Talk:People Before Profit

County Councils seats
article has confused me. It says they won 5 seats in 4 county councils yet i see the 5 seats being in 3 county councils? Phil Nolte (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Stormont elections
I recently edited this article but refrained from editing one paragraph as I am banned from editing articles which concern the recent Ulster conflict, and some administrators could interpret my editing that paragraph as violating that ban. What I'd like to suggest is that 2007 Stormont elections and West Belfast constituency be linked. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What do people think about linking Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? It could be linked in the fourth paragraph. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone at all? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Snappy (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Added in brackets that Sinn Féin was running 5 candidates, as without the context it sounds like PBPA was the most popular party in the constituency, when this wasn't the case. - FactFixer2113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfixer2113 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories
All-Ireland parties are by definition parties in the ROI. Is the latest category addition really necessary? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Snappy? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, PBPA can be in both as per Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein. One is not a sub cat of the other, they are both at the same level, so they are both needed. Snappy (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

GB candidates
There have been a couple of by-election candidates under the name People Before Profit in England. Does anyone know their relationship with the Irish party? Should this be covered? Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly Elections 2016
The Northern Ireland Assembly Elections took place on 5th May 2016. The counting started on 6th May 2016 but has not yet completed as of 7 May 2016 01:30. Article subject to change.Useriemf (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

United Ireland Stance
I have removed the "United Ireland" stance to reflect the position reflected going into the 2017 Northern Assembly Elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfixer2113 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * McCann's piece is convincing, all right, and they can't really be described as having a "United Ireland" ideology if they refuse to declare as nationalist in the NI Assembly. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They support a united Ireland, that is all that matters. From my understanding they don't declare themselves as nationalists because they believe it to be sectarian. Anyway your individual opinions don't matter Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. They matter equally as little as yours. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, then why are you giving your own opinion status? Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion. It's that of the party leader. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He never says they don't support a united Ireland, he says something entirely different. Quote him where he says that. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How can I quote something he didn't say? What he does say is "We are neither green nor orange but up for the fight."; "One television commentator spluttered these things couldn’t be true, that it was fantasy to suggest that our approach could draw support from, as we say, “both sides”. Eschewing both nationalism and unionism has always implied the mushy politics of the decent middle classes."; "When it comes to the inbuilt blocking mechanism, the Petition of Concern – laying down that, essentially, a majority of each of the nationalist and unionist blocs is required to pass any measure regarded as vital by more than 30 members – simply disregards the presence of “Others.”" Tl;dr: PBP aren't nationalist. QED. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How does any of this mean we should exclude united Ireland, something they clearly support from the infobox?Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Trotskyist front
The line "The founders were members of pre-existing organisations such as the Socialist Workers Network and the Socialist Party leading to accusations that it is a front for Trotskyism." is incorrect and the source doesn't support it. The Socialist Worker's Party was only renamed the Socialist Worker's Network after the People Before Profit Alliance was set up so that couldn't possibly be the case. On top of that, the source cited is an article talking about the AAA (now Solidarity) which is the one with the relationship to the Socialist Party (unlike PBP). Also is it just me or is "a front for Trotskyism" just bad grammar? The relationship between Solidarity-People Before Profit and the original smaller Trotskyist parties is genuinely notable and interesting so it's disappointing this edit contains misinformation (and not only that, early enough in the article that it shows up in the info box when you Google People Before Profit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosialachas (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

How aren't these fringe people not classed as "far left"?
Wikipedia is quick to label a mild right wing party as FAR RIGHT yet an actual trotskyist party is spared of the "far" label? Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:5A7F:FBC1:88AC:8EE4:B190:6734 (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

April 2022
,, you're both here long enough to know how WP:BRD works and to be aware of WP:3RR, which you are both in danger of breaching. Please discuss here and get consensus for the proposed changes. Laurel Lodged, please note the infobox already describes PBP as Trotskyist and nobody has suggested removing that. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have tried to highlight the fact that the last major edit has multiple issues:


 * https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/far-left-s-high-profile-contrasts-sharply-with-modest-electoral-reach-1.3145516 - used in the infobox to claim far-left breaks WP:SYNTH. Nowhere in the article does it explicitly call the party far-left, therefore it breaks this guideline. Its also an opinion piece, like the source below, so can't be used as a source for a factual claim.
 * https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/harry-mcgee-people-before-profit-and-the-anti-austerity-alliance-spot-the-difference-1.2384459 - this is an opinion piece and as such should not be used to support factual claims, per WP:RSOPINION
 * What consensus do we have to change the definition of the party from socialist to Trotskyist? There currently is none.
 * As to Laurel Lodged's point regarding the party's "reading list", it is irrelevant. This is a clear example of WP:OR used to inform the editors own personal view, not a statement of fact on anything. We go by what reliable third-party sources state. Helper201 (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That notwithstanding, is there any particular reason why you chose to get rid of the entirety of CeltBrowne's edit rather than just the bits you take issue with? I didn't see any issues raised about the content in the Ideology section which was added, and having looked through it, it seems well cited and accurate and imv belongs in the article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the claims were reliant on the McGee opinion piece as a factual source. There was also a large emphasis on the Trotskyist element that seemed unbalanced. Furthermore, there were continued elements of WP:SYNTH by claims being made that were not explicitly stated in the non-opinion sources given. Helper201 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I genuinely didn't see that a discussion had already started on this talk page until now because I don't have this article watched. Look, I don't have too big an issue with the concerns raised by Helper201 (although we obviously probably don't agree on the specifics), and have attempted to address those issues by adding several sources on both the "Trotskyist" claim and the "Far-Left" claims, most of which is citing Irish politics professors. I feel that these reliable sources should smooth over Helper201's stated concerns. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are still many problems with this edit/edits:


 * Both Far left’s high profile contrasts sharply with modest electoral reach and We only agree to disagree forming a government after the 2020 election break WP:SYNTH as neither explicitly calls PBP far-left. Also, the first is an opinion piece and as previously stated should not be used for factual claims, as is being done here. I don't know in regards to the PDF used as the third source for far-left as my PC won't download it due to a potential security risk. The other two sources meet the synth guideline and seem okay as long as the sources are reliable. I don't know either personally, they may or may not be deemed reliable sources.


 * The Harry McGee opinion citation (number 12) is still being used as a citation to support the claim of,: "People Before Profit are a Trotskyist party committed to permanent revolution and political agitation through working-class mass action in capitalist societies.". This is a factual claim, not an opinion. Its not saying "person A thinks X about Y". The claim is saying the party is/are Trotskyist based off of an opinion piece, this clearly breaks WP:RSOPINION.


 * Also, in relation to the Harry McGee citation, the full title of the citation isn't even used. Why? The full title includes the authors name as clear indication that its opinion piece. Title in citations should always use the full title of the source. Omitting part of it seems like it’s made to cover u the fact it’s an opinion piece.


 * The only reliable, non-opinion piece that meets WP:SYNTH in calling the party Trotskyist is the Village Magazine citation. I don't think we should change how the party is labelled in the intro and the start of the ideology section to this claim based off of one source. That would be very unbalanced (please see WP:BALANCE). Far more sources call the party socialist and the party makes no claim of being Trotskyist, explicitly calling themselves socialist. Again, there has never been any consensus on here to define the party as Trotskyist. Helper201 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reliable, non-opinion piece that meets WP:SYNTH in calling the party Trotskyist is the Village Magazine citation.
 * I've already included two academic sources calling the party Trotskyist and/or Far left:
 * And I will continue to add more if I have to, such as the following
 * (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * (the Socialist Party = Solidarty, the Socialist Workers Party is now the Socialist Workers Network and is the basis of People before Profit)
 * (Landy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, director of the MPhil in Race, Ethnicity, Conflict and teaching on the Masters and Undergraduate programmes in sociology at Trinity).
 * the party makes no claim of being Trotskyist, explicitly calling themselves socialist.
 * Firstly, as a Trotskyist party, entryism and the use of front organisations are strategic tenets of their ideology. The deliberate obscuring of their beliefs is part and parcel of their ideology.
 * Secondly, regardless of their ideology, just because a group claims an ideology does not necessarily mean this is the correct ideology to ascribe to them. Famously, the National Socialist German Workers' Party and many Neo-Nazi groups have described themselves as "Socialists", but political academics would not label these groups "Socialist" in any meaningful sense. If multiple reliable sources ascribe Trotskyism to PBP, this supersedes their own declarations on the matter.
 * Thirdly, there isn't a contradiction in specifying that a socialist party is a Trotskyist one, as Trotskyism in a sub-category of Socialism. In fact, we can see this in the article's own categories: Category:Trotskyist organisations in Ireland is a subcategory of Category:Communist organisations in Ireland, itself a subcategory of Category:Socialist organisations in Ireland. This is in-line with the rest of Wikipedia. For example, Category:Trotskyist organisations in the United Kingdom is a subcategory of Category:Communist parties in the United Kingdom, itself a subcategory of Category:Socialist parties in the United Kingdom. Noting PBP as a Trotskyist part is simply specifying what kind of Socialism they practice.
 * Again, there has never been any consensus on here to define the party as Trotskyist.
 * Actually I heavily dispute that assertion; "Trotskyism" has been listed as an ideology of theirs in their infobox since 2012, seemingly without dispute. It's only now that someone has bothered to create a dedicated ideology and policies section in the body of the article that there has been major objections raised to this classification. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, there isn't a contradiction in specifying that a socialist party is a Trotskyist one, as Trotskyism in a sub-category of Socialism. In fact, we can see this in the article's own categories: Category:Trotskyist organisations in Ireland is a subcategory of Category:Communist organisations in Ireland, itself a subcategory of Category:Socialist organisations in Ireland. This is in-line with the rest of Wikipedia. For example, Category:Trotskyist organisations in the United Kingdom is a subcategory of Category:Communist parties in the United Kingdom, itself a subcategory of Category:Socialist parties in the United Kingdom. Noting PBP as a Trotskyist part is simply specifying what kind of Socialism they practice.
 * Again, there has never been any consensus on here to define the party as Trotskyist.
 * Actually I heavily dispute that assertion; "Trotskyism" has been listed as an ideology of theirs in their infobox since 2012, seemingly without dispute. It's only now that someone has bothered to create a dedicated ideology and policies section in the body of the article that there has been major objections raised to this classification. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

, could you please explain why you feel Celtbrowne's sourced additions are not appropriate? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we're now in election campaign mode after SOPNs have been printed with polling day next month, so any mass edits from one extreme view point to one particular political party sets off my Spidey Senses. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, there's a NI Assembly election. I'd forgotten about that. It's irrelevant, though. Wikipedia does not employ any sort of reporting moratorium, much less a month out from an election, and WP:NOTCENSORED. The recent additions are (see above) reliably referenced. And frankly, it's bizarre that PBP are not described as far-left. Hiding that (while still labelling them 'Trotskyist' in the infobox would be doing more of a disservice to voters who come to Wikipedia before deciding how to vote. I invite you to self-revert. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not revert. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that adding op-eds from low-quality sources like 'The Village' and 'breakingnews.ie' would be a good idea, especially since these are op-eds and there is already scholarly sources backing up the cited information. I think it is not necessary nor wise to have op-eds from low-quality sources in the article irregardless of anything else. Furthermore, part of the reason the edits were objected to is that these are op-eds so I'm not sure how adding them would resolve the dispute, instead of cementing it. StairySky (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree that The Village is a "low-quality" source! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

c Also I'm not sure that the little mini-Brexit debate going on in the Ideology is section has much encyclopedic value. Why would the Shinners years old comments be something worth mentioning here? StairySky (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Trotskyist not sourced for Wikivoice
The opinion that PBPA is Trotskyist is not strongly supported enough to state in wiki voice, and is in fact passing off opinion as fact.

The first linked source, Harry Browne, describes it as "historically trotskyist". That can not be used to support "trotskyist" in the article, though could perhaps in the infobox.

The first Dunphy and the Ó Dochartaigh article are not about PBPA, but use the term trotskyist as throwaway lines. They both refer to the period 2015-2016 and earlier. These are possibly not due for the purpose, but in any case must be attributed to their author as individual opinions.

Hearne describes PBPA as "The united front organisation of [a] trotskyist party", this does not support the statement "trotskyist". At that point PBPA was the united front organisation of the Socialist Workers' Party, which definitely is a Trotskyist party. The quote does not specify the ideology of PBPA

Dunphy again calls the PBPA trotskyist as one of its designations, that is his opinion (shown above) but not enough for wiki voice.

Landy does not describe PBPA as trotskyist, he states that the trotskyist Socialist Workers Party "has been swallowed by its electoral front". Again PBPA is not called trotskyist here, so the quote does not support using trotskyist in the article.

Therefore I have attributed the viewpoint to Dunphy and Ó Dochartaigh.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Trotskyism ideology should be removed from the infobox in my opinion. StairySky (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The statement is well sourced, and can absolutely stand. Restored to the last good version by - there is no consensus for removal. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". StairySky (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources do not say what is claimed, please see above. One of the sources actually contradicts the claim that PBPA is currently Trotskyist. There is plenty of evidence for Trotskyist parties being involved in the foundation of PBPA, and that should of course be fully discussed and can be added in wikivoice. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for stating trotskyism in Wikipedia's voice? I can't see one anywhere. I would also add that you added unsourced information about Solidarity supposedly supporting a British Isles Federation. StairySky (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From the discussions on this page, there seem to be 3 users who have stated there is not enough evidence to add Trotskyist in wikivoice, 3 who want it there. That would seem to be the very definition of "no consensus"Boynamedsue (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, after a Bold edit that is Reverted, the next step is Discussion - not edit warring. The sources absolutely do say that PBP is Trotskyist. You can't remove referenced content and references from WP because you don't like what they say. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the first bold edit was the addition of Trotskyist, for which there is no consensus, as it is the personal view of two individuals. There is consensus (I think) for including it attributed to the individuals who hold that opinion. There isn't for its inclusion in wikivoice as that is not what the sources say. But as there is edit-warring to include the new material (the claims of Trotskyism) I will restore the status quo prior to the addition of the disputed material. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the first bold edit was the addition of Trotskyist, for which there is no consensus, as it is the personal view of two individuals
 * It is not simply "the opinion" of two individuals, it is the viewpoint of several Irish political academics, experts in this field.
 * here is consensus (I think) for including it attributed to the individuals who hold that opinion. There isn't for its inclusion in wikivoice as that is not what the sources say. But as there is edit-warring to include the new material (the claims of Trotskyism) I will restore the status quo prior to the addition of the disputed material.
 * If you do that, you'll be ramming through a watering down of the article to suit yourself, not because you have consensus. You could wait and actually discuss this matter here on the talk page and see if you actually have consensus instead of immediately shooting in your edit once you've made a reply.
 * To go back to your original statement, which is, frankly, a ridiculous reading of the provided sources: You seem to be going out of your way to avoid the obvious conclusion. You're looking at the work of several Irish political academics and judging "well that's just their opinion", even though these would be experts in this field. You're also playing the inane game of suggesting the Socialist Workers' Party is Trotskyist, but PBP isn't, even though effectively SWP and PBP are one in the same, something covered in several of the sources. In other cases, you're outright ignoring what the authors have said. For example, how on earth can dismiss Ó Dochartaigh as "not about PBP" when the citation specifically quotes this entirely unambitious sentence:
 * You also seem to be entirely ignoring the New Left Review source by Daniel Finn, as you are the Donatella source.
 * Out of curiosity, since you're taking this tack of "it's just an opinion"; hypothetically if multiple Irish political academics are not authoritative enough source to call the party Trotskyist in wiki voice, what source would be? I seriously hope your answer is not to suggest only the subject themselves. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, since you're taking this tack of "it's just an opinion"; hypothetically if multiple Irish political academics are not authoritative enough source to call the party Trotskyist in wiki voice, what source would be? I seriously hope your answer is not to suggest only the subject themselves. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Exactly two sources state that PBPA are Trotskyist, the others simply don't. I know you want them to, but they just don't. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly two sources state that PBPA are Trotskyist, the others simply don't
 * Okay, so you're acknowledging the Dunphy and Ó Dochartaigh sources, but dismissing all the other sources. Let's address each of these objections.
 * Firstly, specifically, what is your objection to the New Left Review source by Daniel Finn and the Donatella source, which both outline PBP as Trotskyist? You haven't acknowledged either, and if it's the case that you don't object to them, then it's actually at least four reliable sources stating PBP are Trotskyist.
 * The first linked source, Harry Browne, describes it as "historically trotskyist". That can not be used to support "trotskyist" in the article, though could perhaps in the infobox.
 * Why not? Because he used the word historically? It's a party that only came into it's current form in 2008, and it's not like it's undergone radical ideology shifts. Also, each source does not exist in a vacuum, if multiple sources are saying the party was and presently is Trotskyist, it suggests a party that has been continuously Trotskyist in ideology.
 * Hearne describes PBPA as "The united front organisation of [a] trotskyist party", this does not support the statement "trotskyist". At that point PBPA was the united front organisation of the Socialist Workers' Party, which definitely is a Trotskyist party. The quote does not specify the ideology of PBPA
 * Landy does not describe PBPA as trotskyist, he states that the trotskyist Socialist Workers Party "has been swallowed by its electoral front". Again PBPA is not called trotskyist here, so the quote does not support using trotskyist in the article.
 * This is like saying the Fine Gael national executive might be Liberal conservative, but that doesn't reflect in any way the ideology of the Fine Gael party, which would be implausible given that body is the leadership of the party.
 * Dunphy again calls the PBPA trotskyist as one of its designations, that is his opinion (shown above) but not enough for wiki voice.
 * It's the opinion of an expert in this field, as Dr. Richard Dunphy was a Professor of Political Science in the University of Dundee, and it's one of several sources all firmly stating the same thing.
 * CeltBrowne (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

, seriously, stop edit-warring. Restoring "Trotskyism" to the infobox is not in any way, shape or form a "bold addition", it's restoring content that was literally there for years. Take this as your warning that you may be about to breach the three-revert rule. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have just completed your third revert on this page, the reverts are the following https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_Before_Profit&type=revision&diff=1084962284&oldid=1084956048, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_Before_Profit&type=revision&diff=1084915756&oldid=1084909271, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_Before_Profit&type=revision&diff=1084947339&oldid=1084932136. At no point have you seriously discussed the failings in the sources, and you have now edit-warred your POV into the article with three reverts within 12 hours. Please self-revert, deleting the content for which there is no consensus, or I will report you to ANI edit-warring. I assume this is an oversight on your part, so I will give you 24 hours to self-revert. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? I suggest you have a read, if not. You are well aware that I restored content - and references - which you had removed, claiming it to be a "bold addition". It was not - it has been here for years. Ten years, in fact. This has been pointed out to you now on a couple of occasions, but you're refusing to acknowledge it. There is no consensus to remove this valid, referenced content. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Love the wikilawyering here! I've reverted "trotskyism" twice, you've done it three times and you are saying I'm edit-warring and mentioning boomerangs. Top tip, you don't get a pass for thinking you are right, everybody always does. --Boynamedsue (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering?! You remove ten-year-old referenced content, then claim it being restored is a "bold addition", but I'm wiki-lawyering?! Get a grip! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first post in this section by Boynamedsue. As what they have written shows, there is an awful lot of breaking of the WP:SYNTH rule by using these various sources to try to assert the party as Trotskyist. Helper201 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yet more additional sources, because apparently, this has to be spelt out explicitly in over a dozen sources:



And just a note on that last source by Layte and Landy; previously Boynamedsue said Landy in another source was only suggesting that SWP were Trotskyist, and this did not mean Landy thought PBP were Trotskyist. Well, here's the very same author explicitly calling PBP, not SWP, Trotskyist. Helper201, if you can look at the above list and somehow come to the conclusion that I'm engaging in WP:Synth, you're on another level. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again lots of synthesis there.


 * Kelly (more or less) does call PBPA Trotskyist, I don't disagree that this opinion exists, but it isn't widespread enough for wiki voice. Dunphy calls the group "Trotskyist-led" which is not the same as Trotskyist, and so doesn't support current wording. McCabe says the SWP is Trotskyist not PBPA, "under the banner of" is an ambiguous phrase if you want to argue that the SWP and PBPA are the same thing today, then I'm afraid that is a completely different discussion. Sheehan, calls the PBPA an alliance of Trotskyist parties and their Broader Fronts, this is not saying PBPA is Trotskyist, a broad front, by definition, is not a Trotskyist party. Keith does use Trotskyist, in a somewhat throwaway fashion. Bréadún doesn't mention PBPA, synthesis, as you must know. de Waele says the PBPA arose from the SWP, which everybody knows, especially if they read the article, but again this is synthesis. Nordsieck, not really a specialist on either Trotskyism or Irish politics, but yeah, that one is ok. Holmes, well surely you must realise that is synthesis? "Have roots in Trotskyism" =/= "is Trotskyist", it in fact implies that the opposite is the case. The Landy quote is again something of a throwaway statement, and related to the specific time period of 2008-2014, during the early part of this period PBPA was entirely SWP led, prior to its absorption by PBPA documented above.


 * I do not disagree that the opinion that PBPA are Trotskyist exists, or that the shorthand use of "Trotskyist" to cursorily designate a more complex reality of a coalition containing Trotskyists but not following any recognised Trotskyist policy or tactic is common. However, this identification is not widespread enough, as shown by the amount of stretching you did above, to use wikivoice for a controversial opinion, contested by the party itself. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to think of a way to overcome this impasse, and so I've been consulting over other political party articles and the descriptions of their ideologies, and what sort of phrasing they use. Some parties such as Liberal Democrats (UK) have their ideology described in Wikivoice as fact. Other parties such as Labour Party (UK), Green Party of Canada, Conservative Party of Canada, Free Democratic Party (Germany) such phrasing such as "Usually described as", "Often described as", "generally considered to be", "broadly considered" and so on. If such a phrasing was used to describe the party as Trotskyist, will you still object to this? PBP's objection to the label would still be retained, per how it is now in the article. A second option would be to use the phrase "Political scientists and journalists have described" per Alternative for Germany CeltBrowne (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that there's no consensus for these additions and that there is some edit warring going on in spite of this. StairySky (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Quite the opposite. Once again - we are not talking about "additions." The infobox label has been present for ten years now. Even those promoting removal of the term acknowledge above that we have sources stating PBP are Trotskyist. And you don't get to remove referenced content just because you don't like it or refuse to acknowledge reliable sources. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Bastun There is no consensus for inclusion of the word "Trotskyist" in the infobox, it really doesn't matter when it was added there. Your edit-warring to force this POV into the article, pushing it right to 3 reverts is really shocking in such an experienced user. The policy is, if there is no consensus for text, it goes, no matter when it was added.


 * CeltBrowne thanks for the constructive attitude, I would be happy to have wording in the infobox along the lines of "sometimes described as Trotskyist, a label the party does not accept." In the article I feel, for balance, a couple of attributed quotes should be added which specify it was historically trotskyist, maybe Holmes and Browne? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop mis-representing the inclusion of the word 'Trostskyist' in the infobox as an "addition" to the article. It is, de facto, the consensus version! You are also mis-representing the consensus policy. Please actually read it! What it actually says is: So yes, it does matter that 'Trotskyist' was in the infobox for 10 years, with no dispute as to its inclusion. Bottom line: There is no consensus for removal. As to "historically Trotskyist" - it's only 17 years old!, given that one of the only three people disputing inclusion of 'Trotskyist' in the infobox states themselves, above, that , and that they accept some of the references, I would argue that there is no need for any compromise or watered-down wording for the infobox - the article body accurately and neutrally describes the situation. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree about the infobox Bastun; I've never once seen on any political party infobox, ever, "qualifying" terms like "sometimes described as" used. As far as the infobox goes, it's binary: The ideology is either in or out, and my position is of course that it should be in. This would also my position for the lead section, which I believe should state "People Before Profit (Irish: Pobal Roimh Bhrabús, PBP) is a Trotskyist political party formed in October 2005."
 * What I was suggesting is that in the body of the article, in the "Ideology and policies" subsection, is that a phrase like "People before Profit is generally considered a Trotskyist party" could be used. Please note Boynamedsue there is a stark difference between terms like "generally" against a term like "sometimes". "Generally" denotes a majority view. "Sometimes" implies a frequently disputed term. It is still my position that the (vast?) majority opinion of journalists and political academics in Ireland state that the party is currently Trotskyist, and thus the phrasing should reflect this. Given that not a single source by someone from outside of PBP contradicting this view has been presented, I think I'm being pretty fair with this, and I'm worried even in this that I might be being going too far, as Bastun points out. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: How should People Before Profit be described?
How should the article describe the political ideology of People Before Profit?


 * Option A: "People Before Profit are a Trotskyist political party"
 * Option B: "People Before Profit are generally considered a Trotskyist political party"
 * Option C: "People Before Profit are sometimes described as a Trotskyist political party"
 * Option D: The article should not describe People Before Profit as a Trotskyist party
 * Option E: The lead is kept neutral and not weighted in any particular direction or towards any one ideology and simply states "People Before Profit (Irish: Pobal Roimh Bhrabús, PBP) is a political party formed in October 2005."

CeltBrowne (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option A, based on the following reliable sources:


 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
 * 1) (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)

CeltBrowne (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A. There's well enough sources to back up PBP being Trotskyist as shown above. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A per CeltBrowne. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A. --Patr2016 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A - per sources provided. Spleodrach (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A - per sources provided. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C - per the above discussion and sources provided. StairySky (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C, E, or other - I think it at least partially depends on where this line is intended for (see the discussion section below). Helper201 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A per CeltBrowne. A party, as a collective noun, is singular though, not plural. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option D or E neither party membership nor leadership demands any adherence to Trotskyism. People Before Profit is a radical left party in Ireland. Further specification is distracting as a first line and references the SWN which is not People Before Profit. See https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/molyneux/2022/03/pbp.htm for a more up-to-date description and reference. LanceAndBadger 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
, could you maybe refactor your answer above to a single line for the Survey section, and move the rest down here to the Discussion section? Also, procedurally, the standard for an RfC is to leave it open for at least 30 days, so everyone will have time to respond. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it for the lead or the ideology and policies section, or both? I'm against simply using only the term Trotskyist in the lead (which the vast majority of options by CeltBrowne included, with only simply omitting it entirely as an alternative). I think a similar number of sources could be found calling the party socialist, so it would be wrong for us to omit one in favour of the other. The most neutral option would just to say in the lead, "People Before Profit (Irish: Pobal Roimh Bhrabús, PBP) is a political party formed in October 2005." I think the ideology and polices section can say "People Before Profit are sometimes described as a Trotskyist political party" or "People Before Profit are described by some as a Trotskyist political party" and also state that others refer to it as simply a socialist party. I don't think the lead has to be a binary choice between socialist or Trotskyist and should not be weighted one way or the other or be determined via the opinions of Wikipedia editors as we should remain as neutral as possible. I think the best option would be to keep the ideology claims to the ideology and policies section and refrain from simply labelling the party as one or the other but say that it is described by some as socialist and by others as Trotskyist. I have only just added option E to the list, so I respectfully ask that editors are given enough time to see and consider this option before any changes or decisions are made. Helper201 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
, - you're both here long enough to be aware of WP:3RR, and our WP:BRD guidelines. Can both of ye stop edit-warring and discuss, please? Discussion should be here, on this article talk page, not an editor's talk page. Per BRD, the 'original' version should be left in place until consensus emerges (i.e., Asarlaí made the change, it got reverted, so now the proposed change is discussed.) Please both consider this a 3RR warning. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)