Talk:National Party (Ireland, 2016)/Archive 2

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

There's no consensus to remove it. :Blight55 00:34 08/12/2018 (UTC).
 * Clearly, there is. Spleodrach (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


 * Scolaire thinks supporting a United Ireland is the same as irredentism (which is total OR) and then he cites other parties which are left wing republican and says because the NP differentiate on the point of not being left wing they cannot be republican. Well the two are not mutually exclusive and that's evident throughout the history of Irish republicanism, especially given the leftist influence really only came about in the 1960s, before that republicanism was almost exclusively right-wing and more "far-right" than anything this party has ever done. The Provisionals were founded as explicitly anti-communist in reaction to left republicanism, they were rather Catholic and only became more socialist over time under Adams. Gerry McGeough in particular is a good example of a right republican. I see no reason why this party ought not to be listed as republican because its ideological grounding on the National Question quite plainly is republican.
 * As for United Ireland, to respond to Bastun, no I don't think it should be removed from the infobox; Irish re-unification hasn't been removed from Fine Gael's infobox despite the fact Irish reunification is minuscule on Fine Gael's modern or historical agenda. United Ireland is an ideological position to take, especially in the north. No reason to exclude it other than the WP:OR which we've witnessed here and the flaunting of WP:V. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Ok firstly, you throw out BRD as your rationale to basically control these articles and stop them from being improved by editors such as myself.
 * Your summation of the point is your own, but it's inaccurate to call it waffle. The paragraph explains why they launched when they did. The current article gives no such reason and merely reads as if the party just dropped from the sky one day. You seem to take an incredibly negative view of using sources here such as this one yet are happy to use countless primary sources (such as tweets) on the Gemma O'Doherty article to make negative insinuations.
 * I oppose your reverting of my edits. I formatted them in such a way to keep up with Wikipedia's style and WP:NPOV.
 * Also, you implied in your reversal that I, Irishpolitical, am Justin Barrett. And now you seem to be suggesting I'm going to be "on the hustings stage". Am I inferring this correctly? Because if so I find your logic ridiculous... any edits that aren't purely negative slander must be not only a party members with WP:COI but in fact the party leader himself! It's a very strange and naïve logic which actually betrays a lot about your biases. I am not Justin Barrett nor a member of the NP - although naturally I have political opinions, just as you so obviously do. Anyway - accept that. And I find your rationale and characterisation inadequate. If another editor would like to weigh in it would be appreciated. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * FF: "The party was founded as an Irish republican party on 23 March 1926 by Éamon de Valera and his supporters after they split from Sinn Féin on the issue of abstentionism,[20] in the aftermath of the Irish Civil War."
 * FG: "Fine Gael was founded on 8 September 1933[19] following the merger of its parent party Cumann na nGaedheal, the National Centre Party and the National Guard (popularly known as the "Blueshirts", a name still used colloquially to refer to the party)."
 * Labour: "Founded in 1912 in Clonmel, County Tipperary, by James Larkin, James Connolly, and William X. O'Brien as the political wing of the Irish Trades Union Congress,[8] it describes itself as a "democratic socialist party" in its constitution."
 * SF: "The original Sinn Féin organisation was founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith. It took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party (with the other side becoming the Workers' Party of Ireland) and has historically been associated with the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)."
 * All are matter of fact statements outlining the formation of the four oldest parties in the state, using 2/3 or less of the length you used. None wax lyrical about the need for a party, the timing of it, etc. Same for all of Ireland's more recent parties. It's a bizarre inclusion, imho, and seemed jarringly out of place - as I said, more appropriate for an election leaflet than an encyclopedia. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This edit involved wholesale copying of text from this web page. That raises two serious issues of policy:
 * WP:COPYVIO states, "inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing...Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." WP:Close paraphrasing says, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy" (emphasis in original). That web page has a clear copyright notice at the bottom; the edit is a violation of that copyright.
 * The edit is not NPOV. Justin Barrett's view of Justin Barrett and his party is very different from the views of virtually everybody who writes about him. Taking stuff off his web page and presenting it as unblemished fact is the very opposite of NPOV. As Bastun says, a statement of the foundation of a party should be concise and strictly neutral; it should not contain commentary copied from the party leader such as "he had long advocated the development of an authentic nationalist party" Just prefacing it with "according to the party" does not offset that.
 * Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


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


 * I think possibly a tit-for-tat is feasible. A new second sentence in the first paragraph in that section might say, 'According to the party's website, Barrett believed in 2016 that the conditions existed for the creation of what he called "an authentic nationalist party" in Ireland.' The final sentence, 'The party's press release claimed they seek to espouse the "true spirit of the Republic, would then have to be removed. There is only room for one self-description in the paragraph; otherwise it becomes undue weight. --Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm content to leave it as is in that case.Irishpolitical (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Death penalty 2
The reliability of a comedy show (or an article discussing the comedy show) was always dubious, but given the recent exposé of Jim Jeffries rearranging the answers in an interview to make someone look like a racist, his show can't be seen as a reliable source. If this is Barrett's position (abortion doctors should get death penalty), then surely he's said it somewhere else. Great floors (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

Are there no other reliable sources to support a claim that the subject here is somehow the target of -what- some kind of conspiracy by "media and Big Tech"? Contributions to gain consensus (ideally from non-socks) would be greatly appreciated. On whether: Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this is even valuable content. And,
 * whether (if it is) how it can be supported/sourced.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * We don't say they support an Irexit, or quote The Journal as saying so? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This blog is an unreliable source and cannot be used in whole or part. Spleodrach (talk)

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

I have therefore opened this thread. To determine if there is consensus that this statement is considered by the community to be:
 * "subjective"
 * a "smear"
 * otherwise unworthy of inclusion

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

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


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


 * Huh. Shows what I know, anyway... still no candidates. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

why not self-revert and take part in the pages Talk page rather than edit-warring? WP:BRD and all that - you can't have missed the edit summaries, clearly, as you're counting editors?! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A sticker that attacks a political party is noteworthy. This is very rare in modern Irish politics, and so its inclusion is warranted. Spleodrach (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it's not, is it. One single sticker in a developed Western democracy is notable, is it? Ireland, with its rich, complicated, complex, challenging political history, marked on both sides of the border with historical instances of posters, leaflets, murals, declarations of independence, and countless referenda, is a country which must indicate on a very particular Wikipedia article the instance of one single sticker? Look, I get it. This party is clearly controversial, it's clearly not very popular, I've seen the edit history, I understand what is happening here. One anti- sticker has been posted, and the people behind that sticker want publicity, maybe they want to smeer the political party by including this sticker on the page. Calling this section "anti-Nazi sticker" gives the game away, too. It's clear as day that no political party article on Wikipedia woud stand for one single opponent having the right to post a critical sticker on their article. I simply don't believe - because it's not true - that "a sticker that attacks a political party is noteworthy." It's biased, it's NPOV, it's UNDUE, it's not going anywhere near this article. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Far-Right?
How is this party considered “far-right?” 2600:1005:B16E:45E:C95C:E8FC:7186:610A (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are probably better off asking that of the Irish Times and the Irish Central, whose articles apparently verify the claim. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Irish Times is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B16E:45E:C95C:E8FC:7186:610A (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if you say so. You're welcome to take this up at WP:RSN, but you'll have to, ahem, actually provide grounds for that. Next time, please have the courtesy of properly indenting and signing your message--thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where you're coming from. Trump won and fascism is left-wing. Great. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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


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

I think this party is more conservative, than "far-right"
As per their website, the party officials define themselves as conservatives, not far-right. Thanks.174.199.163.152 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by what reputable independent sources say, not what people or organisations about themselves, and not what we think might be the case. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

Far-right, redux
I am reverting the recent addition of "right-wing" to the lead. The edit summary of IrishPolitical refers: "As you well know, WP:V is what counts here and a few lines on the talk page from a year or two ago don't overwrite consensus." There aren't "a few lines on the talk page" - there is a well-established consensus, arrived at after extensive discussion in several talk page sections: Consensus has not changed. That leaves WP:V. It seems necessary to point out WP:DUE again. IP has re-introduced "sources" that have already been talked about - and discounted. No, a headline -only! - calling the NP "right-wing" is not a sufficient source to back up inclusion of "right-wing" in the lede, when we have plenty of excellent sources backing "far-right". IP even accepted this at the time, yet here they are again, re-inserting the same content. (Once again - the Heavey headline used by IP to justify "right-wing" itself calls the party "far-right" in the article body.
 * Talk:National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)
 * Talk:National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)
 * Talk:National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)

We've been over this at length already - nothing has changed. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


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


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

Far-right, redux II
Perhaps,, you can outline where, exactly, consensus changed from the above, i.e., use 'far-right' instead of 'right-wing'? The artiicle used to cite 'right-wing' describes the party as 'extreme right wing' and 'fascist'. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * "Extreme right-wing" != "right-wing." It just isn't. Implying it is, is, well - wP:SYNTHESIS. You are extracting meaning and interpretations from a source. Etc. And in any case, once again, an article from the day before the party launched is - by definition - just not going to be as accurate or well informed as later sources, from when the party has been in operation for several years. Such as the three sources added for "far-right" dating from 2020. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a far-right party, it is a Conservative party. -2600:1005:B120:B2A6:1FF:1786:8891:C807 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a Conservative party, not far right.
This is a Conservative party, not a “far-right.” As a fellow Irishman, I can confirm this. -2600:1005:B120:B2A6:1FF:1786:8891:C807 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Anyone reading the sources will be able to confirm that multiple reliable sources (including the Irish Independent, Irish Times and several otherwise reliable sources) describe the subject as a "far-right" party. Hence that is what the article reflects. Per WP:VER and related guidelines. The nationality of editors (or readers) is otherwise not relevant. Guliolopez (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Guliolopez, user's IP /64 range is now blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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


 * , it appears you are in a bit of a habit of gatekeeping articles on Irish politics. Do we need a discussion every time content is added to an article? The information I've added to the page is from the news, which would therefore imply it is newsworthy. Somebody receiving abuse on twitter in this instance even got its own headline.
 * Regarding my former use of wiki, you are only aware as I have stated on my userpage I used to frequently edit wiki in the past. 10+ years ago on content relating to films if you must know. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, we apparently do need a discussion every time someone content is added that's against policy and guidelines. Please explain why you think we should list the bye-election expenses of the NP in one particular bye-election when no other Irish political article does so; or - bearing in mind Wikipedia isn't a newspaper - why the inclusion of alleged social media abuse of an unnamed individual is warranted? There is a world of difference between 'newsworthy' and WP:DUE. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If such information doesnt exist on other party pages, then maybe it should. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it clearly shouldn't. WP:DUE. WP:10YEARTEST. WP:NOTNEWS. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Far-left"
WP:BRD is worth a read. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. You might do well to remember that. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Your leader quoted Hitler only a few months ago. Seems like far-right may not even be strong enough for the NP. YoungIreland (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)