Talk:Identity Ireland

Recent revert
Hello,

I recently reverted some changes to the article. I felt that the new version was quote-heavy and seemed a bit promotional. It also seemed to rely heavily on primary sources (like youtube videos of speeches by party officials). All in all, though the previous version seemed less than optimal, I felt it was more encyclopedic and restored it. I was re-reverted. I believe by wp:Brd, this leaves us at the "discuss" stage. Please share your suggestions and the reasons for them so we can come to the best possible resolution. Thanks! Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, since there has been no response in 5 days, I will go do some trimming. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Following comments made in an edit summary restoring the quote-based version, I have tried to add some balancing material and invited the new editor to come discuss. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Grand Shanio012 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Re:PEGIDA
Hello everyone,

, you put PEGIDA in the infobox under international affiliation. This is generally read as meaning that Identity Ireland is a local chapter of PEGIDA. Is this true? Also pinging other recent contributors:. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/pegidaeire/status/700777821111767042 According to that tweet and some other social media posts they are different.It seems to me that while they aren't offically the same,the people involved with identity ireland are generally involved with PEGIDA (Peter O'Loughlin was meant to make a speech at the rallly that never occured etc.) --Shanio012 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
Apparently a political party that advocates "fucking a Muslim into the sea" needs a citation before we can state that its ideology is far-right. Citations have now been provided for this and for their anti-immigration policy. Yes, their own site says they are "anti-mass immigration", but referenced secondary sources describe their policy as "anti-immigration." Please stop removing this content. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats not what they said. They said a certain muslim leader should be "fucked into the sea" and they didn't mean it literally. How exactly does that make it unbelievably ibvious that they are far right? Only some describe it as that. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "fuck him into the sea" is apparently meant as a euphemism, which they kindly explained as "a euphemism" when called on it. (They didn't explain what it was a euphemism for, but hey...) Your being ok with this would appear to make you a sympathiser. Your objectivity with regard to Irish political articles is therefore, obviously, somewhat open to question by any reasonably minded person. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a Marxist, politically I am the farthest thing from a sympathiser. Ironic, I would say the same thing about youApollo The Logician (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ironic. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ~ Inigo Montoya / Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say the same about you and the word bias. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Identity Ireland is far right. There are enough resaonsable evidence to put that in the title. I believe attempts to remove it show a lack of neutrality and an biased attempt to make II look good. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm just gonna weigh in here briefly to try and close this out (ideally before we start to court WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA issues). Focusing hopefully instead on the facts and the refs. The apparent suggestion that "far-right" is a term that can only be applied to card-carrying, self-identifying, helmet-wearing members of the Nazi party is not appropriate. In the context of the Irish political landscape, the subject is a far-right group, and independently identified and described as such. Hence, the current and compromise wording ("anti-immigration/anti-mass immigration" and "right-wing to far-right") is perfectly fine in my view. And supported by the available cites (some of which say "right" others "far-right", etc - which we now reflect). In general, unless we are actually using this thread to propose a change to the article content, I'd recommend that we close it. Otherwise we're in danger of using it as a forum for discussing the subject or positions/feelings about it. Which isn't what talk pages are for. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No problem with closing this. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Islam/Islamisation
I changed the wording from 'anti-Islamisation' to 'anti-Islam' to better reflect the party's position. Also, it has to be said that 'Islamisation' is a far-right buzzword itself; if a neutral website like Wikipedia talks about the far-right using their own language, it can too easily slide into promoting them. Likewise, if I used a word like 'Islamaphobic' to describe them - and it certainly isn't an inaccurate descriptor - I'm sure someone would point out that word isn't something which can be used neutrally, as it implies a value judgement. 2A00:23C5:C90E:5601:F8F8:7C80:67F5:3526 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)