Tech") require excellent sourcing. Otherwise it's just someone's opinion. So:

• How has the "rise in popularity" been demonstrated? (It still doesn't feature even as a blip in any of the latest opinion polls. In fact, it has never registered in *any*, since it was founded.)
• Why would popularity with "urban youth and rural farmers" make them a target of the media? (Who seem to like rural farmers, in my experience (though admittedly, there aren't that many urban farmers...))
• Why would popularity with either make them a target of "Big Tech" (what is "Big Tech", anyway?)
• How have they been "targeted"?
• If any of the above were a) true, or b) significant, there'd be plenty of reliable sources, surely? Even one or two Irish ones. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

make them a target of the media? (Who seem to like rural farmers, in my experience I suspect the authors of this blog post see everything through a US lens. Yet another reason why this source is suspect IMO Ebelular (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well that is their claim, and the original edit made it obvious that was their claim. But fair enough, I see that point - any rise in popularity or whatever should be substantiated by something like Election Results. Remove that part, but there is no reason to remove all of it wholesale or claim that this source is intrinsically unreliable - as was noted there is no consensus re its reliability or unreliability. I would be inclined to use portions of it & preface them by saying who the organisation reporting this is. We should do that for other portions of the article in general, e.g. thejournal says the party supports an Irexit but the party demonstrably does not support an Irexit, there have been a few instances of this where initial reportings on the day of the party's launch have been held in this article as objective truth, whereas over the two and a half years since they launched we've seen some of these initial reportings were inaccurate (whether deliberately or not) and the party's actual policy is different (that is not to say the party's description of itself, but actual basic policies). Irishpolitical (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't say they support an Irexit, or quote The Journal as saying so? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This blog is an unreliable source and cannot be used in whole or part. Spleodrach (talk)

United Ireland yet again

@Scolaire: There is a source from the Derry Journal recently published which contains the statement that the National Party intends to contest elections in the North in the near future. It follows with the quote: "We are determined to contest elections in the Six Counties with the same zeal and determination as any other county in Ireland. This is our land, the whole island of Ireland and we need no constitution to tell us that – our hearts are enough,” he [Barrett] said. https://www.derryjournal.com/news/politics/anti-immigrant-party-cites-creggan-murals-says-liberalism-is-achilles-heel-of-republicanism-1-8922740

This is a reputable third party source which contains a clear indicator of the party's attitude to the north, i.e. an Irish nationalist perspective & their intent to contest elections in the north. Would you consider this citation adequate for an addition of a reference to Irish Nationalism/Irish Republicanism/Irish re-unification/United Ireland in the article/infobox? Please let me know. Thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Derry Journal refers to the party as an anti-immigrant party, not as an "Irish nationalist" party. What the paper says the party says can be cited in the article as what the party says. It cannot be cited for what the party stands for. So yes, there can be a bit in the relevant section saying that they claim that "our land" is the whole island of Ireland (which is in that section already), as long as it also says that they claim that liberalism is the "Achilles' heel" of modern republicanism, which is the main point of the article. But no, the article cannot say anywhere that it is an "Irish nationalist" party or "United Ireland" party unless and until there is a reliable, secondary source independent of the subject that says, in its own voice, that it is such. This is the fourth time I have said this. Why do you keep pinging me to ask if Wikipedia policy has changed since the last time? Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the comment on "liberalism being the Achilles heel of modern republicanism" should be included in the article, but it isn't wholly relevant to the point I make here. Often the sources will not explicitly use these labels like republican or nationalist, yet the running definition of an Irish party that intends to field candidates in the north & supports the north as "our land" would come under the definition of Irish nationalist/republican/UI/etc. My point is, if the articles essentially uses the description of the ideologies you mention without specifically stating them, then we can infer from that a use of the appropriate label of supporting a United Ireland nonetheless. For example, you yourself have derived from their Principle #1 that the party makes an "irredentist claim" on the north - nowhere is "irredentist claim" mentioned in the source - but you use it nonetheless. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

What is the consensus version of the infobox? Is it this, or the version that preceded it for many months? When did the consensus for "Irish republicanism" form? 81.17.242.237 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Representation in lead

Following the May 2019 local elections and May 2019 European elections, I added a short note (to the body and to the lead) that, though the party had registered in April 2019 (to contest local, Dáil and European elections), it had not put forward candidates for the May elections. (Alongside the 1000 or so other candidates who contested those elections).

Though this content has remained in place for almost 5 months (through 90 different revisions which have involved 25 different editors), in a recent edit summary an editor has suggested that this inclusion represents a "smear", is a "subjective" statement, and that its inclusion now requires "talk page consensus".

I have therefore opened this thread. To determine if there is consensus that this statement is considered by the community to be:

• "subjective"
• a "smear"
• otherwise unworthy of inclusion

For myself, I added it simply because, as per the project's own definition/entry, a political party is a group of people "who field candidates for elections, in an attempt to get them elected and thereby implement the party's agenda". As a reader might otherwise, reasonably, expect that this group had done so, I thought it worth a very small note in the lead. To reflect that this isn't (yet) the case with this party. And to reflect the equivalent content from the body. Per MOS:LEAD.

Happy to hear other opinions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously it's relevant and should be included. Editor seems unaware we had elections in May 2019? How could the inclusion of this fact be deemed a smear?! Doubtless it can be removed shortly, anyway, when the by-election writs are moved in the next few days. It's absolutely fine to stay until then. I would add that in the face of opposition, the onus is on the person wanting to make a change (in this case, removing content) to get consensus; it's not done by edit-warring. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Shows what I know, anyway... still no candidates. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that all you do is capitalise on the fact that the media opposes the party. Which is the case for most nationalist parties by the way. You attempt to justify calling the party far right through media sources which obviously have an agenda. For people like you if a party is nationalist and European it is 100% of the time far right despite the fact that their ideas were the mainstream position just 40 years ago. The truth isn't that now nationalist parties are somehow more extreme, but rather that mainstream parties have gone further to the left.

As such many a justification to these written definitions lie in "respectable publications" who by the way are mostly loosing money due to decreased interest in the media precisely because of their biased overtly political nature.

Your position is this unjustified and likely motivated by political personal beliefs. Something which should be unacceptable in a purely objective encyclopedia that Wikipedia is supposed to be. Alekaa20025 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My "position" is to include what reliable published sources say and exclude personal opinion, in accordance with various Wikipedia policies, including WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Plenty of European nationalist parties are not far-right, nor even centre-right (see, e.g., Scottish National Party, SDLP, Plaid Cymru, and Mebyon Kernow), so, um... yeah... Bye. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Request

I cordially recommend that this page be renamed "National Party - An Páirtí Naísiúnta" or something to that effect. Alternative suggestions are "National Party of Ireland". Given the Irish Freedom Party reads "right-wing" despite their associations with the far-right/alt-right. Many thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how those two issues are in any way related. I reverted your edits as the long-established consensus, debated in several sections above, has not changed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm also entirely unsure what these two things have to do with each other. Is the latter part a justification/rationale for the name change? If so, I don't follow it. At all. In any event, in terms of the suggestion that the "page be renamed 'National Party - An Páirtí Naísiúnta' or something", I would note that WP:COMMONNAME is what determines article titles. "National Party" is the most common name of the subject. The parens disambiguation follows relevant convention, and doesn't cause any conflict. The proposed title would not follow COMMONNAME or related conventions. And so, absent an actual/logical rationale for a change, I'm not seeing it.... Guliolopez (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Far-right, redux

I am reverting the recent addition of "right-wing" to the lead. The edit summary of IrishPolitical refers: "As you well know, WP:V is what counts here and a few lines on the talk page from a year or two ago don't overwrite consensus." There aren't "a few lines on the talk page" - there is a well-established consensus, arrived at after extensive discussion in several talk page sections:

• Talk:National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)#Stop_edit-warring._All_the_(reliable)_sources_say_"far-right".
• Talk:National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)#Stop_edit-warring._All_the_(reliable)_sources_say_"far-right".
• Talk:National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)#Ideological_position

Consensus has not changed.

That leaves WP:V. It seems necessary to point out WP:DUE again. IP has re-introduced "sources" that have already been talked about - and discounted. No, a headline -only! - calling the NP "right-wing" is not a sufficient source to back up inclusion of "right-wing" in the lede, when we have plenty of excellent sources backing "far-right". IP even accepted this at the time, yet here they are again, re-inserting the same content. (Once again - the Heavey headline used by IP to justify "right-wing" itself calls the party "far-right" in the article body.

We've been over this at length already - nothing has changed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting a lot of the discussion here. All I am doing is including more sources: I am not removing far-right from the lede. I am merely adding other sources to be included in this spectrum. This is completely a WP:V issue. Some sources call the party right-wing (alone), some sources refer to the party as both right-wing and far-right, and others refer to the party as far-right (alone). There is no reason why you should discriminate in favour of some sources but not other legitimate ones this strongly. I am going to revert your edit which removes a lot of fair sources: We've been through this before with you ignoring WP:V quite flagrantly. Irishpolitical (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly - bollocks. You are aware of WP:BRD. Your edit has been reverted. Now - we discuss. BRD does not mean you get to re-revert while discussion takes place. I've had to say exactly the same thing to you, several times, on this very page. I am misinterpreting nothing. You've re-inserted sources that don't say what you claim, or say the exact opposite, that did not previously stand; so why re-insert the same ones yet again? Once again - an article headline, such as Heavey's, does not count as a source - especially when the body of her article goes on to describe the party as far-right! But we've been over this multiple times before, and this is a WP:V issue. It is, also, a WP:DUE and WP:CONSENSUS issue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Far-right, redux II

Perhaps, Irishpolitical, you can outline where, exactly, consensus changed from the above, i.e., use 'far-right' instead of 'right-wing'? The artiicle used to cite 'right-wing' describes the party as 'extreme right wing' and 'fascist'. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The longstanding nature of this edit has been accepted by most editors as legitimate, but you are insistent on refighting this. It has been explained to you that WP:V trumps your own idea of consensus. Helper201's edit made clear that sources which referred to the party as right-wing shouldn't be ignored in favour of far-right alone. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There were no sources describing the party as right-wing. There was one, describing the party as "extreme right-wing" and "fascist", but which was used to cite "right-wing." Despite that, we still include discussion on where the party fits on the political spectrum in the 'Ideology and policies' section, and mention "right wing" there, and I'm not proposing removing it from there. We're just not including it in the lede, where it's absolutely undue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The source for right-wing. The source does not describe the party as fascist (please read through it carefully). It quotes a tweet in which someone calls it fascist. To say extreme right-wing = far-right is WP:SYNTHESIS. I don't see adequate reasoning for removing this citation from the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing is right-wing, and does not need or warrant a qualifier. The journalist who wrote The Journal article obviously felt the NP's description did need a qualifier, and so included one - "extreme". "Extreme" does not imply centre, centre-right, or even right-wing - it implies far-right, or further. You say "the source does not describe the party as fascist", but actually yes, it does - the source is the whole article, including the quoted tweets, which are every bit as valid as the opinion of the journalist concerned. Especially when the article was written the day before the party's official launch, and the journalist himself says "Little is known about the new party." The 'Ideology and policies' section mentions "right wing" - though a better source is needed - and I'm not proposing removing it from there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

implies far-right - this is WP:SYNTHESIS and exactly what I was talking about. You are implying something from the source, exactly what the synthesis rule says not to do. You are extracting meaning and interpretations from a source. Please read through the synthesis rule. We should only include what the source itself explicitly states. Just because an author of a piece has quoted a tweet from someone does not necessarily mean it reflects their view. That again is extracting your own interpretation / coming to your own conclusion from what is not verified in the source. Helper201 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Extreme right-wing" != "right-wing." It just isn't. Implying it is, is, well - wP:SYNTHESIS. You are extracting meaning and interpretations from a source. Etc. And in any case, once again, an article from the day before the party launched is - by definition - just not going to be as accurate or well informed as later sources, from when the party has been in operation for several years. Such as the three sources added for "far-right" dating from 2020. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a far-right party, it is a Conservative party. -2600:1005:B120:B2A6:1FF:1786:8891:C807 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-nazi stickers

Doktorbuk, you're here long enough to know the WP:BRD process. You've were bold, you got reverted - it is incumbent on you to discuss - not to simply re-revert and edit-war. You've been invited to discuss on the talk page several times, and are refusing to do so. There appears to be no consensus to remove the image of stickers specifically created to attack the National Party, which is noteworthy in itself. Please stop removing this image without achieving such consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Irishpolitical why not self-revert and take part in the pages Talk page rather than edit-warring? WP:BRD and all that - you can't have missed the edit summaries, clearly, as you're counting editors?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A sticker that attacks a political party is noteworthy. This is very rare in modern Irish politics, and so its inclusion is warranted. Spleodrach (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not, is it. One single sticker in a developed Western democracy is notable, is it? Ireland, with its rich, complicated, complex, challenging political history, marked on both sides of the border with historical instances of posters, leaflets, murals, declarations of independence, and countless referenda, is a country which must indicate on a very particular Wikipedia article the instance of one single sticker? Look, I get it. This party is clearly controversial, it's clearly not very popular, I've seen the edit history, I understand what is happening here. One anti- sticker has been posted, and the people behind that sticker want publicity, maybe they want to smeer the political party by including this sticker on the page. Calling this section "anti-Nazi sticker" gives the game away, too. It's clear as day that no political party article on Wikipedia woud stand for one single opponent having the right to post a critical sticker on their article. I simply don't believe - because it's not true - that "a sticker that attacks a political party is noteworthy." It's biased, it's NPOV, it's UNDUE, it's not going anywhere near this article. doktorb _words^deeds 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for belatedly participating on the talk page. a) The heading is "anti-nazi" because that's the slogan used on this sticker. b) It's obviously not "one single sticker"; we have a photo of one instance of the sticker. There's a clear and obvious difference. We have a photo of a poster advertising a public meeting on the Roderic O'Gorman article, but nobody is suggesting that that was the only poster put up for it. c) I don't know how familiar with Irish politics you are, but it is extremely unusual and noteworthy for a political party to be attacked in this manner, as a look at Irish Election Literature would demonstrate. d) Please assume good faith and don't personally attack other editors - I'm pretty sure that if you went back through the page history, you'd find that all of the people who restored the image have, in the past, also removed anti-National Party vandalism from this and/or the Justin Barrett article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Far-Right?

How is this party considered “far-right?” 2600:1005:B16E:45E:C95C:E8FC:7186:610A (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• You are probably better off asking that of the Irish Times and the Irish Central, whose articles apparently verify the claim. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The Irish Times is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B16E:45E:C95C:E8FC:7186:610A (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, if you say so. You're welcome to take this up at WP:RSN, but you'll have to, ahem, actually provide grounds for that. Next time, please have the courtesy of properly indenting and signing your message--thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see where you're coming from. Trump won and fascism is left-wing. Great. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You're a complete far-left moron.2600:1005:B14B:18BB:543F:D495:781F:DB9C (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ah yes, back to this bi-annual thing. All of the sources referenced call the National Party a "far-right" party, therefore that is what the Wikipedia page is gonna say. End of story, period tea. If you find a similarly reputable source describing it as "conservative" as you've replaced it with (which I wager anything you won't), feel free to raise it here and we can discuss it. Til then, it stays as it is. Also, you'd be doing well to read up on WP:NPA and wise up instead of going around calling random people who disagree with you "far-left morons". Sound. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this party is more conservative, than "far-right"

As per their website, the party officials define themselves as conservatives, not far-right. Thanks.174.199.163.152 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what reputable independent sources say, not what people or organisations about themselves, and not what we think might be the case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

But wouldn't a citation from the party's official website be a reputable source, although not being an independent source?HumbleConservative (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Please read about the differences between various types of sources (primary, secondary, tertiary) here; Wikipedia's verifiability policy clarifies when sources can be used as sources about themselves, which makes it clear that the NP's claim that it's "conservative" couldn't be used because there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (namely, multiple reliable sources describe them as "far-right". In any case, all of this is old ground - can I suggest you read the rest of the talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If I find something that says the party isn't "far-right," may I please share it here? Thanks. -HumbleConservative (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Bear in mind, though, that while coverage from reliable sources will be considered, it will be done taking into account WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, and ensuring we don't introduce false balance. So mainstream Irish sources will be given more weight than, say, partisan American "alternative news" sources, college newspapers, etc. Seeing as the preponderance of sources agree that the NP are far-right (we could include far more than the four we already use), I'd wonder why you'd bother, and why you're so exercised by this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References

This is a Conservative party, not far right.

This is a Conservative party, not a “far-right.” As a fellow Irishman, I can confirm this. -2600:1005:B120:B2A6:1FF:1786:8891:C807 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Anyone reading the sources will be able to confirm that multiple reliable sources (including the Irish Independent, Irish Times and several otherwise reliable sources) describe the subject as a "far-right" party. Hence that is what the article reflects. Per WP:VER and related guidelines. The nationality of editors (or readers) is otherwise not relevant. Guliolopez (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Guliolopez, user's IP /64 range is now blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Trivia

Randolph-Bourne, if you are Bold and add content, and that gets Reverted, the correct response is to Discuss on the Talk page; not to reinstate your edit. Follow the WP:BRD process and establish whether or not there is consensus for your addition before re-adding it. You've apparently edited previously under a different account (which one? - please let us know) so should be aware of this.

As to why your edit was reverted? Because - as per the edit summary - it was trivia. It would not pass the WP:10YEARTEST and is WP:UNDUE for inclusion. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it's worthy for inclusion. Few, if any, other articles list how much a party or candidate spent on a bye-election, and nor should this one. Certainly no Irish political articles do. Someone on the internet got some abuse on Twitter? Simply not newsworthy! I got some abuse on here today for being so bold as to fix some typos, but I don't expect that to appear in the Wikipedia article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bastun, it appears you are in a bit of a habit of gatekeeping articles on Irish politics. Do we need a discussion every time content is added to an article? The information I've added to the page is from the news, which would therefore imply it is newsworthy. Somebody receiving abuse on twitter in this instance even got its own headline.

Regarding my former use of wiki, you are only aware as I have stated on my userpage I used to frequently edit wiki in the past. 10+ years ago on content relating to films if you must know. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we apparently do need a discussion every time someone content is added that's against policy and guidelines. Please explain why you think we should list the bye-election expenses of the NP in one particular bye-election when no other Irish political article does so; or - bearing in mind Wikipedia isn't a newspaper - why the inclusion of alleged social media abuse of an unnamed individual is warranted? There is a world of difference between 'newsworthy' and WP:DUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If such information doesnt exist on other party pages, then maybe it should. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it clearly shouldn't. WP:DUE. WP:10YEARTEST. WP:NOTNEWS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Far-left"

WP:BRD is worth a read. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again you are using BRD as a fig leaf to gatekeep articles. You claimed in your initial revert that the source (Newsletter) does not use the term "far-left". The title of the article reads: "Lough Erne Resort Enniskillen: Conference for far right group The National Party was disrupted by far left protestors". You should read WP:V. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the text as it stands and as restored, seems reasonable to me. Two of the sources (The Newsletter and The Irish News) use the terms "far left protestors" and "far-left anti-fascist activists" respectively. The ITV News source uses the term "left-wing protesters". The current/restored text ("disrupted by a group of far-left anti-fascist protestors") therefore seems more than reasonable and supported by the refs. Guliolopez (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Leave the personal attacks out of it. You know how BRD works at this stage. Or you should do. A headline - written by a sub-editor - does not form the body of an article written by a journalist or other commentator and a headline by itself is not a reliable source. The only other mention of "far left" in the source was from a NP member - hypocritically talking about "far-left" violence despite the only conviction for political violence in recent years being an NP member for an assault with a weapon on an unarmed woman! - so therefore can't be used in Wiki voice. It could well be the case that so-called "antifa" just like punching Nazis, and there was nothing to indicate they are right, left, centre or far-left. You've now found a second source - the Irish News one - that does use the term "far left" - well done. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Up yours. Irishpolitical (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. You might do well to remember that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The National Party aren't Far Right. They're certainly right wing, but if anything just an extremely conservative party.

The @claims of NP being far right usually come from the fact Justin Barret attended far right meetings in Europe, ON BEHALF of a pro-life organisation, it doesn't necessarily mean that the parties meeting he attended reflects his own views, another thing is, people may bring a comment he made on muslim people, which he actually recanted thus, how is it of any importance? The National Party DESCRIBE themselves as nationalist, not ultra nationalist, not white nationalist, no far right term, just as nationalist. As a member I know that the party is a conservative party, it isn't any of this BS. Anyone trying to claim it as "far-right" are either uneducated or want to try make the party look bad. Tim121212 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, I am a disinterested recent changes patroller. As a self-declared member of the party, you clearly have a conflict of interest and should be proposing changes here rather than editing the article directly. Relying on what the party says about itself goes against WP:PRIMARY; if they declared themselves centrist, Wikipedia would still rely on secondary sources rather than the party itself.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS (and, while you're here, read the discussions above, too - it would save us all a lot of time). We go by what reliable secondary sources say about the subject, not what the subject says about themselves. Doing the latter would be dumb. The Irish Times, Irish Independent, Examiner, Journal, and Irish Central all describe the NP as far-right. They are all reliable secondary sources. Sorry to break it to you, but a party that protests outside asylum-seekers' accommodation and has depictions of nooses at its protests isn't "just right-wing and conservative." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

She got a Light skin friend look like Michael Jackson, got a dark skin friend look like Michael Jackson Tim121212 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)