Talk:Fianna Fáil/Archive 1

Discussion
Thanks for your hard work. These pages are becoming very useful and interesting. Could you give us a pronunciation guide? DanKeshet

Thanks for your improvements. Can you please tell us what Fianna Fáil means? Champions of what? -- Anon.

Fianna Fáil is the Irish for 'Soldiers Of Destiny' and does not have anything to do with champions

To say Fianna Fáil is "allied with Italy's "post-Fascist" Alleanza Nazionale" is extremely innaccurate. Both parties happen to be in the same parliamentry group. To state in the heading of a purposedly neutral article about an organisation that they are allied with an organisation described as "post fascist" is extremely misleading and smacks of bias.

I agree, the comment is misleading, and shows clear bias. Perhaps something like "It is in the Union for a Europe of Nations grouping in the European Parliament." is more appropriate? Joolz 00:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that calling "Alleanza Nazionale" an post-Fascist party is misleading; it's an Fascist party, there are no doubts, just read about them on site http://www.alleanzanazionale.it (watch out, it seems that there is an troyan horse in english version - at least in opinion of my pc/ or if you know italian just read an journal, or watch "il tg". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.212.149 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly POV edits
Someone with knowledge should look at the edits made by User:Wolfsangel. They look rather POV to me, but I don't know enough about Irish politics to tell whether they are correct or not. /Nicke L 21:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, if you knew what really goes on in Irish politics you would not condsider my edits POV. Some of the things Fianna Fail are doing in this country are a joke, but I refrained from adding them to the article as it would definitely be seen as biased. --Wolfsangel 15:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Add Policy Section
Someone should really add a section about Fianna Fáil's political positions. You'd think that informing people about a political party's positions is very important.--Paschal Lehany (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Six Counties
I am not Irish, and I'm not politically motivated. I looked into this after noting the edit war. It seems POV to fail to include at least one reference to the term "Six Counties". Yes, that term is POV, and so is "Northern Ireland". Neutral point of view states : "Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly."

Since this article is one about a Republican party, inclusion of their term for that region is appropriate and neutral. The wikilink itself should not mislead, though, so I've added the Six Counties as a paranthetical note only.

I am surprised that this issue, while going on for days, was not discussed here on Talk until now. -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The disagreement has actually been going on for some time and over a wide variety of articles, and in particular discussed at great lenght here . Whilst I agree that a term like "six counties" is not always inappropriate a large part of Irish articles were defaced by a single user (who was essentially a professional vandal and took unilateral action on an unprecidented scale) using it as a substitute for Northern Ireland - and in many cases not referring to Northern Ireland at all and even arguing that Northern Ireland is an inaccurate and pov term. This is largely the reason for the revert war as many wikipedians who took part, many not Irish themselves, took exception to this sort of act on wikipedia. Northern Ireland has a great many unofficial terms and many of these are agenda driven by either side of the nationalist, republican, unionist and loyalist divide. If we conclude "six counties" is a valid term then in other articles their may a precident for other pov terms to represent other agendas - and inviting ourselfs to be held random in each such issue - wikipedia should not be a political mouth piece for anyone. Djegan 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What happens on other articles shouldn't make for an edit war here. I think it is a fair thing that, in this article about a Republican party, that we should at least mention the term they use. I would give preference to Northern Ireland for linking purposes, but it is POV to fail to include the other viewpoint.  NPOV policy does not say to remove POV... it means to balance points of view neutrally.  I do not endorse Lapsed Pacifist's actions, as I think he was going to heavily about it.  Wikipedia should, rightly, use the primary term of "Northern Ireland", but also mention the nationalist, republican, unionist and loyalist terms where they apply.  -- Netoholic @ 18:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fianna Fáil do not use the term "six counties" . Demiurge 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the NPOV principle. It does not mean that Wikipedia should be "equally biased in both directions". It does not mean that 50% of Wikipedia articles should refer to the USA as "the Great Satan" and the other 50% should refer to it as "land of the free and home of the brave". Wikipedia should describe both of these viewpoints, yes (just as the Northern Ireland/Ulster/Six Counties issue is described on the Northern Ireland page). But it should use the official name in all other contexts. Demiurge 19:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Our article on Northern Ireland states that Republican groups refer to the region as "The Six Counties".  Independantly, I have found that the term is associated with Fianna Fial, though perhaps not as a primary means.  My edit reflected this by making "six counties" a parenthetical note only, in a single location.  You'll find the phrase used quite frequently in Irish republicanism, as well.  Your "Google results" are not sufficient in my mind, and I feel like you're using it to justify your preference towards enforcing your idea.
 * I am very disappointed that you knee-jerk reverted the change I made, even after I explained that, as an outside researcher, I feel the term makes the article more neutral. I think you have a specific agenda with regards to this issue.  It won't do much for me to argue or revert-your-revert ad nauseum, so I'll decline for now.  I am only responding because I protest your actions.  Even if the article is not perfect in your minds, realize that it's OK for it to be imperfect for a little while.  I think both Djegan and Demiurge need to learn to cooperate here, or risk the sort of small-thinking that has lead to the conflict of Ireland itself.  Your histories on these related pages shows that you both tend to revert without, and in spite of, on-going discussions.
 * As I said above, Neutral point of view states : "Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly." I am marking this article with the NPOV template because I believe it is non-neutral to leave out such a short, simple reference in this article. Whether Wikipedia, somewhere somehow, covers the issue of naming, the point is that this article must be NPOV. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're quite wrong there, as the link above suggests ample discussion was given about this topic - for one person to fleet in a suggest otherwise is a bit rich. The user we were reverting against has been given several 3RR warning and is currently blocked for his revert war. This is not the only page that he was involved in a revert war, look at the history section and you will see that several editors were involved, to suggest some sort of vast right wing conspiracy by two editors is absurd. Djegan 20:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The use of an NPOV term in Irish republicanism does not justify its use here. And "Six Counties" is not a term used by Fianna Fáil, as I have demonstrated. I have produced evidence to support my argument, where's yours? (As for my "agenda" you'll see from my edit history that I have reverted anti-republican/pro-unionist POV as well  )Demiurge 20:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright then, evidence. In our article on Jack Lynch, leader of this group from 1966-1979, there is text of a speech in the Northern Ireland section where he uses the term several times. I consider that a very good reason that at least some, minimal, reference to the term is appropriate in this article.  -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am astonished any credible Wikipedian would suggest we use "Six Counties". The bottom line is we can't. Both communities in Northern Ireland have their own POV language. If either side's language is used, the article immediately becomes POV and infuriates the other community. We cannot use Six Counties anymore than we can use Ulster, the North or the Occupied Six Counties. Any such usage is POV and guaranteed to cause endless edit wars and offence to one or other community. The only neutral term available is the official name of the Northern state, Northern Ireland. It is used by all sides. It is used by the Irish and British parliaments in law. It is the legally registered name with the UN. So it and it alone avoids pushing the agenda of either community. Any attempt to use the exclusive language of either community is correctly reverted on sight. Putting in the preferred nomenclature of either community would be the equivalent in POV terms of using George W. Bush, mass murderer of Iraqis in an article. Because it is by definition POV it is an not an option under Wikipedia rules.

And knowing from personal experience of both sides in Northern Ireland, you'd have to use an equal number of each side's POV terms, or else they'd start whining "how come they got three Six Counties and we only got two Ulsters?" "How come their Ulster got paragraph two and our Six Counties only got into paragraph three. (And yes they are that petty. Sinn Féin and the UUP rowed once over how many photographs of their leaders appeared in one day's coverage of the Belfast Agreement negotiations!!!)

It is also completely irrelevant that in the past FF used Six Counties. They have long banned senior figures from using the term because of its offensiveness to unionists and many nationalists. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't endorse using "Six Counties" everywhere Northern Ireland is mentioned. I think that it is appropriate to minimally mention that it is a term used by at least some memebers of this group.   If this were an article about a group that prefers "Ulster", then that mention would be appropriate.  NPOV fails if the article does not present all sides.  A balanced way, in my mind, is the simple paranthetical mention in the intro of this page.  To fail to provide information which could be of help to a reader is a disservice. -- Netoholic @ 22:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's relevant enough, feel free to add a short paragraph about the previous use of the term "six counties" by FF, and explain why and when they stopped using it, what they call it now, and how this all fits into the bigger picture of FF policy towards Northern Ireland since 1926. Don't just include the term "six counties" by itself without explaining its POV. Demiurge 22:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the use of the term is a fascinating insight into the conflict and the views of the various sides. As I said, I am approaching this from a largely outside perspective. I hoped my variation would at least balance both sides of the recent edit war.  If adding more text and information about the phrase is called for, I think it would make the article better and reflect the point-of-view of the party, thereby fulfilling the NPOV guidelines for this article. -- Netoholic @ 23:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Off you go then, write some content that is informative, relevant, non-trivial and isn't just an excuse to insert the magic words "six counties" into the article. Demiurge 23:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

An outside view as a non-FF'er. I don't think the term "Six Counties" should be used anywhere, as the term itself is inherently POV. --Kiand 23:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Removing mention of its use by this political party is a disservice - I cited a reliable source up above where a party leader used this in a speech many times. Articles should describe all viewpoints in a balanced way.  Failing to do that is what fails WP:NPOV in this case. -- Netoholic @ 23:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As their is a disagreement, but not a major one, I have added in a new template that invites comment on the disagreement here. It simply calls what is happening a disagreement rather than use emotive terms like POV on the major page.

Re the above - Lynch used the term Six Counties in the 1960s. It was used as late as the 1980s but is now banned in the party as provocative. As the party does not currently use the term, and has not since Haughey's era, and as the new cumann was only set up under Ahern's leadership, it would be patiently wrong to use Six Counties in that context. And I reassert my original point: Six Counties is a provocative, one-sided term guaranteed to give the article a tone that suggests a republican bias. No article here should have either a republican, a nationalist, a unionist or a loyalist bias, either real, perceived or implicit, in content or language. In Northern Ireland, the slightest perception of that's biased against us by any one side will produce a major edit war. That is why we can only use neutral official terms like Northern Ireland. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Some editors have mentioned that the term "six counties" was used in the past by Fianna Fail people and that this should be reason for inclusion of the term in the article. Whilst this may be a valid reason for its inclusion in a controversy/scandal section it is certainly not an appropriate term as a de-facto name for Northern Ireland wholesale. Based on past experience one person attempted to have unlimited licence for the gradual transformation of many wikipedia articles to six counties because of "context" (in many cases it was no such thing and simply a pov agenda) - this is why I have fiercely resisted such use of the term until now and intend to continue so. Agenda driven terms must be limited to relevant specific sections and quotes and not opening paragraphs or general sections. Their is an excellent parody of wikipedia at www.uncyclopedia.org and if people dont subscribe to wikipedia policies and standards then this is the place for them. Djegan 18:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC) '''The use of an NPOV term in Irish republicanism does not justify its use here. And "Six Counties" is not a term used by Fianna Fáil, as I have demonstrated''' In actual fact the term 'six counties' is used, frequently, by Fianna Fail, my CDC on membership cards for those in the occupied part of Ireland the term for CDC's is six counties, northern Ireland is a geographic term for Republicans, so including Leitrim, Antrim, Monaghan, Sligo etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaedha (talk • contribs) 08:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

corruption
While this article is subject to 'disagreement', perhaps we might take a look at the corruption section as well. It seems to me to be possible over-emphasised. I toned down some of the highly POV content but maybe JTD you might like to have a go at it as well - see what you think fits or doesn't?Palmiro 11:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that the corruption section was over-emphasised; the items contained prior to the edits of Palmiro were not intended to be POV, as they represent solid and undisputed fact, and did not favour any opinions on either side of the Irish political spectrum. --Wolfsangel 18:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that someone should look into the statemetn that Liam Lawlor and Ray Burke "even have contact with each other inside the prison". It is my belief whilst Lawlor has served a prison sentence and Burke is currently serving one the two were never incarcerated at the same time. Am I right?

Good point. I think the overlap was only something like three or four days, anyway. My mistake. --Wolfsangel 17:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is Fianna Fail singled out for a section of its article devoted to corruption? Is this not POV? Are corruption pieces forthcoming for Fine Gael, Sinn Féin or the PDs? TheGeneral1 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not going to remove the corruption section just because other irish political party articles do not have a corruption section - by all means if you can add a sustainable corruption section to other articles that is your perogative. NPOV does not mean wholesale removal or censorship of a section nor does it mean a standardised layout and format for particular classes of article. Djegan 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Corruption I think this a good article. I disagree with the view that there is an over emphasis on the corruption part. In fact what Fianna Fail is best known for is corruption. They actually have no control over the corrupt little deals going on at the bottom level of local government. (Planning permission, etc.). It is a well held belief among the Irish urban populous that Fianna Fail's greatest failing is their lack of ethical standards. Compare what happens in Britain: the slightest mention of shady deals leads to a ministerial resignation. Here in Bandit Country Ireland, it takes a JCB and demolition crew to remove a corrupt politician. We definitely have lower levels of accepted propriety in our elected officials. Fianna Fail has to take the majority of blame for this as they are indeed the party with most corruption and least ethics. They have been in government for something like 70+% of the length of the state... thus they also have to take 70+% of blame for what doesn't function. Bertie Ahern has led the Party since the mid 1990s. Despite his stewardship he has made some calamitous decisions: Liam Lawlor appointed to the ethics committee... and remember That Kerry fool who was on the "dirty-Money" commission, who it later transpired had a dirty-money account (Ansbacher)himself... what about Martin Cullen wasting €60m on e-voting machine's that don’t work as supposed to. Him calling us all luddites and then it blowing up in his face... to add insult to the last injury, the storage contracts have gone to associate constituents of Cullen's. He is a crook like the rest of his party... but no inclination of stepping down?... no! He was promoted to minister of Transport. Ray Bourke... enough said... the list is endless and there are lots more... Fianna Fail will continue to be corrupt so long as there are enough fools who consistently vote them in. They currently have a leader who is simply incapable of making a decision. He is so compromised by the vested interests that he will do anything to avoid rocking the boat. All-in-all, an excellent politician (in the Machiavellian sense) but a very poor leader- and I am paying his wage to lead, not smart-arse around the "west bank"... illiterate fool!

But 60 million is a drop in the ocean when the revenues of the govt are 50 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.17.37 (talk)

Meaning of Name
It is commonly supposed that "Fianna Fáil" means "Soldiers of Destiny". This, although commonly believed, is wrong, with no supporting evidence that I can find. On the contrary, if one examines the appropriate dictionaries, de Bhaldraithe gives cinniúint and dán as translations for "destiny", and An Gúm adds oidhe. Ó Dónaill and Dineen, as well as translations of much Early Modern Irish poetry, give Fál as meaning "Ireland", and it was a common name for the country during the Gaelic era(otherwise most commonly found today in Lia Fáil ["Stone of Ireland"] and Inis Fáil [Island of Ireland]).


 * Fianna Fáil translates its name as Soldiers of Destiny. If they translate it that way then other translations are irrelevant. Also it is Cumann na hGaelhael according to its registered name, not Cumann na gGaedheal. It is also the form of name used on the website of the Department of the Taoiseach. History Ireland also names the organisation originally founded by Griffith as Cumann na nGaedhAEl. John Regan's 1994 thesis on the party also uses Cumann na nGaedhAEl. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for "soldiers of destiny"? "Soldiers of Ireland" is a far more obvious translation for anyone who has a good knowledge of Irish. Also, Cumman na nGaedhael is a mis-spelling. It seems to me most unlikely that the party would have used a mis-spelling for their name, and far more likely that later not-very-proficient Irish speakers would have misread it due to the subsequent spelling reform which declared that "ae" was a broad vowel for orthographical purposes.Palmiro | Talk 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Under our no original research rule it isn't for us to decide how CnanG should be spelt, merely to reflect how the party using that name spelt it at the time. Primary documents use both versions, but contemporary documents from the period seem to use ae more than ea. It may be that the ae version was principally used in English, and ea in Irish, in which case WP would have to go with the version used by English speakers.

Similarly the nor policy means that what Fianna Fáil should mean is irrelevant. The fact is that it has always been translated as soldiers of destiny. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure how NOR applies to CnaG. Given that any dictionary will tell you that the correct spelling was Cumann na nGaedheal, if both were used as a result of lots of people not knowing how to spell it then we should simply use the correct spelling. Consulting Dineen to find the correct spelling of an Irish word is hardly original research. But surely there must be a party constitution somewhere that can give us an authoritative version of how the party used it?Palmiro | Talk 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Re FF, the history section of the FF website does indeed cite "soldiers of destiny":
 * The name Fianna Fáil had a double purpose: it suggested continuity with recent history (as the Irish name for the Volunteers) and also with ancient Irish history. The name Fianna Fáil means ‘soldiers of destiny’ and is taken from Old Irish. The Fianna were the warriors of Fionn Mac Cumhaill. The title emphasised the party’s deep roots over millennia in the historic Irish nation.
 * However laughable the "party's deep roots over millenia in Irish history" may be, this must be considered a reasonably authoritative statement of what the party thinks FF means. However, if we want to give a translation of what the title means, do we give the official version used by the organisation or also mention the linguistically more probable translation? We are not talking, after all, about the party's English title, for which we must of course give the official version of Fianna Fáil - the Republican Party, but about telling people what the Irish means. That must surely involve, not just telling people what the party thinks the Irish means, but telling people what any Irish speaker would understand it to mean.
 * By the way, according to Dinneen, fál can also mean bedclothes, which conjures up a whole different set of mental images. Palmiro | Talk 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Soldiers of the bedclothes" &mdash; I love it! :-) Maybe that explains Charlie and Terry Keane, and Bertie and Celia. lol FearÉIREANN \(caint)  02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That sort of made my day, finding that. Palmiro | Talk 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest the Workers Party of Ireland page, where the (Irish) translation used by the party is not that cited, as precedent?

Fál does not mean Ireland and doen's mean bedclothes (unfortunately). Not a native speaker myself but have just confirmed it with one as i was surprised to think it meant Ireland. Sorry man!

According to Ó Dónaill (and numerous examples of medieval Irish poetry), "Fál" does indeed mean "Ireland". Buy a dictionary. Sorry man!


 * In no way, at all, in the Irish language does Fianna Fáil mean 'Soldiers of Destiny'. The confusion arises from the Latin name for the Lia Fáil - Saxum Fatale (Stone of Destiny), given to it by Hector Boece in his History of the Scottish People (at least Keating credits him with the neologism). Fál itself comes from the name of a city in the Northern Isles the Tuatha Dé Danann visited and from whence they brought back the stone.   Because the stone granted kingship, one of the names they gave to Ireland was Inis Fáil, and through this Fál became a (largely poetic) name for Ireland.  Fianna Fáil is the only example of Fál every being translated to mean 'destiny', although I am unclear about when exactly this came into common usage - whether it was an original error of translation; whether it was a mistake that was allowed to gain currency for political expediency; or whether it was a deliberate mistranslation.  Cripipper 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably, then, the article at Irish Defence Forces cap badge, which claims that the FF = Fianna Fáil on the badge means "Soldiers of Destiny", also needs changing. See, too, the discussion at Talk:Irish_Defence_Forces. Any comments? -- Picapica 10:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

politics/ideology
this is nice, long article, but it seems to me there is actually very little on the politics of fianna fáil? if i, as happened to be the case, want to have a quick look what the views of FF is, then in a passing glance i can only find that it has been "slightly left-of-centre", but that it's now an "establishment" party, plus the description as populist/nationalist (whatever that means in ireland today, i wouldn't know). perhaps a short summary chapter on contemporary ideology and political views could be added by someone who knows the issues? i'm afraid i don't. Arre 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * an interesting question. has anyone satisfactorily established what Fianna Fáil's ideology or views are? Palmiro | Talk 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article is largely silent on a key point of interest to someone who wants to learn what its subject is about. If, as several have responded, Fianna Fáil is truly without any core ideology or platform, then this in itself should be mentioned. Wormcast (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Does Fianna Fáil itself know? I doubt it. lol. Fianna Fáil tends to be whatever it thinks at that moment will make it popular!!! FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) FF stand for nothing I'm afraid.

Just changed some parts on the peace process.It is entirely biased to say it is an area where FF are especially concerned.All parties in Ireland are. Indeed, previous peace agreements such as the Anglo Irish agreement have been opposed by FF! The matter has been cleared up.

There is little on FF policy because Fianna Fail don't actually have any! They just do what keeps them in power

Memtion should be made of how many of the policies enacted by the party while in power were implemented by centre-left government's in Europe. Mention should also be made of how most Irish parties on the left describe the current government as right wing. FF can fit into both ideological camps using this approach. Most Fianna Fáil members would describe themselves as centre-left republicans, though centrist is probably a better buzz word for this article. TheGeneral1 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What about policies from their manifesto?


 * Who keeps changing the article to say that Fianna Fail is "conservative" and "capitalist"? THOSE are certainly not terms I think can apply to the party.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

"f%C3%A1il"
I've found that "Republican_Party_%28Ireland%29" leads to "Fianna_F%C3%A1il". Does "Fáil" mean "political party", or "fail", or what?? "Fianna" "...were Irish warrior-hunters,..."

hopiakuta 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fianna Fáil means 'Warriors/soldiers of Ireland' (though it is commonly believed that it means 'Soldiers of Destiny'). The party's strapline is its name in English, which is 'The Republican Party', so its full name is 'Fianna Fáil - the Republican Party'. Cripipper 12:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is 'Soldiers of Destiny' therefore the wrong translation of Fianna Fail?

"Fál" means "destiny". However the Lia Fáil (stone of destiny) caused "Fál" to become another name for Ireland. The name was purposefully chosen to be difficult to translate. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The name actually means 'Soldiers of Ireland'. Fáil is a poetic name for Ireland. Having said that, the real reason for the name is that it is a claim to be a continuation of the Irish Republican Army (i.e. the anti-Treaty IRA that fought against the Free State Forces during the Irish Civil War). Fianna Fáil was a poetic title used for Óglaigh na hÉireann (the Irish volunteers, but the name is also now used by the variety of organisations that can claim an organic descent from them, such as the Irish Army, and the various bodies using 'Irish Republican Army' which have developed in one way or another from the anti-treaty forces and through them from the Irish Volunteers. The cap badge of the Irish Volunteers (and of the Irish Army and also used by the various IRAs) includes 'FF' in the middle of the badge. That FF stands for 'Fianna Fáil' - unfortunately I can't provide a proof for this other than to say that I read an article by Eoin McNeill where he explained how he designed the badge of the Volunteers and why he used FF. I don't have a copy of the article and haven't been able to find another copy of it - the copy I read was in a collection of original articles bound together in Swansea University and I'm tempted to go back there just to be able to source the article again! Incidentally he explained that he included the 'flames' around the cap badge because they balanced the badge and they had no other symbolism.EoinBach (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

meaning 2
"Also it is Cumann na hGaelhael according to its registered name, not Cumann na gGaedheal. It is also the form of name used on the website of the Department of the Taoiseach. History Ireland also names the organisation originally founded by Griffith as Cumann na nGaedhAEl. John Regan's 1994 thesis on the party also uses Cumann na nGaedhAEl"

That organisation is a totally different party…Cumann na nGael in modern spelling. It is in the genitive plural. The spellings above like with prefixed h and g are nonsensical

“Primary documents use both versions, but contemporary documents from the period seem to use ae more than ea. It may be that the ae version was principally used in English, and ea in Irish, in which case WP would have to go with the version used by English speakers.”

There was a lot of jazz in that period and perhaps miss-spelling is a factor. Part of the problem for the orthography is that the broad and slender spelling rules have trouble with the shift from ao to í or é ([ɰ] to either [iː] or [eː] for most dialects) while the rest of the system remained stable. This left a problem for the writers in the new state as they held Munster as been the purest form of Irish and so imitated that. If they had spelt it Cuman na nGaol the orthographic clash would have not occurred, regardless of other considerations.

“Cumann na nGaedheal”

It is a given that ea stands for a sound not expected there, so ao or ae is the more correct

“The name Fianna Fáil means ‘soldiers of destiny’ and is taken from Old Irish.”

That is most likely propaganda, as most Irish produced in that period by any political party was by native English speakers, using dictionaries, and none scholars of Old Irish. Given that semantics are liable to shift over time, such an assertion must be backed up by diachronic analysis, not opinion. Even then, it’s hardly like having a time machine.

Possibly a mistake was made when using a dictionary or some other pseudo-Celtic thinking infected the naming of it (read: Scotland had a stone of destiny; all Celts are the same etc). Also, fál may have been picked for its alliterative effect once spoken by an English speaker, rather than its semantics. The effect is lost however, if it is pronounced in Irish with two contrasting bi-labials.

“Do we give the official version used by the organisation?”

The meaning of a word in language X is not determined by speakers of language Y, unless speakers of X choose to believe it. A native speaker once asked, may give the ‘destiny’ answer for the whole phrase, but that does not make it correct. The meaning of individual word has not changed. At this remove it is so accepted, that as a phrase, it has come to mean only that for many practical purposes. As the listeners have no Irish, they would have no way of analysing it.

159.134.221.146 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Jack

What are you on about? Cumann na gGaedheal or whatever the spelling of it is irrelevant to the article Cumann na gGaedheal has evolved to be Fine Gael not Fianna Fail.SJHQC (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox: Ideology
Rather than this constant editing of the infobox to state that the party's ideology is whatever the beholder envisions it to be (liberal and conservative at the same time, socialist and capitalist at the same time...), can we instead simply describe the party as it describes itself? Cite to their manifesto/webpage where they describe their own ideology, and leave it at that. Anything else (including personal experience) would be original research, which isn't permissible on Wikipedia. Ashdog137 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP:BITE
A newcomer several times changed the party's ideology only to have another editor revert his edits. He is understandably confused and left a message at Help desk. I left a message at his talk page and recommended that he discuss it here. Sbowers3 02:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservatism
Hey there, some of you may have been wondering who keeps adding Conservatism to Fianna Fails list of ideologies. Well I can tell you now that it is me, however even thought it is a very pro-capitalism party, I didn't add capitalism to the list. I myself am a member of Fianna Fail and one of the attractions for me was the party's very conservative stance, on both social and certain economic issues, aswell as their attitude towards further European Integration and their allignment with the UEN etc. Some bloggers refer to it as the "Irish Tory Party". Since when was Fianna Fail a liberal party? Just take a glance towards the foundation of the Progressive Democrats. Wasn't it founded by ex members of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael who believed their parties were too CONSERVATIVE? I believe it was! Fianna Fail may be married to the Progressive Democrats but it is simply because of the two parties very right wing economic policies. In 2004 didn't Fianna Fail MEP's rebel against the thought of it alligning with the European Liberal grouping? Yes. Why? Becuase Fianna Fail isn't a Liberal Party! Just because Bertie Ahern enjoys having a little flirt with the Liberals and one day even claiming to be a socialist, doesn't mean that the remainder of his party are. Isn't Fianna Fail the party which has never (and hopefully will never) support the legalisation of gay and lesbian marriages? Isn't it the party which opposed the lagalisation of contraception in 1985, when virtually every county in Europe had already done so. Fianna Fail also doesn't support the introduction of "no strings attached" abortion and hopefully never will. You may argue that Fianna Fail has one Liberal element to it and that is the constitutional issue and not much else! Ideologically, Fianna Fail is a right wing party. It may not have started that way, but as time progressed and they didn't focus on the constitutional issues so much, their conservative attitudes to social and economic issues began to flourish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardocarey (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, stop repeating yourself so much. You sound like some excited little kid.  Second, there has been some debate about this, but it's important to note that Fianna Fail does not call itself "conservative", though it certainly associates with conservative parties in Europe and has many conservative policies.  However, most scholars agree that it is first and foremost a populist party.  Since most Irishmen are socially conservative (on abortion, at least), it is willing to cater to this popular sentiment.  Otherwise, it has shown a tendency throughout its history to adopt almost any values that are trendy in order to stay in power.  It was a fairly leftist-oriented party (much like Sinn Fein) when it was first started; the fact that it seems more conservative now only illustrates its ideological flexibility.

Fianna Fáil would probably be described well as conservative but not very. It's youth wing, Ógra Fianna Fáil, is in favour of gay marriage which shows that young members of the party reject the strict social conservatism which had previously existed throughout Irish society. It is very pro-European and doesn't fit easily into any box.--Paschal Lehany (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Allowing" both governments to exist
The subsection on Reynolds states in part, "Reynolds had favoured allowing both governments". What is that supposed to mean? What are the governments to be allowed to do? To continue to exist? The quoted material needs to be clarified or deleted. -Rrius (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one has attempted to clarify or defend the above language, I am going to delete it. -Rrius (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberal-conservative
FF is definitely centrist, definitely populist --68.227.223.133 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)and definitely has its roots in Irish republicanism, but it supports also liberal-conservative policies. In government it has been basically a liberal-conservative force. So why not putting "Liberal conservatism" along with "centrism", "populism" and "Irish republicanism"? --Checco (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked you to explain why you think FF is an LC party, all you've said is that it has LC policies and is an LC force, way not to answer a question, are you a politician yourself by any chance? ;-) Anyway, FF has only 1 core principle that is to achieve a United Ireland by consent, on social and economic policies it supports what ever is popular with the electorate of the day. For example, a few years ago Mary Coughlan when Minister for Social and Family Affairs implemented rules which banned same sex couples from receiving the same benefits as married couples. In 2008, FF is promising to introduce a bill to legalise same sex civil unions, recent polls have shown a consistent majority of the electorate in favour of this issue now. Whatever way the wind is blowing, there you will find Fianna Fáil! Snappy56 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The party is definitely populist and centrist, but its policies in ten years of government have been liberal-conservative, especially on the economy. Many websites describe FF as a liberal-conservative party, for instance see Parties and Elections in Europe. --Checco (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's seems acceptable then. Snappy56 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Checco (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Finding the right adjective is fine, but why doesn't this article provide any real description of FF's platform? --68.227.223.133 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Figures
Fianna Fáil is reported to have 72,000 members in this article. This has been edited until such time as sources is used. Personally, I would find it hard to believe that Fianna Fáil has anything more than 48,000 members, at a maximum level. Fianna Fáil are not known for publishing membership figures, which means that the basis behind this article are suspect. I suggest that this be watched, as should elements surrounding the whole neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.3.62 (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be very suprising that Fianna Fáil has more than 48,000 members due to the fact that oit still gets over a fifth of the vote when it is extremely unpopular with most people. A lot of people are born into Fianna Fáil families and Fianna Fáil has a huge loyal vote.--Paschal Lehany (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Internal Links
I just browsed though this page. Apart from a few exceptions, nearly all of the internal links have either been removed or the article was rewritten and no links included. I'm not about to go through the whole thing, but its something someone will have to do to make this article more interactive and readable. --89.100.2.15 (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideology
Despite the source from Wolfram Nordsieck, who once described the party as liberal-conservative anyway and only recently changed his description reflecting the adhesion to ELDR, Fianna Fáil is not exactly a consrvative-liberal party: it is mainly a centrist party, holding a liberal-conservative position and proposing some populist policies, as also the article currently reflects. The infobox should be a resume of the article. That's why I added again "liberal conservatism" and put "populism" alongside "centrism", without taking away "conservative liberalism", for now at least, as there is a source, but, as I said, I don't think it is correct or fair to describe FF as a liberal party of any kind, despite its ELDR memebership. --Checco (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your the one that put in the LC description in the first place! Anyway, FF is not a liberal party, of the conservative or of any other kind. It's ELDR membership is simply opportunistic, the Progressive Democrats (former FF coalition partners) who used to be members are (just about) defunct. Snappy (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and I'm consistent with that: I still consider FF a liberal-conservative party, I did not change idea on this, while I oppose "conservative liberalism". On this I appreciated and agree with your comments, especially when you point out that "FF is not a liberal party" and that "its ELDR membership is simply opportunistic". Do you think we can delete "conservative liberalism" from the infobox? --Checco (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "Conservative Liberalism" should be deleted from the infobox. Snappy (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If no-one opposes it, I will remove "conservative liberalism" from the infobox. --Checco (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a general problem, that political labels like "conservative" and "liberal" can mean very different things in different circumstances? Depending on time and country, a "liberal" can mean someone in favour of very left-wing or very right-wing policies, and "conservatives" in different context may wish to conserve very different social or political arrangements. You could describe FF as liberal, conservative, centrist, radical, populist or whatever you like, in some senses of these words. 1700-talet (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism?
In what meaning is liberal conservatism listed here? As Conservative on moral and social issues, or as more libertarian, promoting individual liberty with economic freedom? Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies?
Looking through the talk page above, it seems there has been some dispute over how Fianna Fáil's ideology should be described. In the absence of agreement on that matter, perhaps a section should be added to this page outlining the party's policies in recent elections? For comparison, see the sections Fine Gael and Progressive Democrats. This would bypass the problem of saying what Fianna Fáil 'stands for', by allowing the reader to work it out for themselves. Robofish (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who is interested in the political parties of Ireland, I find that this article is not helpful at all in regards to this particular party. It's all criticism, no policy, no ideology, very confusing unlike the article for Fine Gael which clearly states party platform. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Centrist"
The link for the political position of "centrist" is a dead link. Should bring this to your attention before someone removes it and describes it as centre right. For some bizzare reason the consensus is centre. Exiledone (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Republican Party"
To what extent is "Fianna Fáil – The Republican Party" is the official name of the party? Searching in Iris Oifigiúil for notices of amendments to the Register of Political Parties I find: See the original PDF for the first one; the English is written under the Irish, so it's not clear how they are meant to interact. I surmise that was why it was amended again just one month later.

The current register 23 March 2010 under "Name of Party" just has "FIANNA FÁIL"; contrast "GREEN PARTY / COMHAONTAS GLAS", "COMHAR CRÍOSTAÍ – THE CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY PARTY", or perhaps "SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (S.W.P.)" However, confusingly, the "Emblem" listed is the harp with "Fianna Fáil" and "The Republican Party".

The Constitution of Fianna Fáil says "2. The Movement shall be organised and known as Fianna Fáil, The Republican Party, in accordance with the Rules annexed hereto." The webpage itself is titled "Fianna Fáil: The Republican Party".

The asymmetric bilingualism is reminiscent of other interchangeables of the age, like "Free State" and "Saorstát", or "Fine Gael" and "United Ireland Party". Then there's "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" which suggests "The name of the Party is Fianna Fáil, or, in the English language, The Republican Party". Lemass wanted the English name and Dev the Irish one, so they compromised. There's apparently a 1976 publication called "Iubhaile órga Fianna Fáil, the Republican Party, 1926-76: an chéad caoga blíain" which would suggest the half-Irish—half-English name was constant across both languages; which would make sense. But then the website's Córú Fhianna Fáil says "Is mar Fhianna Fáil, An Páirtí Poblachtach, a eagrófar an Ghluaiseacht", keeping the Irish half and translating the English half.

So is "The Republican Party" an integral part of the title, an optional part of the title, an alternative title, a different-language title, a subtitle, or a description appended to the title? jnestorius(talk) 20:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say its a subtitle (or possibly a description appended to the title). It may have been part of the title originally but not nowadays. Snappy (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of corruption.
Really? Is there any reason for having this section? To be honest, I see this section as being a COATRACK against various FF members; they're politicians! Of course they're corrupt! But a section like this is just asking for trouble; there's no section in the articles for the American Republican Party about how their members are... rather friendly to business interests (save a one-line mention of Teapot Dome) or for British Labour Party about how their MPs systematically abused the expenses system to a greater extent than the Tories.

And please, don't resort to lies to keep this content in. The "it's referenced" gambit is a common one used by POV pushers to keep content (I remember someone who tried to claim that a white supremacist blog was a reliable source about Jews). But this fails from a basic inspection of the section. The entire section only has three references: two RTE stories and a transcript of Ahern's testimony to Majon. For a section that talks about (at least) eight living people in reference to potentially libellious statements, there needs, by Foundation decree, completely impeccable sourcing for anything regarding living people.

This is increasingly important given that it's related to a current event (Cowen's resignation/imminent election); more people have been/will be] reading this article, and as Wikipedia is somewhat trusted as a source of information, this may result in people who would otherwise vote FF to not do so, based on this information which would not normally be allowed in an article. It's very important that on political matters Wikipedia remains neutral and not sensationalist. As such, I will remove any content under the BLP and/or NPOV policy unless I'm convinced that the content both passes BLP and NPOV. Sceptre (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I partly agree with you that the corruptions section as it is, is not very well written and badly sourced. But to say that there should be no mention of such things because there's an election on is just ridiculous. These are very serious matters which have dominated the Irish news about the party for the last decade; any article on Fianna Fáil must include some mention of these things. And there should be absolutely no problem finding proper sources about it, as it has been in every Irish newspaper's front pages for years. We could start by using the references that already exist in the various individual articles about the people involved (i.e. Brian Cowen, Ray Burke, Mahon Tribunal etc.). --Hibernian (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But spinning it out into its own section violates NPOV in itself, as it automatically assumes a position against FF without saying a word other than "corruption". I have no objection to it being in the history section, with proper sourcing. Sceptre (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

General Election Results
"2011	31st			Fine Gael-Labour Party government"

Getting a bit ahead of yourselves, no? 121.45.221.196 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Policies and acts
Besides being in power for 61 out of 79 years, what did FF actually accomplish? What acts, policies, etc, did it bring into law? What were its actual achievements? Fergananim (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

English pronunciation for this word
I've started a conversation for this at Talk:Tánaiste. --101.160.13.231 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actual name?
The article begins, "Fianna Fáil – The Republican Party, more commonly known as Fianna Fáil..." But I've been looking at the constitution on the party's website, and it is headed "Constitution of Fianna Fáil". Article 1 states, "Fianna Fáil is a National Movement." Article 2 states, "The Movement shall be organised and known as Fianna Fáil, The Republican Party, in accordance with the Rules annexed hereto." Now, unfortunately, the rules are not annexed thereto. But "shall be organised and known as" is not the same thing as "the name is". The name, surely, is the name in the title and in Article 1 of the constitution. Elsewhere on the website it says, "The party's name incorporates the words ‘The Republican Party' in its title." But these are only the words of some website writer (and it's not even good English), it's not in any way official. The first sentence should read "Fianna Fáil, known within the party as / advertised by the party as / organised as Fianna Fáil, The Republican Party..." Scolaire (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jnestorious did a good job of summarising the name in "The Republican Party" section above. I'd said The Republican Party is more of a subtitle these days. Snappy (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you phrase the first sentence, then? "Fianna Fáil, subtitled The Republican Party"? In any event, "The Republican Party" should be removed from the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is: "Fianna Fáil, officially Fianna Fáil – The Republican Party, is a..." Snappy (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But is it "officially" Fianna Fáil The Republican Party? Constitutionally it's just Fianna Fáil. The question is how we are to interpret article 2. I won't raise a fuss about "officially", but I think we could do better. Incidentally, I think we should use the comma rather than the dash, since that's how it's written in the constitution. Scolaire (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think its "official", the Register of Political Parties (May 2013), lists the name as Fianna Fáil though "Fianna Fáil The Republican Party" appears on the emblem. As Jnestorious previously pointed out - "The Republican Party" is either an integral part of the title, an optional part of the title, an alternative title, a different-language title, a subtitle, or a description appended to the title. Perhaps we could say "also known as" instead of official. Snappy (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "also known as" is probably the best option. Scolaire (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

GOP?
This may just be just a problem on my end but when I accessed the page for Fianna Fáil it gave a description of the Republican Party of the United States, which would be inaccurate to put it mildly. I went through the entire article and as best as I can tell it is pretty much word-for-word a description of the U.S. Republican Party. For example here is the first several paragraphs of the article:

"The Republican Party, also commonly called the GOP (for "Grand Old Party"), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, the other being the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, it dominated politics nationally for most of the period from 1860 to 1932. There have been 18 Republican presidents, the first being Abraham Lincoln, serving from 1861 to 1865, and the most recent being George W. Bush, serving from 2001 to 2009. The most recent Republican presidential nominee was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The party's platform is generally based upon American conservatism,[7][8][9] in contrast to the Democratic Party, whose members endorse more liberal policies. American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism; some principles of American conservatism are based upon classical liberalism.[10] Rather, the Republican Party's conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the social liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.[10] In the 113th Congress, elected in 2012, the Republican Party holds a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives and a minority of seats in the United States Senate. The party holds the majority of governorships as well as the majority of state legislatures."

If there is in fact not a problem with this, then I apologize for seeing an issue where there was none. If however, this is a problem, then it might be prudent to 1. Go over the edit history to find out who made the change, and 2. Revert the changes so they give the description of the actual Fianna Fáil political party of the Republic of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INTJ Pyromaniac (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian Crowley's status
While the discussion of Crowley's move to the ECR and the subsequent party action in this article is good, I am not sure it all adds up to Crowley no longer being a FF MEP (for the infobox). Certainly his party membership was never stripped, and the most authoritative source I can dig up, Fianna Fáil's official website, designates him as their MEP:. And, for what it's worth, the European Parliament website also shows Crowley as still being a FF MEP. Given these authoritative sources, I'm going to be bold and put the MEP number back up to one. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a grey area alright. Maybe FF are hoping Crowley will rejoin the PArliamentary party soon. Snappy (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine they're leaving a door open. And perhaps they're saying - "even though we're somewhat estranged, we still have a guy in Brussels to represent Irish interests." It would be somewhat embarrassing to claim no European representation. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree and think the MEP box should be left at 1. Snappy (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ideology
Is Fianna Fáil's a Liberal conservative party? --DylanMcKaneWiki (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

'This fraction rises in Dublin....'
As a native English-speaker I have no idea whatsoever what this phrase is supposed to mean, and I'm familiar enough with Irish usage to think this isn't just an Irishism.80.60.103.23 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

About the position again
Why don't you list the alleged multiple citations about the party being centre to centre-right here. Aitch  Singh  communicate  13:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fianna Fáil. 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/20140705112218/http://www.liberal-international.org/site/Observer_Members.html to http://www.liberal-international.org/site/Observer_Members.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304211502/http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/finalReport.pdf to http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/finalReport.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Irish Republicanism
Per WP:RS opinion pieces are not to be used as sources but the IP user says according to WP:BIAS they can be the best sources, this is true but only for a sources own view point which is not the case here. Also it was not my 5th revert dont besilly.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was your 4th revert. You change it again without consensus and we go to see the our friends on the edit warring board.  2602:304:788B:DF50:C06A:180D:AD58:B5D1 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have only reverted twice in 24 hours. And no it was my third. You really cant talk considering your edit history on Justin Barrett, this page (3 reverts in half an hour) and Irish slaves myth. You are also purposely folowing me around and reverting all my edits just to try to get a rise out of me which falls under WP:WIKIHOUNDING which is a banable offence.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.fiannafail.ie/about-fianna-fail/ Here's another source.Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see the Ideology section above. Fianna Fáil are not Irish republicans. The text of a speech by Mícheál Martin is not a reliable secondary source for a statement that Irish republicanism is a Fianna Fáil ideology. Of course Martin is going to tell the faithful that FF is more republican than the Shinners, but where is the interpretation of his remarks by a reliable secondary source saying that that makes them so? Likewise for your FF website link. Without an interpretation by reliable secondary sources it is OR, besides being plain wrong. Irish republicanism is understood world-wide as the ideology of the IRA and Sinn Féin and their offshoots. It was the ideology of FF in the 1920s but it's not now. There were no headlines last year saying that "Irish republicans" had made a confidence and supply agreement with the Fine Gael government, or in 2011 that "Irish republicans" had suffered a huge electoral defeat, or in 2008 that "Irish republicans" were to blame for the financial crisis. There were plenty of headlines about "Irish republicans", but always in a completely different context. Just search for "Irish republicans" in Google or Google News and see how much of it applies to Fianna Fáil ideology. Scolaire (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY a primary source (the party leader) can be used as a source for their own beliefs. The party claims to be republican unless you have a RS that contradicts the claim then it should remain in the infobox.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fianna Fáil. 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/20040208005923/http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/html/features/devalera.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/html/features/devalera.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908091800/http://www.fiannafail.ie/content/pages/5095/ to http://www.fiannafail.ie/content/pages/5095/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303163833/http://www.fiannafail.ie/feature/entry/full-text-taoiseach-brian-cowen-at-the-official-opening-of-72nd-fianna-fail/ to http://www.fiannafail.ie/feature/entry/full-text-taoiseach-brian-cowen-at-the-official-opening-of-72nd-fianna-fail/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the lead
There was a rather drastic edit to the lead on 7 June. Much of the added content is useful, but a lot of it is quite opinionated, and also at odds with what is in the article body. I've made some changes and some reverts, but I'd like other editors to have a look and see if they agree with the new content. Scolaire (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely; your version is definitely more NPOV and is supported by the body. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There's still a lot of stuff there that is not reflected in the article body, and seems to reflect a particular viewpoint, although it is referenced. This bit in particular: "Fianna Fáil’s platform contains a number of enduring aspects however, namely a commitment to Irish unity, to the promotion and protection of the Irish language, and to maintaining Ireland’s tradition of military neutrality. Distinctively more populist, nationalist and, generally speaking, more economically interventionist than Fine Gael, the party nonetheless shares its rival's support of the European Union and a mutual opposition to physical force republicanism." Not that I would have a problem with all of that being explored in some depth in the article; it just seems a lot to cram into two sentences in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fianna Fáil. 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 tag to http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/irish-protest-against-austerity-cutss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525043836/http://www.liberal-international.org/site/Full_Members.html to http://www.liberal-international.org/site/Full_Members.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the lead 2
I reverted this edit on 15 October because the added content was not of good quality and also, I admit, partly because I didn't like the tone of the edit summary. I failed to notice two things, however. First, what I thought was deleted content had been moved down into the body of the article (I didn't think to scroll down), and second, I had suggested doing exactly that in the "Edits to the lead" section of the talk page, two paragraphs up. So now I'm moving the content back down into the Ideology section. I haven't changed my opinion that it is quite opinionated, and relies more than it ought to on Fianna Fáil's website, but at least it fits better where it is. I'm filling the hole in the lead with a small amount of added content. Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead
I have removed unimpartial wording from the lead that was sourced from the Fianna Fail website, the wording removed was POV in favor of the political party. There had been no consensus to include that section. Tyrsóg (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's removal has been reverted several times, to the point where the page is now semi-protected. If you wish to make a case for it's removal, please do so here. The material removed is cited, and it's removal (not its inclusion), appears to be an attempt at POV pushing.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 11:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I already explained; party political literature, press statements and Fianna Fail´s own website, in this context, does not constitute being a reliable source, especially as it used to "summarise" the party itself in the lead, how is that neutral?. Also I strongly object to your insinuation that I am pushing a POV on that basis and I ask you to retract it.Tyrsóg (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no consensus for these edits, so I have reverted them. Snappy (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where the consensus was amongst various editors, to include these unreliably politically sourced edits which you reverted back? (again) The edits of which I already explained why they were removed? Then I will agree to this version. Tyrsóg (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page. Until you can gain consensus to remove cited material, you will continue to be reverted. You have stated, so far, no valid reason or guideline which would indicate this information should be deleted.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 19:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is Tyrsóg removing referenced material? Only one reference comes form the FF website. He seems to have a strange view on neutral sources. If he continues to edit war then I suggest he be topic banned from this article. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the content that could possibly be called bias. "Also known as Fianna Fáil, the Republican Party": discussed above, purely factual, and the party's own literature is the best and most reliable source for the name it calls itself. "Traditionally translated as Soldiers of Destiny / more accurately translated as Warriors of Fál: purely factual, not sourced to the party. "Representing a broad range of people": ditto. "Has led governments including parties of the centre-left and centre-right": ditto. Tyrsóg needs to explain exactly how he thinks this content is POV.  Scolaire (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just as a head's up, is canvassing on the Wikiproject Ireland page. It is okay to inform the project about the discussion, indeed that was what I was about to do, but simply state that there was a discussion and the project might be interested in taking part. However, to do so in such a biased way is definitely canvassing. As the guideline states, "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was brought here by the notice at WikiProject Ireland. It doesn't really bother me that it was in non-neutral language. I was always going to make my own mind up anyway, and I would trust other people at the project to make up their own minds too. Some people have the gift of being able to post neutral notices, and some just can't see beyond their own biases. Canvassing really refers to posting at the talk pages of users that you expect to agree with you, with a view to getting an influx of support votes. Scolaire (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely appreciate your viewpoint,, however, from my experience, that puts you in the minority. At several other talk pages, when an involved editor puts up a biased post at a different talkpage to solicit comments, it almost always leads to a large majority of those who comment agreeing with the poster's bias. Could that be coincidence? Absolutely, but I think the specific wording of the canvassing guideline I quoted above was put in to prevent exactly that from happening. Regardless, take care.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 11:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting notices up at a public page like the Wikiproject Ireland page where people who will make their own minds up if they will agree or disagree with me is not wikicanvassing now if I was picking who to notify then yes it would, whether the language is neutral or unneutral. You clearly don´t have a clue, anyway this topic is old but I commented because I had neglected to reply. Tyrsóg (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Populist
Fianna Fail is a right wing party, as shown by the sources. It is also a populist party as shown in the sources. Wouldn't you sat it logically follows that it is correct to call Fianna Fail a "right-wing populist" party then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CumannachEireannach (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, there were three problems with your edit. First, Right-wing Populism is a red link – it doesn't point to any Wikipedia article, so that's a no-no. Second, I'm not aware of any reliable sources that say "Fianna Fáil is a right-wing populist party", so that shouldn't be stated. To say "it is a right wing party as shown by the sources, and also a populist party as shown in the sources, so it logically follows that it is correct to call it a right-wing populist party" is synthesis, which is also a no-no. Finally, any change you make should be accompanied by an edit summary explaining why you did it, which your edit wasn't.
 * As regards "right wing", if you had taken the trouble to look at the revision history of the article you would see that the party's political position in the infobox has been changed back and forth constantly between "centre", "centre-right" and "centre to centre right". I don't remember it ever saying "right wing", and nowhere in the article is it described as right-wing. The closest it comes is the statement "Fianna Fáil is seen as conservative, like Fine Gael". To an Irish communist (Cumannach Éireannach), that might might be the same thing as right wing, but to the average Wikipedia reader it probably isn't.
 * As regards "populism" – and I'm addressing this to the community generally – when looking at CumannachEireannach's edit I discovered that none of the sources cited for "populism" in the infobox uses the word "populism" or "populist" anywhere. Nor is it obvious what statement in any of the sources can be taken as meaning that populism is a party ideology. In fact, I can't remember ever reading or hearing a supporter or a critic or a neutral observer of the party saying that populism is a Fianna Fáil ideology. We do have a source in the article for a statement that FF is "distinctively [sic] more populist than Fine Gael" (I'm going to change that to "distinctly" now), but that is not the same thing at all. I think that "populism" should be removed from the Ideology field unless we can find a reliable secondary source that actually describes it as being a Fianna Fáil ideology.  Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Scolaire.CumannachEireannach (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No further response, so I'm taking "populism" out. Scolaire (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've just noticed that the intro to has changed completely in the last two months. It now says, "Populism is a political approach that seeks to disrupt the existing social order by solidifying and mobilizing the animosity of the "commoner" or "the people" against "privileged elites" and the "establishment". Does anybody really think that sounds like Fianna Fáil?  Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

FF is not a right wing populist party. A right wing populist policy tends to skew anti-immigration and a few other typical policies. FF under Martin isn't particularly right wing. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Conservatism
I know it is an old chestnut, but I really think it is very misleading to describe the party's ideology as 'Conservatism' (particularly when the source is a German register of political parties which by its definition is not going to be an expert on every party in every country.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes them thus: "The party’s ideology has some enduring aspects, notably a commitment to Irish unity, to the Irish language, and to neutrality, though these commitments are essentially aspirational and occasionally merely rhetorical. Generally, the party has been pragmatically cautious on most issues. It has broadly supported an interventionist approach to economic management and, particularly in recent years, has sought agreement on economic policy among major economic interest groups. Socially radical and redistributive in its early years, it soon became more conservative, and it was particularly so under Haughey on such issues as divorce. From the 1940s it promoted itself as the only possible source of stable government."

A party that is interventionist clearly cannot be described as having Conservatism as its ideology (with a capital C). The fact that this issue keeps getting raised clearly shows there is no consensus on this issue. Would it not be best just to describe them as Republican, Nationalist, Populist - on which I don't think you would get any disagreement from any quarter. Cripipper (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Cripipper (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, remove Conservatism. Snappy (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "A party that is interventionist clearly cannot be described as having Conservatism as its ideology". Disagree. The notion that Conservatism is antithetical to interventionism is fairly recent. See One Nation Conservatism in the UK, for instance. The definition of Conservatism within each country evolves (paradoxical as that may sound). Whether Fianna Fáil should be considered as a Conservative party depends on what the Irish mean when they talk of Conservatism. (I'm not saying that it is Conservative; I'm saying we need some Irish perspectives here.) Aridd (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Conservatism has found its way back in without any citation or discussion. I am going to at least modify it to 'Progressive Conservatism', until some further consensus can be reached as to whether it should stay or go.  Personally, I am in favour of removing it. Cripipper (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice that as of March 2019 the term 'conservative' has returned, despite the points made above. We can all agree that situating FF on the political spectrum is a tricky prospect. I would agree that this is a misleading term to use for Fianna Fáil, given its connotations of 'hard right' in other English-speaking countries, and given that conservative is a highly subjective term unless used by the party itself, and/or unless preceded by a qualifier (culturally conservative; socially conservative; fiscally conservative, etc.). FF's participation in the Liberal International and ALDE group of the European Parliament would suggest that 'conservative' is not a sufficient descriptor, unless your point of view is that all liberalism is conservative, which certainly a valid position to hold but not one that goes without saying, and which should thus be discussed and justified. Additionally, the recent merger with the Social Democratic and Labour Party should either suggest to us that FF had a social-democratic wing to begin with (which it certainly did, in earlier parts of its history), or that if not then the SDLP will henceforth fulfill that role. Personally I would think that FF's selectively mixing and matching progressive and conservative policies depending on the policy area, public mood and context puts it in common with other European 'liberté égalité fraternité' parties that were long ago centre-left progressive republicans according to the political spectrum of the time, but ended upn pushed to the centre or centre-right by the tides of time. In that case "progressive conservatism", "conservative liberalism" or "liberal conservatism" should be an acceptable compromise. Moranete (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling a liberal organization conservative is stupid. Calling the "conservative" label far-right is a low-IQ Euro take. I don't know why Europeans cannot figure out what these terms mean. Catering to their insane leftist worldview obviously stretches language into incoherence. These people couldn't know the a far-right political party from a ham sandwich.

Ideology
I noticed that Irish republicanism is listed as part of FF's ideology. Just because they call themselves the republican party does not mean they are. Maybe once upon a time they were decades ago, but they simply are not anymore. What have they done recently and what policies does the party have to even consider themselves republican? ÓCorcráin (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is Irish republicanism? Whose definition is it, yours (ÓCorcráin) or a neutral, reliable third party? Snappy (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to answer my question first before I answer yours? It is only common courtesy. ÓCorcráin (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are Republican in the sense that they hold to the Republican system of government. Not everything has to be about Irish republicanism... ^_^ --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

By your logic every political party in Ireland and other republics are republican parties, for example the democrats in the US, would they call themselves republican?. We are talking about Fianna Fáíl and republicanism in the context of Ireland and Irish republicanism, which is completely different. ÓCorcráin (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any sources to backup your opinion? Snappy (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you blind or what? You still have not responded to my first question here yet you expect me to answer yours? Courtesy please then I will answer yours. ÓCorcráin (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless we define what we are talking about, then further discussion is pointless. Snappy (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Irish republicanism IS completely different - and I was ONLY referring to the republican system of government. Nothing else. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that Fianna Fáil governments have been the most progressive towards Irish unity given the success of the good Friday and Saint Andrews Agreements and the enhanced role of the Republic in Northern Affairs that these have brought about. Only the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 (signed by an FG Taoiseach) had any similar significance in North-south relations. The current FF leader is also very vocal on Northern Ireland and the fact that they have branches in the North (outside of Universities now: http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/fianna-fail-belfast-host-inaugural-meeting/), unlike many southern parties, definitely gives them credentials as an Irish Republican party. sittingonthefence (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Good Friday and Saint Andrews Agreements don't make FF any more republican than the British Labour Party (or the UUP or DUP, come to that), and besides, neither agreement was intended to advance Irish reunification. The fact that they may be active in the North doesn't make them any more republican than the SDLP.
 * As regards "republicanism" v "Irish republicanism", FF might well be republican in the French or American sense of the word, but we would need a persuasive source (as opposed to an off-the-cuff remark in a newspaper, magazine or blog) saying exactly that before we could put it in the article. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From the FF website: "The party's name incorporates the words 'The Republican Party' in its title. Republican here stands both for the unity of the island and a commitment to the historic principles of European republican philosophy, namely liberty, equality and fraternity." A primary source, I know, my point is this is what FF thinks of/views itself. This is surely worth a line or two in the article, so as to explain to readers why the 'The Republican Party' is in their name and logo.


 * A line or two in the article I would have no problem with, so long as it's made clear that this is the party's own self-image, and so long as it's not promoted to its own section, to the infobox or to the first couple of sentences of the lead. Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added two sentences to the ideology section, with ref from the FF website, making it clear that this is FF's own view of itself. Snappy (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Grand job! Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Besides being in power for 61 out of 79 years, what did FF actually accomplish? What acts, policies, etc, did it bring into law? What were its actual achievements? Fergananim (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the signature characteristics of historical European 'liberté égalité fraternité' republican parties was to not actually have all that much in policy or programmatic terms. Their goal was cultural/institutional: to first of all 'republicanise the republic' (from their perspective, rooting out the individuals, customs and institutions of the 'old regime' in order to allow a national revival). And thereafter to simply occupy power to ensure that men with the right 'ethos' were in power, preventing the return of the 'men of the old regime'; in practical terms that meant to distribute the spoils of office to the party faithful, and in policy terms to a certain degree to blow with the winds of the public mood as it changes over time. All this meant that such parties were commonly accused of opportunism by parties with more concrete positions on the issue in question, but from the internal perspective of the party such positions were external to the republican mission so were left 'blank' to be adapted to the situation. Characteristics of such parties were a belief that a republic required more than change in head of state but needed root-and-branch reforms; a certain social-conservatism; belief in universal suffrage; agrarianism; limited social-reformism; a civic but militantly culture-focussed nationalism; a very loose party structure more focussed on winning elections via soft clientelism and the support of rural notables than on presenting a concrete programme of laws to be applied. Would this not be an accurate, and fairly neutral, description of FF's temperament since 1932? If so, we could affirm that 'republicanism' is certainly an ideology that applies to FF. Moranete (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs more sources
The article contains a good deal of unsourced material and has been tagged accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussions relating to this article taking place
One at Talk:2020 Irish general election, another is at Talk:Sinn Féin. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

New Membership figures
Found a source stating Fianna Fail membership numbers to now be 20,000. https://www.laoistoday.ie/2020/03/11/sinn-fein/


 * We have a more recent one from RTÉ in June, used in the article, putting it at 18k. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Christian democracy
Could Fianna Fáil be considered Christian-democratic ? -Ezhao02 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The Guardian reference is a weak, journalistic one, and I would remove it. FF has Christian democrats in it, but it's generally not considered to be a Christian-democratic party by European standards. If there are more sources describing a Christian democratic current within FF, they would be a useful addition to the Ideology section.--Autospark (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this issue is pretty interesting. I remember reading in a book somewhere that Ireland never really developed a Christian-democratic party because its politicians were already influenced by Christianity. According to this view, neither FF nor FG can be considered truly Christian-democratic. I would personally argue that, if anything, FF is closer to Christian democracy than FG is, and I question if FG should really be listed as Christian-democratic in the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

PNG to SVG file
I believe we should convert the PNG logo file of Fianna Fail to an SVG one so when you hover over the party in any page that mentions it with an attached link, it shows the same as Labour or Fine Gael or the Green Party. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Economic Nationalism/Isolationism
I think we should add a "Historial: Economic Nationalism, Isolationism" into the ideology section realizing the economic and national policies in place during the leadership of Eamon De Valera. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Political party infoboxes are current, at-a-glance facts and figures. Former ideologies are properly covered in the article body and in the separate History of Fianna Fáil article. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)