Talk:Renua

Knives already out?

There's already beginning to be a useless build up of information that seems to have no purpose except to make the party look bad. The bit about Terence Flanagan's interview has no relevance on the parties article seeing that it will be largely forgotten by next month if not week. Put it on his personal article. Also, the bit about a fake Facebook account will rapidly become out of place as the party matures. Going to start trimming these bits if no one objects. Tomh903 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Political Position

This has been repeatedly changed to "Right". This is incorrect. Renua is a centrist party (maybe Centre-Right at a push. It is certainly not a right wing party. Renua is positioned roughly the same as, or to the left of, Fine Gael - which is listed as Centre Right on its page. Given that no references have been provided for the "Right" edit, where references are provided for the Centre edit, I have changed it back to Centre/Centre-Right (I dont know how to hyperlink so if someone can help out by linking to the Centre and Centre Right pages, I would appreciate it. Since its launch, Renua has repeatedly described themselves as neither left or right. The media have variously referred to them as either centre, or centre right. I have never seen them referred to as right wing. If there are any sources to the contrary, I would be interested to see them. 86.41.107.101 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Cathaloc

Flat-tax? I rest my case. It's not to the left of Fine-Gael. Quite the opposite.[1] Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Flat Tax?" does not exactly constitute a case. Particularly not when what you are referring to is a tax which disproportionately benefits those on lower incomes, at the expense of those currently taking advantage of the many tax breaks available to the wealthy. The flat tax, according to their manifesto and the tax calculator on their site gives the largest percentage increase to minimum wage and below earners, who actually end up on a negative rate of tax. That can hardly be called right wing. So fiscally, I dont buy the argument that they are right wing. Socially, they are quite conservative, so I think a label of Centre-Right is a fair compromise. One of the sources given is inappropriate, as it is highly POV, given that an opposition TD labelled them as right wing. The other, I would take on board, but there is far more evidence for a centre right position. As an aside, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia,if I am not using the talk feature correctly, please let me know CathalocIre (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Cathaloc

Oh please, a flat tax is beloved of right wingers the world over. Though Renua's one, according to Brian Lucey, Professor of Finance at the School of Business, Trinity College Dublin, is "batshit crazy".[2] Snappy (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to a simple flat tax, which is in no way the same as what Renua have proposed. The system is almost exactly the same as the "american style tax system" currently being kited by FG, although less regressive than what they are proposing. So it is fair to say renua are fiscally to the left of FG. That's not my opinion, that's just a simple fact. By repeatedly vandalizing the page by adding incorrect information, you are letting yourself and Wikipedia down. CathalocIre (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is just your opinion, and for a newbie with 4 edits, kindly stop accusing other editors of vanddalising a page because they do not agree with you. TASC says that Renua's 23% flat tax proposal is a policy that will benefit most the top 20% of income earners. In this way it is ‘regressive’. Those earning over 50,000 currently pay 23% or higher tax rate. These are the top 20% of earners. The flat tax will reduce their tax bill and, for example, halve the tax rate of those earning over 250,000. Therefore, this policy, if implemented, will worsen economic inequality in Ireland. The flax tax will result in a significant reduction in taxes taken in to the state which will result in fewer public services – more cuts to public services - worsening housing, health, education etc. The flat tax will therefore undermine the tax base in Ireland – repeating the mistakes of the Celtic Tiger tax cuts – as the global financial situation worsens – rather than cutting taxes we should be maintaining them in order to ensure a solid base for public services, welfare, child benefit etc and in the case of higher income earners and wealth – increasing in order to improve equality. The evidence from countries that implemented the flat tax does not back up Renua’s claims that it will increase the tax take or be progressive. Both the OECD and IMF have both found that the case for the flat tax is unclear. The countries that Renua point to as models for Ireland to follow with the flat tax are Estonia, Latvia and Singapore. Hong Kong is one of the most unequal places in the world. (see below). Estonia and Latvia are the most unequal countries in Europe (see below). These countries follow the free market, laissez faire, neoliberal economic models. Snappy (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

CathalocIre can you please make sure to log in rather than editing from 86.41.107.101, please? (You've been warned about breaching the three-revert rule - using an IP address to game that rule will be frowned upon by the administrators. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Journalistic sources are less authoritative, so I have added an academic source which calls Renua "right-wing". One-word summaries are always simplistics, but more nuanced discussions of its position(s) belong in the prose of the article rather than the infobox. How party leaders describe it is very noteworthy, though not definitive. How individual Wikipedians describe it is irrelevant. jnestorius^(talk) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Renua's political position is definitely not centre-right today. Many of the founding members such as Lucinda Creighton have left the party, taking the more moderate elements with them. Today they are a party which staunchly opposes immigration and abortion, and advocates Irish nationalism. I propose changing Renua's political position from "centre-right to right-wing" to "right-wing to far right". All sources which are used to justify Renua as a centre-right party are outdated. Wikipedia defines far-right politics as "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies." Today Renua fulfil these criteria. The editorrrr (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Renua Ireland colour template

I'm changing the template from dark blue as they seem to be primarily using yellow [3], I'm changing it to a yellow-orange as it would be easier to see than yellow

Renua's constitution says their colours are yellow. I have changed their colours to yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.124.109.42 (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for this. Spleodrach (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Reboot Ireland" citations

The one in the lead absolutely needs to go, as it doesn't use the word "reboot" even once, and the one further down is problematic since it doesn't state that "Reboot Ireland" was a preliminary name for the party this article discusses. Obviously all the relevant information appears to be accurate, which is why I am neither removing it nor tagging it for removal, but it still needs to be sourced. (And no, the sentence The party has launched a website rebootireland.com and a hashtag rebootireland. in the source does not verify was given a temporary name of Reboot Ireland, nor could it -- in January 2015 the name does not appear to have perceived as being "temporary".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Billy Timmins

According to a recent Sunday Independent article he wrote, he has left the party. Culloty82 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [4]

Added a line on this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Political position (again)

@S.Staines:, please stop edit-warring over Renua's political position. There is a section above already dealing with this and the consensus is 3:1 that the party is right-wing. That is backed by the references. The Journal.ie reference you use even quotes a Renua member as saying they are perceived as right-wing. Added to that are the policies listed in the article - flat tax and "three-strikes" rules are right-wing, not centrist. If you continue to edit-war against consensus you will be blocked. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun:What they are perceived and what they are are two different things. Flat-tax is not a right-wing idea, it is based on the Estonian model which has lifted thousands out of poverty. The three strikes rule is also not right wing, it comes from California, the most left wing state in America. Locking people up for three violent crimes is not right-wing, it is keeping people safe from criminals who have proven that after many chances, they cannot stop attacking other members of society. Ring-wing is not an acceptable definition. It is also 3-2 now which is hardly consensus. S.Staines (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Bastun is correct here as per en.wiki conventions - also note WP:FORUM. Articles are based upon what (reliable) third-party sources describe, not Wikipedians' own personal opinions.--Autospark (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Autospark: I was voicing a personal opinion to justify why I'm concerned about it; but I referenced several sources to say they were centrist, now since removed, so they were not based on my own opinion at all. In addition what is wrong with Renua being described as Liberal Democratic? Not only is the political position being dictated by others but now also the ideology?

@Autospark::@Bastun: Hi guys, neither of the two references now cited to justify Renua being labelled Right-wing even mention right-wing in them. There is no mention of it. So please try to keep some consistency here, please just read them or justify it some other way. It makes it difficult for me to believe you can remove my edits which are referenced and replace them with unsubstantiated articles claiming to state something which they do not. S.Staines (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The reference you used for them being described as "Liberal Democrats" is largely unattributed: a party source saying the party will - at some future point - change its name. As and when it does so, it can certainly be included. In the meantime, please see WP:CRYSTAL. You've gotten a compromise of "centre-right" being included in the article, but there are any number of sources that can be included to justify the right-wing tag. Aside from the purely satirical ones. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi :@Bastun:, if there "are any number of sources" to justify Renua being right-wing then could you please include them, it's not enough to say there are sources yet not use them, which is after all what you claimed I was doing. Otherwise the "centre-right" tag is the only justifiable one which I will agree to compromise on. Regarding the Liberal Democrats tag - ideology has nothing to do with a party name, you are confusing the two there. What is relevant is that he said the majority of Renua members consider themselves to be Liberal Democrats, and it is the basis of the party's ideology. Whether or not they put Liberal Democrats in their party name has nothing to do with their ideology; we don't call FF's ideology "Republican" because it's in their name... this is ABC stuff. S.Staines (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the existence of flat-tax policies "too right-wing for Trump" and its "3-strikes" rule? Well, there's an element of stating the obvious (which obviously does not apply to claims that they are centre-right), but sure, I'll bite. (I've also reverted the party's colour to its own template rather than that of a European Parliament grouping that Renua aren't members of).

Somebody with 65 edits, total, telling me that this is ABC stuff? That begs the question what other names you've edited under... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: I agree with your "stating the obvious" sentiment, I should not have to outline how a party's tagline is not their ideology! That is ABC stuff; and you can try to question my number of edits to deflect from it (an incredibly juvenile point), but I'm the only one here actually posting under my name so it's not me with additional accounts you have to worry about.

Your needless personal slights aside. The points you've made re policies are your own personal opinion, if you back them up then fair enough. Their colour is Yellow - what has this template been based on? S.Staines (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Autospark: @@Bastun: Just gone through your 6 citations for Renua being "right-wing":

1) & 2) These are the same references from before which do not mention Renua being right wing, yet you've left them in.

3) References a political opponent who called one specific policy right wing.

4) Journalistic opinion piece which says they are right-wing - fair enough.

5) Says they are Centre-Right.

6) Says more Renua candidates surveyed support repealing the eight amendment than not - hardly right wing!

Sorry Bastun but the majority of these references need to be moved to justify the "centre-right" position, and not the "right-wing" position. S.Staines (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

2) Councillor admits the party is branded as right-wing.

3) Which is one of the most widely reported comments about Renua's policies, and is fair comment, and allowed.

5) Er, no, it doesn't. Right-of-centre is not "centre-right".

6) Yeah, you got me - "Right-wing party Renua Ireland" obviously means "not right wing". Oh, wait...

So you've not edited Wikipedia before under any other account?

The removed colour template was actually that of the European Liberal Democrats grouping, not Renua Ireland. No idea why it was inserted into the infobox. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And for good measure I've re-added Jnestorius's journal reference that somehow got removed... (Note I've added it as the first reference in the infobox so the numbering above is now out by one). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will make a couple of observations:

• It would be better to flesh out the policy section than debate one word in the infobox.
• The cite templates have a quote parameter, which I highly recommend for cases like this to pick out the relevant sentence.
• Six references in an infobox is ugly. You can fold multiple references into a single ref tag.
• "Right of centre" redirects to "Centre-right politics". I'm sure some people's personal definitions draw a distinction, but as long as there is no mention of any in Wikipedia's Centre-right politics or Left–right politics articles, I wouldn't waste time quiblbling here over it.
• Is this Wikipedians' debate a reflection of a real-world debate? If so, describe the debate in the article (although without WP:SYNTH). I don't know which ref has the candidate saying "people say we're right wing but we're not" but that whole bit should be in the article.
• Don't say "some people" when you mean "Labour's Kevin Humphreys".

jnestorius^(talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Could the anon IPs please stop removing references - especially when their edit summary fails to mention that they're also changing the content of the infobox? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun:

Please tidy up the infobox as has been suggested several times.

Again your 8 references are not up to standard:

1) 1st one is fine.

2) The cited reference does not say Renua are right-wing.

3) The cited reference does not say Renua are right-wing (merely having a party figure note that they were branded as such - not the same thing as the article stating they are right-wing).

4) The reference does not state Renua are right-wing. It quotes an opposing party TD who says a particular policy is right wing - again you cannot conflate that to a news source claiming they are right-wing.

5) Your fifth reference also claims that The Labour Party is right-wing. Any source which claims that the Labour party are right-wing is either satire, or completely out of touch with understood principles of Irish politics. To use such an article as a reference for Renua being right-wing is highly dubious as the author clearly has a left-wing bias.

6) Your sixth reference (which states Renua are right of centre-right) is from a known left wing website called Fair-society; in their "Guide to Voting for First Timers" they openly state: "...so we know we can only vote for anti-austerity candidates (AAA, PBP, Sinn Fein, Social Democrats, R2W, IDP, DDI, WP, etc.) and some Independents." and "No matter how brilliant your local FG/FF/Labour/Renua TD might be at getting stuff done for you and your area... they can’t vote according to their own conscience, or how we want them to vote."

How can a source which directly tells it's readers exactly who / who not to vote for be deemed an objective reliable source on an opposing party's political position? It can not.

7) Your reference states that Renua are a right-wing party, a more reputable source than a college newspaper would be helpful.

8) Your reference states that Renua are a right-wing party.

Please tidy this up Bastun, it simply isn't up to par. I will change them myself if required. S.Staines (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh, no, I don't think so. All the references work for the statement that Renua are a right-wing party. "My" fifth reference is Gene Kerrigan, who appears to be aware that Labour included ministers like Brendan Howlin and Alan Kelly, so he appears to know more about the Irish political landscape than... well, some others. "Known left-wing" websites are ideally placed to identify parties of the right. Renua members are well placed to identify how their policies are perceived. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of your references from what are left-wing websites are against Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, also given that university newspapers and online blogs are not considered reliable sources. Labour are not a right-wing party, it's a waste of time to try and justify such an obviously extreme left position. You have been asked several times to roll up your references, yet it's not done. You have not justified any of the above assertions either.

You are not the gate keeper of this page. We are supposed to work through consensus. Some of your references are perfectly fine and some are not up to the quality which Wikipedia expects. It is not a case I am trying to remove the right-wing description. But when you feel the need to hold onto so many references so doggedly - some of which are dubious - it makes it quite clear that you have an agenda. S.Staines (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct, I'm not the "gate keeper". Consensus established above agrees with the inclusion of right-wing (which, yes, you have removed! Repeatedly!). It's inclusion, being challenged and removed multiple times, requires references. They were supplied. I do not think you quite "get" WP:V or WP:RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: I've already agreed with "right-wing" being included (even though I disagree with it), showing my ability to compromise and work through consensus. You won't accept that even one of your many references may not be up to par - there appears to be no consensus with you.

There are references which are 1) Not up to standard (based on your own link, questionable sources section) & 2) are not rolled up. Please correct both of these issues. S.Staines (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Party Colour

@Bastun:

The party colour is Yellow. I have used the Alliance of Liberals in Europe colour code because it is also yellow. Using a colour code does not attribute any connection whatsoever, and no connection is claimed whatsoever. If it is simply annoying to you that a particular colour code is being used then make a new one; to have a description saying Yellow and colour box which is orange makes much less sense. S.Staines (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The party colour is yellowy-orange. Some - not all - of their posters used a yellow background behind the candidate mugshot, which isn't the same thing. Using another political grouping's colour code for convenience is liable to mislead. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So make a new one then. No-where does it say the colour is yellowy-orange.S.Staines (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No need. Infobox looks and works fine as is, without using a template from a grouping Renua are not members of. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is. It states the colour is yellow and the colour box is not yellow; this is as basic as it gets. S.Staines (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Party colour is yellow, all literature is yellow - Renua Yellow: https://www.google.ie/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=DGafW5fdFNDawALtkKToBw&q=renua+yellow&oq=renua+yellow&gs_l=img.3..35i39k1.5971.6846.0.7810.6.6.0.0.0.0.72.383.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.6.383....0.yt3jRdGJams

No literature is published in orange or used anywhere - Renua Orange: https://www.google.ie/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=FWafW-ktkcXBAsq7ojg&q=renua+orange&oq=renua+orange&gs_l=img.3..35i39k1.132714.133554.0.134246.6.6.0.0.0.0.71.380.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.6.380....0.GHipNQniYf4 S.Staines

213.233.150.71

Anonymous, block-evading IPs, also breaching WP:3RR do not get to make demands. Especially when their own edits themselves insert unreferenced information and remove referenced information... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What was the referenced information removed out of curiosity? S.Staines (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that's available from the page history, but for example see this edit. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly my question, I can't find any references for the Ideology description in the page history? That edit you point to removed it from another section, I was referring to the Ideology S.Staines (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation Overkill re Political Position

@Bastun: According to Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Citation overkill three citations which support the same statement is more than enough. Additional citations above and beyond three should be removed, leaving the most reputable remaining. Rather than remove your entered citations, (and excusing the fact that you've already been asked to bundle them) could you please edit this yourself in line with this policy and with which you feel are the most reputable. Thanks S.Staines (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

3 and 4 November edits

S.Staines wrote in this edit summary: "@Bastun was asked multiple times since July to roll up references and stop deleting info;. They have again deleted 15 edits and removed the political position."

Actually what I did was revert the removal of referenced content, that you had removed. Above, you agreed to leave the political position at 'right wing' (well, you had to, as that's what both the references and consensus say). Then you changed it yet again, against consensus. You'll therefore understand my reluctance to remove any references, given those circumstances. I have not deleted any relevant info - I have in fact restored 3,281 bytes. I have deleted your original research about pensions - the reference doesn't mention Renua at all. Kindly stop edit warring on this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You have failed to respond to numerous talk attempts above and deleted the "centre-right" description to which you had previously agreed. I have a reference for the pension information. Please stop edit warring when it is clear for all to see previously that you have failed to engage in discussion and consensus; even it is demonstrated you are in breach of Wikipedia policy. S.Staines (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In a third attempt to engage in communication / consensus with you, right wing has been re-entered as a political position, please select the three references which you would like to support this claim as was requested of you on the 6th of September 2016 - to which you failed to respond - in line with Wikipedia's policy of over-citation. S.Staines (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What?! I never agreed to changing "right-wing" to "centre-right". The consensus and the references back "right-wing", so why would I? You, however, agreed on 7th July to leave it at right-wing, but appear to have forgotten that when you removed it again yesterday and today. How gracious of you to add back "right-wing", unreferenced, after "centre-right". No, that won't be happening.

Discussion? I've opened several talk page sections here, including this latest one. You tend to edit without summaries, and then when you do include them it's to make the points you should be making here.

Wikipedia does not have a "policy on over-citation." It has a content guideline on citation and an essay on over-citation. I am not your servant, and I will obviously not be removing or bundling references when someone is intent on removing or diminishing that which is being cited.

I am not removing any content that should not be removed. You now link, as justification to your addition on a "pensions crisis", to the entire Renua pre-budget submission that doesn't mention a pensions crisis. Previously, you had linked to a Journal.ie article that talks about a pensions crisis but doesn't mention Renua. You are linking these together. This is original research and synthesis.

Why are you removing content:

• Leahy's election following Creighton's resignation;
• James Charity's recruitment;
• James Charity's subsequent resignation;
• Replacing a full citation from the Irish Times with a bare citation that's a link to a Google redirect to a mobile version of an RTÉ News article.

Please stop edit warring on this article. You might also tell us what name(s) you previously edited under. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

you had agreed to include centre right along with right. Where did I say you agreed to replace it? I never said that so you are now fabricating. I'm using my real name unlike yourself and have only ever edited as such. Several times as per talk items have been raised to which you have failed to respond. The policy on Citation Overkill clearly says that 8 references is not needed. If you cannot accept that three references is enough for a citation it is clearly you who has an agenda; as notified previously I will be removing any references surplus to three in line with Wikipedia policy. The link for the pensions clearly states to replace defined benefit with defined contribution; The Journal reference outlines the pension crisis; two separate references.

Stop removing additional information and deleting the political position of centre right. The history above demonstrates your unwillingness to cooperate. S.Staines (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I also presume it was you who deleted the policy sections which I made a start on fleshing out. No mention of it in talk just deleted an entire section, so you clearly have form in this area. S.Staines (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong point. There is no "policy" limiting citations to three. There is merely a content guideline. Citations are more important when someone is trying to remove that which is being cited! Show me a diff where I said I would agree to include centre-right along with right. You won't find one. There is a talk section, above, on ideology. Can you count those saying to use right-wing? Can you now count those saying to use centre-right? Can you count those saying to use both? Clear consensus to use right-wing, because that's what the sources say. As you are - apparently - a editor with only 182 edits, you should be aware that if you persist in edit-warring against consensus, you will be reported and, likely, blocked. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Back to the edit number to back up your point which actually weakens yours to be honest. The consensus debate was around Renua being a centrist party not centre-right; did you delete entire sections on policy? Your left wing bias is clear to see, deleting political positions without mentioning them in the talk section. S.Staines (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Users favouring "right-wing"

• Bastun ; Snappy/Spleodrach; jnestorius; Autospark; Highking;

Users favouring "centre-right"

• CathalocIre (SPA, 4 edits only, all to this page/the article page)
• S.Staines (SPA edits (187 total) largely confined to this article and Red hair

Users who said they would accept "right-wing", then continued to remove it

• S.Staines

Users who have been told they said they'd agree to inclusion of "centre-right", but have yet to see a diff supporting this

• Bastun. (For the record, after you are unblocked, S.Staines, if you include "centre-right" after "right-wing" in the infobox, and reference it, I won't remove it.)

Since it seems to need repeating:

• Wikipedia does not have a "policy on over-citation." It has a content guideline on citation and an essay on over-citation. I am not your servant, and I will obviously not be removing or bundling references when you are intent on removing or diminishing that which is being cited.

• I am not removing any content that should not be removed per policy. Your addition on a "pensions crisis" links to the entire Renua pre-budget submission that does not mention a pensions crisis. Your link to a Journal.ie article that talks about a pensions crisis doesn't mention Renua. You are conflating these together. This is original research and synthesis, and not allowed.

Why are you removing content:

• Leahy's election following Creighton's resignation;
• James Charity's recruitment;
• James Charity's subsequent resignation;
• Replacing a full citation from the Irish Times with a bare citation that's a link to a Google redirect to a mobile version of an RTÉ News article.

Please stop edit warring on this article or you will be blocked again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would you remove something you've already agreed to? On the 2nd June 2016 you stated: "You've gotten a compromise of "centre-right" being included in the article" (viewable above)... Now forgive me first of all for finding it (because you said i wouldn't) and second of all for thinking that you agreed to "centre-right" but I would take that as an agreement and a compromise so please stop claiming that you don't know what I'm talking about. So it's a bit rich for you to say that "[you] won't delete it if I put it "Back in" when you've agreed to it in the first place.... The real question is why did you remove it then? You were no where to be seen when this page was being vandalised daily with "extreme right" and "Irish-Thatcherism" descriptions but are all over it should users try to reflect reality. I will be reverting it to exactly the way it was which was "Centre-right / Right" in accordance with the above.

Even when I put "centre-right" back in I still entered the description "right" for you to then enter references in accordance with Wikipedia policy (not unreliable ones like college newspapers) demonstrating my agreement with it, on the other hand when you removed it you just blatantly deleted it along with the reliable referencing of which there were only two anyway. Why don't you revert the edits you deleted and none of this had to happen; complete waste of time.

Four sections in talk above you have failed to engage, which tells me you aren't interested in consensus anyway. Why did you delete "centre-right" and why did you delete the policy sections which were referenced? So you say you aren't removing content against policy when in fact you are, and doing so without any mention of it in talk. At the very least please practice what you preach.

Users favouring "right-wing"

* Bastun ; Snappy/Spleodrach; jnestorius; Autospark; Highking;

Users favouring "centre-right"

* CathalocIre

* S.Staines

* Andoni77ad

* Mfogar01

S.Staines (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

'Users favouring "centre-right"' seems to involve going trawling through the page history (rather than the talk page) to find some redname SPA accounts with a handful of edits. They've not contributed to this talk page. Unless you happen to know how they think... I have explained twice now why I removed the WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. If I don't always continue to engage with you, Staines, it might be because there's no point flogging a dead horse... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference Quality

Reference no. 5 [5] does not state Renua is right wing anywhere in the article. Will remove unless it can be demonstrated here that it does. S.Staines (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference no. 6 [6] paraphrases John Leahy saying that Renua being branded as extreme-right is incorrect, and Lucinda Creighton stating that Renua is a centrist party. It does not say anywhere that Renua is a right-wing party. Will remove unless it can be demonstrated here that it does. S.Staines (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Departures

Patrick McKee has quit the party, as has Mailo Power. Culloty82 (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Keith Redmond and Frank Durcan have also left. Culloty82 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that leaves only John Leahy as the sole elected representative? I've updated the infobox to '1', feel free to correct if I'm wrong. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Going by Twitter, and then his website, Ronan McMahon, who ran for them in February, and is a Cllr in South Dublin, is still in the party. Culloty82 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Renua Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423183115/http://www.renuaireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RENUA-Manifesto.pdf to http://www.renuaireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RENUA-Manifesto.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Renua Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304164202/http://www.renuaireland.com/candidates/ to http://www.renuaireland.com/candidates/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Staines' Edits

S.Staines, please stop edit warring, including editing while logged out (Vodafone IP 89.19.67.193 made identical edits to yours). Blanking content you don't like is not acceptable. There is nothing unreliable about the source. And if you don't like that particular one, add another. The party's ideology has been discussed at length. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please justify the party's colour as being orange? The party has nothing in orange. Please use talk and stop edit warring which you have done three times now. The rules apply to you as much as anyone.

The party's logo is a variety of colours including orange and yellow. Their website does not seem to favour any particular colour. Yellow is already taken by several other parties. What's your argument for yellow? Spleodrach (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

S.Staines, firstly, please read WP:TPOC again. As you've recently been advised, you may not edit others' comments, which you've now done repeatedly. It's rich for you to urge me to use the talk page when you've recently blanked this very section! (Or are you going to use an excuse of "that was some random IP user completely coincidentally making exactly the same edits as me"?)

As pointed out by Spleodrach, the party use a variety of colours in their logo. Yellow is already used on WP by other parties. There is more orange on Renua's website than there is yellow.

I'm about to restore to Spleodrach's version, which you reverted since I began writing this (which you did without responding to his points above). Take this as a formal warning that you're in breach of WP:3RR and will be reported if you revert again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

No idea why you will not take colour to talk and get consensus. It appears that you are indeed the gatekeeper. I have a copy of Renua's constitution which states their colour is yellow. It will be case closed. I was just curious as to why you wanted Renua's colour to be orange despit no evidence of it. Good man. You are the reason why people don't trust Wikipedia. If they use a "variety of colours then kindly list them!

It's clear they don't. You just want to be the sole authority on this page which really is a shame for all of Wikipedia.

Dude. Seriously. You've been warned several times now. Don't refactor other people's talk page comments.

Not only have people engaged with you here, we've done so despite you blanking talk page sections on at least two occasions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 September 2018

Renua's colour is yellow. Please see links I've posted in talk which have been ignored as I tried to gather consensus to no avail. There is no precedent for renuas colour to be orange. others seem to have a political agenda, which is why they failed to engage and then protected this page. S.Staines (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Proves nothing. It's a google search which only shows that Renua used yellow for its posters at the last election. They may use another colour from their (many coloured) logo next time. Their website shows no favour for yellow or any other colour. Spleodrach (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Bastun's Edits

I don't know why Bastun refuses to accept Renua's colour is yellow. It states it in the second schedule of Renua's constitution that the party colour is yellow. It is irrelevant if another party uses it (which is an argument used to justify the inclusion of Orange - again baseless). Clearly Bastun has an agenda to implement as there is no other explanation. He has been asked several times not to edit war but continues unabated.

If you continue to edit war you wil be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.124.109.42 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

1. New talk page sections go at the bottom of the page.

2. Maybe stick to logging in on one account?

3. See all the other talk page sections that discuss this? Rather than threatening other editors with blocking and blanking talk-page sections, maybe just provide the reference you've been asked for? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Can the IP provide a link to Renua's "constitution", please? Also, even if it does say yellow, that does not mean Wikipedia has to follow suit. Also, as I've said before the bird like creature of Renua's logo uses several colours. Finally, looking at their website, policies section, [7], they use Dark Blue, Red, Green, Orange, Light Green, and Light Blue; no Yellow to be seen. Spleodrach (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So because there's orange in Fine Gael's logo, that should be one of their colours? What a ridiculous argument. If you believe that then list every colour in the bird logo! I don't know why you have constitution in inverted commas, are you unsure of its meaning?

You edit war three times and you should be blocked, no need to get sensitive over it, it's just the rules. I will gladly provide the the reference so this can be put to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.12.69 (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I should probably know better than to stick my head into a debate over colours, but I think the IP/anon has a point, and I don't see any consensus on this page. The earlier discussion seems to have just ended without consensus. The main argument for yellow-orange is a subjective interpretation of the colour, whereas the other side is arguing that Renua itself describes its colour as "yellow". I think we're supposed to go by what the sources say, not our own interpretation. Just my two cents. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Where does Renua say its colour is yellow? Still waiting for a link for that. Spleodrach (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The anon IP that resolves to Australia and S.Staines, the COI editor, have both been asked for a reference and have failed to provide one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Updated Political Position

Renua's political position is definitely not centre-right today. Many of the founding members such as Lucinda Creighton have left the party, taking the more moderate elements with them. Today they are a party which staunchly opposes immigration and abortion, and advocates Irish nationalism. I propose changing Renua's political position from "centre-right to right-wing" to "right-wing to far right". All sources which are used to justify Renua as a centre-right party are outdated. Wikipedia defines far-right politics as "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies." Today Renua fulfil these criteria. The editorrrr (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The editorrrr, while I'd agree with you that Renua under Leahy has moved further to the right than when under Creighton, you will need good reliable sources to justify that change. The Banner was right to remove the Irish Times reference: it's quoting a Labour document and therefore isn't a neutral source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Now have no elected representatives

John Leahy has resigned as leader, and left the party. Culloty82 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Other registered political parties

If the Irish Simpsons Fans party actually registers, it would be the equivalent of Germany's Die PARTEI, but presumably they would have to be recorded in Iris Oifigiúil to be officially considered as one. Culloty82 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Far-right

I don't think it's right to call this far-right especially with only one source that barely mentions them. LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 23:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

LIt's referenced to a reliable source, and we don't describe them as far-right, we describe them as 'right-wing to far-right'. I mean, we can also add this, this, if you want? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

While RTE is a legit source, The Canary has an explicit left-wing bias. LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 23:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 16:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Renua → Centre Party (Ireland) – Its name now is the Centre Party of Ireland. However, given it's now a microparty, and for most of the time was known as Renua, there's a case that it's common name is still Renua, and that we should wait before moving, especially as someone searching for Centre Party will still probably be looking for the National Centre Party (Ireland). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 00:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have linked to National Centre Party (Ireland), a party dissolved in the 1930s doktorb _words^deeds 16:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Move to Centre Party (Ireland, 2023) instead, like National Party (Ireland, 2016). It should include the year of renaming. This will avoid confusion with the National Centre Party (Ireland). Also, there was a Irish Centre Party (1919). Spleodrach (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. If the subject is officially called "Centre Party of Ireland", and still apparently commonly known as "Renua", why move it to "Centre Party (Ireland)"? Which appears to be neither the WP:COMMONNAME or the WP:OFFICIALNAME? Where does the proposed title come from? Guliolopez (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point, Centre Party of Ireland should be considered. Possibly the default if we decide to move it, as it is the official name. All in all, though, I'd be inclined towards Spleodrach's suggestion of Centre Party (Ireland, 2023) as the clearest option, given two previous parties with names very close to that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Where does the proposed title come from?

  Here >>>[8]<<<. I must say, even as a complete Irish politics nerd, I was completely unaware of this name change until now.

  On one hand, I feel like organisations do have the right to rebrand and for Wikipedia to reflect that. On the other hand, common sense tells me that A) Almost everyone will still colloidally refer to this party as Renua and B) This party is unlikely to win seats even in the next local elections, and if that occurs, it will likely collapse, with the name "Centre Party of Ireland" a minor footnote in the history of a minor party, in which 5 years from now, the name Renua would absolutely be the name of the article.

  I'm very open to listening to further arguments before putting forward any kind of vote myself. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I can certainly see that. Consider this less a proposed name on my part, so much as that I think we should have the discussion, even if the consensus is to leave the article title as is, with the changes to the text. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  RE: "the proposed title come[s] from [..] Here >>> [9] <<<". In all honesty, I'm still confused. That Irish Times article gives the full name twice (as "Centre Party of Ireland" in the title, and "The Centre Party of Ireland" in the body). At no point in the Irish Times article do we find a shortened version of the name (as "Centre Party"). I still don't understand why we'd unilaterally "lop off" the "of Ireland" part of the name. And move the article to a title which seems to be neither the COMMONNAME nor the OFFICIALNAME. Personally, until the OFFICIALNAME (or a shortened version of it) becomes the COMMONNAME, I can't see a reason to make a move. There's no rush to get ahead of ourselves here. Wikipedia should reflect (rather than preempt) real-world changes... Guliolopez (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've created Centre Party of Ireland as a redirect to Renua. We could create a separate redirect from Centre Party (Ireland, 2023), though it might not be necessary. I'm in no rush to move, this was as much about prompting discussion or even awareness of the name change than promoting any one proposed name, if needed at all. It looks like there's no consensus on a need to change the article title at all, so Id say let's leave it sit as is. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If we're moving it, then I would support moving it to Centre Party (Ireland, 2023) - this would be in keeping with, e.g., National Party (Ireland, 2016). That said, no need to move until and if the party becomes more commonly known by the new name, rather than Renua. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ClydeFranklin, why are you relisting? There's a consensus for not moved, including the original proposer. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, as OP, I'd agree Bastun that the consensus is not to move. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

new ideology definitions needed?

had a quick scan through their official website linked on the page and it seems to not fit the "right wing to far right" label, there's no mention of social issues like abortion or LGBT issues and immigration is only talked about briefly. personally I would consider their new ideology from their own platform to be center-right but I'd be curious what anybody else thinks? Matthew McMullin (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Their own website is often not the best source for their ideology. The words they write down can differ immensely from what they say in public and how they act. The Banner talk 10:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

While I fully agree with The Banner, I just had a quick look through their website. "Centre right" parties generally do not want to abolish the HSE and privatise all hospitals; require local authorities to sell off social housing; or promote the "election" of people with powers to interfere in policing, including powers to appoint their own people to office and dismiss others. As always, we should go with what reliable sources say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)