Talk:National Party (Ireland, 2016)

Stop edit-warring. All the (reliable) sources say "far-right".

@Irishpolitical: Per WP:RS, the claims made by the founder of the party in an interview (a primary source) are not a reliable source. They are an unreliable, first-party source, published by an outlet who admitted upfront that they know it is controversial even to give a forum to far-right groups to speak, and who directly described the group as far-right in the lead-in to the interview. See also the essay WP:INTERVIEW. Also courtesy-pinging Bastun (talk · contribs) (not accusing them of edit-warring, since they reverting unexplained counter-policy edits). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree entirely. They're not "right wing" like the British Tory party - they're far right, according to all of the reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you both and I believe your bias is shining through. How can a primary source directly from the mouth of the person who knows the party best be thrown out completely? It's ridiculous frankly. You're both allowing bias to cloud this matter. Maybe you consider them "far right" however you're lumping a lawful contemporary party into a label the party itself clearly rejects to suit your own personal view. It's not "clearly far right", it's debateable and disagreeable - therefore the article should include both "right wing" AND "far right" in order to be as objective and neutral as possible as is the intention of this site. Irishpolitical 02:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add to the body of the article (not the lead) that Barrett rejects the term "far-right", that might be acceptable, but Wikipedia is based on reliable, detached, unbiased, third-party sources, and all of them say "far-right". The reason why Barrett is not a reliable source for the claim that the group is not far-right is made abundantly clear in the title of the source -- no one wants to call themselves "far-right", but that is what all the secondary sources call them. Please read WP:PSTS. Our biases have nothing to do with it, but if you really want to know I was curious what was going on in my ancestral homeland with regard to the recent global surge in far-right nationalism, and searched Wikipedia yesterday evening. I had never heard of the National Party until about ten minutes before making the edit that you reverted, and my edit was not based on any preconceived notions, only what was in the cited sources. Your understanding of "the intention of this site" is apparently somewhat flawed: Wikipedia provides a neutral, due-weight summary of what appears in reliable secondary sources; it does not attempt to "balance out" the claims of reliable secondary sources with propagandistic claims appearing primary sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of balance and NPOV I think it should be mentioned that the National Party denies the far right label despite the fact that it clearly is.Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems acceptable, but I don't think we should present their own claim about themselves in a matter-of-fact, way like stating in the lead or the infobox that their position is "right-wing to far-right". Their position is far-right: that's what all the sources say, and the group themselves just happen not to like it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

All of you are just projecting your political opinions of the party as absolute truth. It is not "clearly" far right but since there is dissent and disagreement over this it surely makes the most sense to include both "right wing" and "far right". And for the record, the sources cited are hardly "unbiased", however it is baffling to exclude the party's own position as being "unreliable" but acting as if the Irish Times version of the party is absolutely true when they clearly have their anti-NP slant. This and the Justin Barrett wiki pages are clearly written by people who detest them and want to slander them. All I've attempted to do is to make the article more neutral, objective and fair. I'll compile alternative sources and such and then return to this at a later date.Irishpolitical 13:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: No, you are projecting your own assumptions onto the sources. I don't have a political opinion of the group -- I had never heard of them until I stumbled across this article yesterday, and my first edit to it, which you reverted, was made a matter of minutes later. Given that your first substantial edit to Wikipedia was to add the unsourced claim that they are "right-wing to far-right" to this article, it seems much more likely that you have an opinion of this group and came here to express it. Your username is "Irishpolitical" for crying out loud; I primarily edit articles on Chinese classical poetry, stumbled upon this article while browsing, and have not even visited Ireland since about a year before this group was established. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Irish Times is viewed as a reputable source. ____Ebelular (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a fierce whiff of duck off this page... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Members

I've set the elected representatives count back to zero. Seamus Treanor has form for racist attacks on immigrants all right, but I can't find anything saying he actually joined the NP, just this, the news reports of his "contributions" on radio interviews, and the photos of the top table at the Dundalk meeting. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"has form for racist attacks on immigrants all right", leave it out would you? Keep it to yourself. It appears at present that he is an independent councillor who simply addressed a meeting. Irishpolitical 13:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: No, you should leave it out. Write articles to reflect what the sources say. Don't write what you want and then find sources that could be interpreted as agreeing with it, and don't criticize other editors for engaging in civil talk page discussion of the article content. If you don't have a source that says Treanor joined the NP, then it doesn't matter whether it's conceivable that he could be associated with the group given his stance on immigration or not, and if other editors go out of their way to try to corroborate the article's claims and jump through hoops trying to make the connection ... well, WP:BLP applies to talk pages, but if we're discussing whether to remove unsourced contentious material from the article proper, then discussing those unsourced contentious claims themselves is kind of required. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Justin Barrett and neo-nazi

There's been a few edits reverted which had mentioned that JB was known for neo-nazi politics. This is the appropriate talk page section. I think a small mention should suffice. I don't think it's accurate to refer to "anti-abortion meetings" (e.g. this edit), since the sources don't say it's anti-abortion, but that it's neo-nazi meetings. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

He is not a neo-nazi don't be ridiculous. The inclusion of the links is obviously just meant to make him look like even more of an assholeApollo The Logician (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

ATL, go read WP:CONSENSUS. Seriously. Right now. When you've done so, as pointed out to you by several other editors recently, you might finally start to acknowledge that you can't just keep reverting something while saying "Get consensus". Keep on ignoring that and you'll end up blocked again.

On the issue at hand - the version mentioning that Barrett had attended far-right/neo-Nazi meetings is factual, sourced, and is the consensus version. Even when you take the SPA apologist into account. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how I am violating WP:CON.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the page? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If you wish to change the long-standing version then you need a consensus to change it. You don't have a consensusApollo The Logician (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I presume you omitted quotation marks in error, as it's actually you changing the consensus version, which, let's be clear, is to include Barrett's attendance at neo-Nazi events? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please show me evidence of this consensus.13:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Ebular added: "He had attended various neo-nazi and far right meetings in Germany and Italy." I support that addition. Irishpolitical wants to expand that to read "being a leading figure in Youth Defence and campaigning against the Treaty of Nice. Before the launch of the National Party, Barrett attracted controversy due to his attending of anti-abortion meetings in both Germany and Italy organised by the controversial far right parties the National Democratic Party and Forza Nuova respectively." So that's three people wanting to include relevant, sourced information on Barrett's far-right/neo-nazi links, and one person saying there's "no consensus" for inclusion. That is patently not the case. I'm nearly at the stage of wondering if you're just contrarily trolling at this point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I anD the IP editor oppose it. Thats not a con. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You're making no sense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is numerous sources, including Barrett himself, saying that he went to neo-nazi events. Yes it was a long time ago, but so was his anti-abortion activism, in fact it was at the same time. if you want to include anti-abortion, you should include neo-nazi links. I also think it's relevant considering this is an article about an anti-immigration, nationalist, political party. ____Ebelular (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't deny that it is well sourced. I deny that it belongs in this article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

First two lines of the Irish Times article, which is very much a WP:RS: "Mr Justin Barrett of the No to Nice campaign has confirmed that he attended an event organised by Germany's far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) but he denies any links with the organisation. Mr Barrett, who earlier this week declined to confirm or deny to The Irish Times his attendance at the meeting in the Bavarian city of Passau in May 2000, yesterday admitted he attended the conference, as well as an estimated two other events linked to the NPD." There is no consensus for removal of these facts from the article. WP:NOTCENSORED. IrishPolitical, please stop removing sourced content. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

source for the meetings being just anti-abortion

It has been written that the NPD/FN meetings were "anti-abortion meetings". But I haven't seen a source on that? Has anyone got one? You shouldn't add it to wikipedia unless it's sourced, and the national newspapers don't describe these meetings are just "anti-abortion". ____Ebelular (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Member figures

AnSochar - please actually read WP:PRIMARY: "Policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." And further, under secondary sources: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Barrett claiming 600 members in a YouTube video is a primary and self-published source and may not be used. Please do not re-add the putative membership figure without a reliable secondary source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair that speech could be used as a source for the statement: "The party claims to have over 300 members". ____Ebelular (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

At a stretch, I guess. When it finally registers, at any rate... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK to be a registered party in Ireland you need to have at least one TD, senator or counciller. So it is a little hard, to be fair. ____10:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The single-purpose account argued "The requirement for registering in Ireland is 300 members over the age of 18 (meaning they have 600+), the video qualifies as a primary source as it is Barrett)"; I started watching the video but couldn't maintain interest, I'm afraid :P Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 edits.

Denial that the Party is Irish nationalist.

Bastun seems insistent on rejecting that the party espouses Irish nationalism. It is quite evident that the Party is in favour of a United Ireland. Principle #1 states that: 'The National Party believes that the territory of Ireland consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.' It is a fact that the NP supports Irish nationalism. Rejecting this is your opinion but should not be featured in the article as fact.Irishpolitical (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And no doubt you can find a reliable secondary source for that, because all you have now is a primary one. But at least you've stopped pretending Barrett was only involved with far-right fascist parties in the 1990s, so that's something. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think one problem is that "Irish Nationalist" usually means (now-a-days) more like Sinn Fein etc. So the term might be technically, pedantically correct, but it's misleading. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have provided another source for Bastun in which the position of Irish nationalism is confirmed. Furthermore, I reject assertions that I'm "pretending" re the NPD/FN meetings. The citation referring to the events as having taken place in the 1990s are not my words, they are Justin McCarthy's. Check the source. Regarding the use of the term Irish nationalism, I disagree that Sinn Fein has the monopoly on the use of the term. Sinn Fein generally use the term Irish Republicanism anyway. Stating that Irish nationalism is somehow intrinsically left wing in the modern world is very flawed logic. There have been many different variations of Irish nationalism over the years, all sharing the aspiration for a united, independent and sovereign Ireland. This is Irish nationalism. This is clearly espoused by the NP in everything it says and does. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, yes pedantically you're correct. But in Ireland today, it sorta means something more specific than "in favour of an Irish nation", so using it a little misleading. ____Ebelular (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, given the NP's rejection of the GFA, it'd more correct to classify them as Irish republicans (a la Sinn Féin) or even dissident Irish republicans (a la the political wings of various paramilitary groups) rather than Irish nationalists (a la the SDLP and others which accept the GFA). Irishpolitical, the 1990s may not be your words, but you can't be unaware of the Justin Barret article and the text and references therein clearly quoting dates in the 2000s. Which you keep removing from this article. Stop. I've removed the reference you added as it doesn't mention Irish nationalism at all, and the vague quote you included in the reference doesn't refer to Northern Ireland at all. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

it's hardly pedantic when it is obvious the party bears all the hallmarks of Irish nationalism in all that it says and does. We only come into conflict if one mistakenly believe that to be an Irish nationalist one must also be a Sinn Feiner. Furthermore, please provide a source to back up the claim that the party rejects the GFA. Regarding the 1990s/2000s I haven't deleted a shred of evidence which say that he attended the 'rallies' in the 2000s, because no such evidence exists. My citation refers to the 1990s, and Justin McCarthy is hardly a far-right apologist... I disagree with this new and bizarre description of the party as being 'neo-nationalists', never have I seen a source refer to the party as such nor does the party refer to itself as 'neo-nationalist'.Irishpolitical (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

On further reflection, I can see the point you are making. I disagree that SF and the likes have some sort of domination over the term Irish nationalism/republicanism, and because these parties have since the 1990s generally shifted leftwards - that a leftist political agenda is somehow necessary to being considered an Irish nationalist. However, I believe a suitable compromise here would be to, as Bastun suggested, refer to them as a "far right Irish republican party", clearly differentiating them from the other republican parties (Sinn Fein, WP, etc.). It also serves to clear up the debate over the term 'Irish nationalist' referring to the more moderate strand of Irish independence activism - whatever one may think of the NP's ideology, it is safe to say they are anything but moderate. Therefore, I hope other editors will be satisfied with this compromise. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not remove "nationalist", as that's what the party primarily stands for, and it's well referenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see how NP is an "Irish Nationalist" party, but today, lots of parties support the idea of an Irish nation. Technically the Tories are in favor of maintaining the United Kingdom, but their 2017 manifesto says they would support a United Ireland if there was a vote ("Our steadfast belief remains that Northern Ireland's future is best served within a stronger United Kingdom ... We will uphold the essential principle that Northern Ireland's future should only ever be determined by democracy and consent."). Are they an Irish Nationalist party now? Does the term "Irish nationalism" have much meaning anymore? ____Ebelular (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Redux

The National Party is, unsurprisingly, a nationalist party. It's leader espouses racial prfiling, banning immigration by all Muslims, sending immigrants "home", and... well, most of this. These are all far-right nationalist policies - as distinct from Irish nationalism, a view which the party also espouses in its more Republican form. Please stop removing this. Next you'll be changing links to the Nazi Party to NSDAP! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Bastun has insisted on referring to the party as being "neo-nationalist". I find this label to be largely inapplicable, and furthermore no sources refer to the party as being neo nationalist. Is any party critical of immigration to be called 'neo-nationalist'? The description of far right (whether warranted or not) is largely sufficient to allow readers to determine the ideological bent of the party, coupled with the ideology of Irish nationalism or Irish republican (as it currently reads) as the party is an Irish one and espousing an Irish-Ireland ideology. "Neo-nationalism" holds no basis in sources, nor is it warranted - by looking at the content produced by the party it is evident that Irish nationalism is what is being espoused (commemorating Irish nationalists/IRA figures, content uniquely fitted to Ireland, etc). Also, Bastun implying that I am Barrett is incorrect and frankly unbecoming for an editor of Bastun's stature. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I refer to the party as neo-nationalist because a party that isn't merely "critical of immigration" but instead actually espouses:

• Racial profiling
• A complete ban on all Muslims coming into Ireland;
• Deportation of all immigrants

is pretty much the textbook definition of a neo-nationalist party and is well sourced. Please stop edit warring over this; you are at the limit of 3RR and in danger of a block. Your denial of being Barrett is accepted, but given your edit history, you can understand how I might have come to that conclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there anywhere in any of those articles in which the party is described with the label "neo-nationalist"? I would say Identity Ireland are closer to the label of neo-nationalism, although the term is bizarre, for the fact that the NP has a grounding in Irish nationalist politics and a continuation of a longstanding precedent of Irish far right politics. "Neo-nationalism" can not apply in this case, as it's in many parts the eventual political manifestation of the Irish far right which has existed for decades. Also on this accusatory note of me being Barrett, I would not usually bother with rejecting your misinformed assertions but for the fact that an individual should not edit their own Wikipedia article(s) - and if you're going to make accusations like that then you'll need to justify them. I'm glad you've gone off it, eventually.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be "they're not neo-nationalists because they're espousing old-fashioned extremist nationalism" (of the non-Irish kind). As they're a very new party with no prior existence, this argument makes no sense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

To refer briefly to your previous post regarding their espousal of a supposed "extremist and non-Irish nationalism" I must disagree. The question of whether it is extremist or not is ultimately subjective, the party's 9 Principles (generally opposing mass-immigration, abortion, supporting the death penalty, supporting a territorial claim on the six counties, etc.) would've been in lockstep with Fianna Fáil of 30 years ago. And nobody would deny that Fianna Fáil were nationalists of an Irish variety.

The articles you have cited in support of your claim to labeling the National Party as neo-nationalist firstly and most importantly do not contain that label. So it's a bit of your own initiative to apply it to the party. In fact the first article seems only to re-enforce my point that the ideology of the NP is far from 'neo nationalism', as is made abundantly clear in the article neither Barrett nor Reynolds are any strangers to Irish politics. The former having been involved in successive anti-abortion and euroscpetic campaigns and referendums, the latter being involved in various agrarian campaigns. The article also mentions such notions as the party claiming to espouse 'the true spirit of the Republic', which seems to me to be more of a flirt with traditionalist Irish Republicanism than any attempt at solidifying any so-called neo-nationalist credentials. The second citation used to bolster this claim of yours also fundamentally does not label the party as neo-nationalist. This article refers in its content to supposed policies of the NP and matters relating to the cancelled launch of the party. Similar to the other article it makes reference to fulfilling the 1916 Proclamation, a uniquely Irish republican position to take. The claim made in thejournal.ie article that the National Party in its "manifesto" wants to "deport all immigrants", this is debunked by the deputy leader Reynolds in an interview with Joe Finnegan (5 minute mark), conflicting information exists between the policy espoused by the Party officials and the one attached to it in an article by thejournal. The Criticism of mass-immigration is not enough to place one into the box of neo-nationalism, crucially for the reason that both the founders of the Party have had a long involvement in Irish politics and this new party venture is apparently only the culmination of decades long agrarian, conservative and eurosceptic campaigns. Most crucially, the party itself which rests upon the Nine Principles (as cited in the article) are the apparent cornerstone of the party's ideology.

A reasonable compromise in my opinion regarding the beginning paragraph of the article is to merely have it labelled as "nationalism". Not explicitly neo-nationalism nor either Irish nationalism. Therefore both sides will hopefully be satisfied and can read it as according to their own judgement and perception. Regarding further reading of the party's ideology I propose creating a section dedicated to Ideology which will contain both descriptions by the press and by the party itself. Include both views and source both accordingly. This will hopefully prove a reasonable compromise. I intend to make the suggested edits, if you or any other editors have an issue with the updated and improved changes I request further dialogue on this talk page.Irishpolitical (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what neo-nationalism means. It has nothing to do with the age of those involved, or the length of time they've been involved in politics. There is a huge difference between nationalism and neo-nationalism. The NP are neo-nationalists, and the sources support that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bastun, you frequently make this assertion but no sources actually back up this claim as I have demonstrated. I've gone through them source-by-source. Nobody except yourself has labelled the party as neo-nationalist, are we expected to take your word as gospel? Neither the party nor press sources related to the party express this view. Furthermore there is no precedent which would permit them to be labelled as 'neo-nationalists', even parties which are of a "similar vein" (as you might say) namely European right wing parties are not described in their opening sentences or anywhere as being 'neo-nationalists'. I think we both agree that party are fundamentally "nationalists", so let us just remove any leading links to their specific nationalism (be it Irish nationalism, ethnic nationalism, neo-nationalism or whatever else one considers them), and allow people to make their own conclusion from the article. I doubt I'm going to change your mind, but for the sake of adhering to the conflicting sources available a compromise ought to be reached.Irishpolitical (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made significant improvements and editions to the article taking into account both sides here. There is now a broader Ideology section dedicated to discussing the ideology and policies of the National Party. It includes both the party's "national idea" principles and also the description of neo-nationalism. If the introductory section of the article still causes trouble the solution may be simply to remove references to ideology from that section and leave it purely to the infobox and Ideology sections, Identity Ireland for example simply reads "an Irish political party". Hopefully this will not prove too problematic and will be agreeable to us all.Irishpolitical (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You have not. You have attempted to whitewash the article. WP uses what secondary sources say, not primary sources. Gain consensus for changes to the article when they incorporate reliable secondary sources, and don't remove 'neo-nationalist' without consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I reject this bizarre and unfounded assertion that I am whitewashing the article. You are infact the one gratuitously applying labels and descriptions of your own concoction to the party and unfairly removing thousands of words of sourced edits made by myself. And only a small portion of the info added yesterday related to the neo-nationalist discussion, So don't revert everything and throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to make changes to the sourced improvements made on the 26th then please do so, but don't just revert all of it. And for the record yesterday's edits retained the description of the party as being neo-nationalist, in the Ideology section. I'm going to re-introduce these sourced improvements made on the 26th, I request you edit that individually if you have qualms with any particular sections. Thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Reject all you want - the diff where you removed "neo-nationalist" from the article is right there in the history. If you don't make multiple changes to different sections in the one edit, they won't all get reverted when I undo whitewashing edits. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What the party says about itself is all WP:PRIMARY and needs interpretation/commentary by reliable secondary sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources you are citing which allegedly support your claim that the party is 'neo-nationalist' do not contain the word. They do contain the label far-right but not neo-nationalist. Therefore you need to find a reliable secondary source which backs up your assertion that the party is a neo-nationalist one.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the section "Description by the party", you are mistaken to lump it all in with WP:PRIMARY, WP:Primary isn't a blanket ban on all sources of this nature, in this case the official website of the Party. Furthermore, precedent has been set by the fact that a great number of other Irish political parties in their own "policy" or "ideology" sections draw exclusively from Party sources (most commonly - the official website), examples include Republican Sinn Fein, Renua, the Social Democrats, Fianna Fáil, etc. So if you are to take this ultra-strict line regarding the National Party it is only fair you remove all the alleged violations of WP:Primary from other political party's articles. We wouldn't want people to think you are somehow biased against certain political parties!Irishpolitical (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of how WP:PRIMARY works, thanks. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The Republican Sinn Féin policies section is indeed sourced only from the their website and need's improvement. I'll tag it. Renua Ireland's policies section is only sourced from their website, true, but it's linking to a general election manifesto and a pre-budget submission, rather than a wooly "This is who we are" web page which talks about "the 'National idea'" as if we're all supposed to know what that means. The Social Democrats (Ireland) ideology section has five different sources, only one of which is the party's website. The FF ideology section has 13 references, including academic journals as well as media, and only two of which are from the party's website. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the line about the National Idea is qualified by the proceeding descriptions by the media. The current section description by the party for example contains a very clear and straight forward description of the 9 Principles. Again, it's not as if the ideology is being drawn entirely from the website, because there are press sources to qualify it. That coupled with the precedent set by most other Irish political parties re their websites as sources, I don't see it as being problematic or confusing to the reader.Irishpolitical (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

People needing to read different sections to get a balanced view of an obscure idea is not permitted by WP:PRIMARY. Your point re other articles has already been refuted and/or addressed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well it's permitted on other pages. Also, if you feel it is permissible for other parties to use their own website (primary sources) in their party article so long as secondary sources exist in the same section (e.g. Social Democrats, Workers Party, Green Party, etc.) then I see little reason to remove the section. You've mentioned your qualm is perhaps that concepts like the 'National Idea' are too "wooly". Well if that is the case we can leave that bit, but really there ought to be something there about the 9 principles from the website because it's the cornerstone of the party's ideology - and ignoring it is bizarre. I'll make relevant edits drawn from this discussion.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are problems on other pages, address them on those pages. You can't just ignore WP:RS here. The insertions you've made read like an essay written by the party itself. Find reliable secondary sources. Until then, they stay out. Per policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright I will take the same absolutist approach to other parties' articles which you are taking on this particular party's page. In my most recent edit the only thing I have included which was based off the primary source in question was reference to the Nine Principles, which is hardly a violation of standards or precedent. The revision which you keep reverting to is breaking your own rules, and some of it was written by yourself but relies off the primary sources. Also for example on FF's wiki page there is a statement of "according to FF" taken directly from the party's website, so your claim that on Irish political parties page what the party says about itself is disallowed is contradicted.Irishpolitical (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Be aware you've broken 3RR; I advise you to self-revert, discuss here, and get agreement rather than trying to force changes through. Your threat to disrupt articles to prove a point is also noted. Please don't put words in my mouth. Your claim that there are other sources in the section is bizarre - they're only in the same section because I removed the subheadings you artificially inserted! All of what you've entered, bar the sentence on "gay marriage" (whatever that is), is sourced only to a primary source. You can't do that. Revert, discuss, get consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's striking that you'd see my attempts to hold other articles to the same standards you hold this one to as "threats" to "disrupt". If I'm disrupting by following your guide then you're seriously disrupting here. My edit as differing from the previous revision is incorporating a new secondary source as well as reusing others - the previous revision is flawed by your own standards yet you seem to find it permissible. As for the gay marriage section, it says gay marriage in the article so that's what I'm going with.Irishpolitical (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So you're going to continue to be disruptive here too? Again - stop putting words in my mouth. Whatever about the previous version, your new one reads like it was written by a party member (odd, that) (clue: if the party uses terms like "gay marriage", or "Nine Principles", try putting them in quotation marks!) and is still far too reliant on primary sources. I'm going to revert, as you've not addressed any of the concerns raised. WP:PRIMARY is an actual policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Undoing removal of sourced information and reintroducing the section break down of specific referenced policies. Your objection to the terms gay marriage / nine principles is bizarre as that's what they're called in the respective secondary sources. And we have to go by the secondary sources!Irishpolitical (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Redoing removal of material sourced only to WP:PRIMARY sources. Section breaks are not necessary for material that's each only one or two sentences. The secondary sources are quoting party sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Irish Times are the ones calling it gay marriage, not the National Party. So you're making a very bizarre claim here to say this is somehow a term only the NP uses, when in fact it's sourced from the IT. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting". From the Wikipedia page on same sex/gay marriage. Have you not heard this term? It's not just a term used by the NP. In fact the term was used by the Irish Times - not the NP. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No reason not to link to the most appropriate article - i.e., same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland; and The Sun source uses "marriage equality", rather than "gay marriage". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Bastun seems to have taken issue with the changes I have recently made to the opening paragraph of the article. As someone who frequently speaks of the need for secondary sources, I'm sure he will understand the necessity of bringing the article's opening paragraph into line with those sources. I am changing this article to reflect that. If you have issue with it please provide alternative secondary sources which bolster your rationale. Until that point the article ought to reflect the sources. Thank you. Irishpolitical (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Yes, I do take issue with you. You used an edit summary of "Bringing opening paragraph into line with secondary sources" but what you actually did was remove sources from that paragraph! That's just downright dishonest! (Not to mention, you also made changes throughout the article with the same edit). You do not have consensus to remove "neo-nationalist"; or to change this article to suit your own agenda. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You're accusing me of having an agenda here? Rich! ZERO of your sources back up the claim of "neo-nationalist". And you never got consensus for the change in the first place. The only sources I removed were because they weren't relevant to what you are claiming You're just projecting your opinion onto the sources. The sources say nationalist. We should follow the sources. Irishpolitical (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Economic policy and United Ireland?

At present the article only really covers what the parties policies on social issues such as abortion and immigration are; which to be fair is what the party is most famous for, compared to the openly EU and British proxy parties in Ireland. But the article doesn't get into what their views on economics are and United Ireland? Barrett got his start in politics in the youth wing of Fine Sasanach, which it is fair to say, has a dubious record when it comes to the issue of the sovereignty of the Irish Republic. What is the view of this party? Also what are the economic views of the subject? Do they support capitalism and economic liberalism, whereby Ireland is an economic colony of London or Brussels or do they support an idea closer to an Irish Socialist Republic (keep in mind the add-ons of abortion-homosexuality-immigration are Anglo-American liberal capitalist projects and have never been tied to the historical idea of an Irish Socialist Republic, so there isn't a contradition in terms). To improve the quality of the article, it would seem these areas need inclusion, to see what the agenda of this group is. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There are specific references to the support of a United Ireland. Indeed their first principle is in favour of claiming the 32 counties as the national territory. References have been made to economic policy on the website and so on but I imagine Bastun will veto their inclusion because they weren't scribbled down on an Irish Times piece published 2 years ago.Irishpolitical (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If the NP has an economic stance, and nobody outside the NP ever talks about it, we're looking at an if a tree falls in a forest. If nobody outside the NP has found feature X worth noting, it's literally not WP:Notable.

That said, I think economic stance would be a great addition to the article, provided they have some noteworthy views that outsiders have found significant enough to take notice of. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This particular page of the National Party website is ripe with useful information for determining the ideology and policies of the party, it includes matters mentioned above such as United Ireland, economics, etc. However, some editors are more content to ignore the reality and instead opt for a caricatured image to better used their own narratives - pity! But there it is, if one feels it contains information which is useful or could be of help then I'd implore them to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishpolitical (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Irish republican party?

The National Party is a fasicst nationalist party, not an Irish republican. The citation provided does not even use the phrase "Irish republican" and nothing in the source indicates the party is an Irish republican one. I would remove it myself but for some reason it will not let me.185.145.202.171 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The source, the NP's Principles page, says The National Party believes that the territory of Ireland consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Wikipedia says: Irish republicanism (Irish: poblachtánachas Éireannach) is an ideology based on the belief that all of Ireland should be an independent republic.

Seems to make sense to me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In Irish politics the phrase "Irish republicanism" has certain connotations. Irish repubicanism is associated with support for groups like the Provisional IRA. I think Irish nationalist is a better term.185.145.202.171 (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)