Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland

Comment

As I read the article, I can't see any real difference between the two major parties. Perhaps someone who knows more about the subject would care to elaborate on that? 83.83.4.11 10:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. Fine Gael tends to be more sympathetic to the Unionist position in NI, while theoretically a Nationalist party, it is seen by many voters as having little interest in a United Ireland. It has a greater anti-SF emphasis and former Taoiseach (PM) John Bruton mostly supported the Unionist position of exclusion of SF from NI talks when in office (94-7) until the Provisional IRA had decommissioned. Fine Gael are more sceptical about Irish neutrality, and have produced a paper titled "Beyond Neutrality" in elaboration on this. Historically, while a centrist-party, FG contained a larger free-market wing relative to FF, which while also centrist, had a larger social-democratic wing. The latter has changed somewhat with the Fianna Fail coalition govts with the (free-market) Progressive Democrats, but the current leadership seems more of the economic centre-right of the political-spectrum. Strangely then, they have entered an electoral-pact with the Labour Party. While true that perhaps little now divides Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, the emotional echoes of the Civil War still prevents them entering govt with each other. (Ronan)

Aahh... so Fine Gael is a wee bit Conservatist, and Fianna Fail is a bit more lefty? The Person Who Is Strange 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

National Party

What the hell is the National Party. Dermo69

The National Party was founded by Nora Bennis

http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=National_Party http://www.castletown.com/National.htm

I have now moved it into defunct organisations

Green Party

Now I am not 100% sure, but I don't think that the Irish Green Party (Comhaontas Glas) and the Green Party of Northern Ireland are actually the same party! So it's incorrect to state that the Greens like Sinn Fein have seats in both the Dail and Stormont. Since I am not completely sure, one could be a subsidiary of the other or something Ill leave the final edit up to someone else. Unless of course nobody changes it.

Standard Definition of a Party

Does anyone know of an accepted minimum membership for what we can correctly call "a party". Maybe it should be restricted to groups that have posted candidates for election?

United Irish Party etc

Who or what are they? Along with the other United party listed here they seem strangely unknown and while one has a website and the other a web page, neither contain much actual information about who formed them or IF they are actually officially recognised parties. Could people please provide evidence that these are functioning political parties??

ConsulHibernia

Criteria for inclusion/verification for existence of "unregistered parties"

I am little sceptical about whether we should be listing some of these, or indeed if they exist at all. Specifically:

• Amhrán Nua. Yes, we have an article, but its only source is the Sunday Tribune of 25 October 2009 [1]. This states that "Burke explained that it needs 300 signatories before it can officially register as a political party and it hopes to complete this process before Christmas." To date, they have not registered. The Wikipedia article (which looks like a candidate for deletion) was created by User:Doug Lucey on 27 October 2009, and he has done no editing since. This appears to be the same person as the "Doug" who left a number of comments on behalf of the group on the Tribune article. They do have a website, but their events and activities page [2] is completely blank! The website is copyrighted 2009 at which date they only seem to have had 3 activists [3].

• Fathers Rights-Responsibility Party. They appear to be defunct. Their website no longer exists, and I can't find anything about them later than the 2007 general election. The Wikipedia article clearly needs updating, but as they never registered it's hard to find out if/when they folded.
• Fís Nua. They at least exist, and seem to intend to contest the GE as they have a manifesto [4]. It seems they hoped to register when they first formed in June [5] Somebody ought to turn that redlink blue.
• Irish Democratic Party. Well, OK they intend to contest the GE. "We intend to campaign in every constituency." [6] However they don't appear to have any candidates selected, and have yet to get 300 members. [7] I guess see if they do actually put forward any candidates?

I just updated the AfD discussion. The group will not be contesting the GE so article should be either deleted - or incubated if it meets incubation criteria (disclosure - I'm now a member of the IDP). Diffly (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Irish Liberal Party: appears to be one person "I'm attempting to start a new libertarian party." [8] and his website. Presumably this is the director of communications: [9] as all other posts are unfilled. So I don't think this "party" exists!
• Reform Movement: not a party as far as I can see (the only ref on its page is its own website, where it doesn't call itself a party or show any intention of contesting elections).

Anyone disagree with removing these? Lozleader (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, remove all from the article list. Also, AfD Irish Democratic Party, Reform Movement and Amhrán Nua, and update Fathers Rights-Responsibility Party to a defunct party. In future, is there some criteria that can be applied to new groups/parties before inclusion? Anyone can setup a website these days and claim to have lots of members? Snappy (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely we need to come up with criteria... I just looked at the two sections above this and they were dealing (or not) with the same issue.Lozleader (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps take some from here: Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Inclusion_criteria_for_unregistered_parties

• If the party ran candidates in the previous election;
• If the party was registered at the previous election;
• If the party has announced its intention to register or run candidates at the next election.

And a bit from Wikipedia:Notability (political parties) (although this dealt with whether a party warranted an article and failed to acheive a consensus.

1. The Electoral Clause – Political parties which have or have had representation in national or regional assemblies should be regarded as notable. Election to tertiary level assemblies should be taken on merit, with reference to the other clauses. The fact that a party has fielded unsuccessful candidates is by itself not enough for that party to be deemed as notable, but having fielded a very large number of candidates (in constituency systems) or having attained a substantial portion of the vote (while failing to get any members elected) is sufficient.
2. The Lineage Clause – A party which is the de jure/de facto precursor of, or de jure/de facto successor to a party which meets the electoral clause is notable, although any article should contain enough referenced material to avoid being merged into its "parent"/"child".
3. The Campaign Clause – Parties with no electoral success can still be regarded as notable if they have 2 years of proven campaigning experience, attested to by independent references. This also includes notable pressure or para-military groups which describe themselves as political parties, but may not be electorally active. A party that has an indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a state's political, cultural or social history, is regarded as notable. This notability must be based upon external, verifiable, published, reliable sources which demonstrate the party's importance.
4. The Person Clause – A party which is launched or helped to launch by a person who meets the wikipedia notability criteria for people should be given a place within that person's article until such time as it satisfies other clauses in its own right.

Lozleader (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are supposed to be political parties, so if they haven't contested elections or do not intend doing so, then they are just political pressure groups. Snappy (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war over Independent Left (Ireland) so would appreciate a consensus on the discussion here, in particular the thoughts of User:Spleodrach. Clearly, using the criteria of registration alone isn't enough, as RSF are notable and belong in a Wiki of political parties in the Republic of Ireland. It seems to me, following User:Lozleader and User:Snappy that the following definition would work: if an Irish party satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (political parties) and has contested an election (and in the case of IL, won a council seat), it belongs on this page. So I would include Independent Left but not most of the above. JimHolden (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And now we have to consider RISE, the new party by Paul Murphy. I believe as a TD, he will be able to register it? But in the meantime it should probably be on this page in any case, registered or not, by the Lozleader criteria. Agreed? Someone care to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHolden (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the recent pattern of edits from several editors (myself included), and a number of equally recent AfD discussions (on political groups which often have fewer members than a bridge team), it seems clear to me that the "inclusion criteria for the unregistered parties" sub-section/list is along the lines of WP:CSC. Namely that, as with other "lists of notable people/things/whatever", only subjects which demonstrably meet the notability criteria should be included. Or, put bluntly, "no article, no listing". Anything else is just too loose. (There is nothing new in this position. It has been the convention here for a decade). Guliolopez (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How to edit 'Party details' graph / table

Every time I try and go through edit, the ability to edit the description of party is available but I see no way to change the elements on the graph of any of the parties. Also when I try and click the edit option above the table or next to the title, the page that appears is essentially blank. How is it possible to edit the graph? Any help would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627004136/http://www.rte.ie/news/elections/local/ to http://www.rte.ie/news/elections/local/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dual membership

FYAI (For Your-All's Information), the Irish Labour Party is a member of both Socialist International and the Progressive Alliance. They should both be listed. 2601:645:C300:C1C:4D42:4AF4:8C0F:180B (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal Socialist Congress

(moved from top of page): "Can someone verify and upload this thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Liberal_Socialist_Congress" ~ unsigned, 2 March 2021 [Restored contribution from Mikeluhghthv7 from 2 March. I do sometimes shout into the void, but this was not one of those occasions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC) ]

No - for this article, not until they're a registered political party or, at the very list, have done enough to merit inclusion on the list of unregistered parties here, such as having candidates that have run for election. For their own article, they need to satisfy notability guideleines, and being a few people on Twitter does not satisfy that requirement. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikeluhghthv7. As per my on your User talk page and as Bastun notes, unless or until notability is established, it is premature to add the subject here. Or to create an article about it/them. A Twitter account (and a few Tweets) is not sufficient to establish that notability. I would also note that, even if Twitter was consider a reliable source (and it is not), that Twitter account expressly DOES NOT describe the subject as a political party. Rather, the Twitter handle states that <quote> "Once we get enough support we will start a party". Even the operator of that Twitter account doesn't describe the group as a party. Just that, at some point in the nebulous future, they might form one. A few Tweets (and those Tweets in particular) therefore do not even establish that the subject exists. Not no mind establishing notability. This is all far far too soon. By any measure. Guliolopez (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick question. Did the article meet the criteria of sources needed if it announced that it became a party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeluhghthv7 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read the answers you've been getting. No. Your article was unsourced. Twitter is not a reliable source. Please read the WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY policies. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikeluhghthv7. As Bastun has noted, this has largely been covered already, but: No, per WP:NN/WP:RS, Tweets do not establish notability. Tweets don't even necessarily establish existence. If you the person behind that Twitter account were to update it to say "we are now a political party", that (a) wouldn't necessarily be true and (b) wouldn't automatically confer notability. (Any more than if I were to update my social media handle to state that I was the President of the People's Republic of Cork mean that (a) it was true or (b) that I was automatically notable for inclusion in a List of presidents.) Also, please don't edit other people's talk page comments. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria (revisited)

Hi. In terms of the inclusion criteria for the:

• "Parties with no representation" table, in the thread above (summarised in my own 2019 comment), it remains my understanding that the inclusion criteria for that section/table (previously a sub-list of "other registered/unregistered parties") is along the lines of WP:CSC. Summarised as "no article = no entry". While I don't personally see that the consensus on this has changed, if further discussion is appropriate (to confirm or update consensus/agreement), then happy to have that discussion.
• list as a whole, we now seem to have a "former parties" section. While I don't remember any consensus discussion on this before, and note that some other lists of parties in European countries (UK, Italy, Spain, etc) have similar lists, I'm personally unsure about the inclusion and categorisation criteria that have been applied. I don't, for example, understand how "Right Wing" is applied to the PDs, but not to Libertas Ireland? Of how RISE isn't categorised as "left", but others are? Or why a hyper-local party, like the Letterkenny Residents Party (only registered briefly for a one set of local elections) is included alongside others? What criteria for inclusion (and criteria for classification) are we using?

(Thread opened to invite discussion and establish convention/consensus). Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to list all parties on the register of political parties on this page. While standards of notability would suggest that minor registered parties with no (and no realistic hope of) representation shouldn't get their own page, as they are parties that can stand for election, listing them here is a useful reference for anyone checking one of the constituency pages. A little like a newspaper might do more than give them a one-line description on the day nominations close for an election. Also, given that the list of parties of the register isn't inordinately long, it seems reasonable that a reference site would list all current parties on that list on this page. Hence my inclusion of Ireland First (discussing here after a revert from Spleodrach). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Is Ireland First included in the register of political parties? Which version/issue? Guliolopez (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It is on the most recent version, April 2023. It's now to be found on the Electoral Commission site, as they have responsibility for it as of this year. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Iveagh Gardens. Much appreciated. (Every day's a school day.) Personally I still think that the inclusion criteria for the "Parties with no elected representation" section should be along the lines of WP:CSC. Only entries with articles. While I understand the "what about registered parties" argument, I have concerns that (a) without a linked (and presumably reliably cited) article some of the related "columns" (like ideology/position/etc) may not be supported and (b) being registered is no guarantee that they will ever stand a candidate, gain material coverage or otherwise amount to much in terms of lasting significance. Ireland First could, potentially, deregister before the next local or general or European elections. For example. Guliolopez (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't parties such as Ireland First or the Party for Animal Welfare (which has also yet to contest an election, but I wouldn't want it dropped from here either), fit other criteria here, of "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". In this list, a complete list of registered parties that do not have representation. If a reliable source is needed to call Ireland First far-right, there has been coverage from at least one media source. I hope they don't have any lasting significance, but I'd still err on the side of inclusion and providing information, rather than limiting ourselves. If they deregister, we can remove them! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

For example, we know journalists do rely on Wikipedia. They or any else who wanted to comment and say "there are 3 far-right registered to contest elections in Ireland" should be given accurate information from a page such as this. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for the follow-up. And apologies for delay in responding. In terms of:

• Party for Animal Welfare note/comparison, I'm not sure I understand the point. The Party for Animal Welfare topic has an article. Unlike Blighe's Ireland First. And, as I'd randomly happened to discuss with the creator of that article on my own talk page (who'd made a similar comparison between PfAW and Kelly's IFP), I don't think that "registration" is a trigger for notability/relevance. Requiring a few dozen signatures, a few pieces of documentation and a completed form. If/when Ireland First gains notability/noteriety/coverage/etc (independent of Blighe), we can/should create an article. And then list/link it here. Otherwise I'm not sure I understand the rush.
• "source to call Ireland First far-right". If we did decide to list parties without articles, then I guess specific refs would help address that specific concern. Although my own preference remains that the sources inform the party article (when created). And then the party article (+sources) inform any list entry here. Which would (given SIGCOV) ensure there were enough sources for an accurate reflection and consistency.
• "journalists rely on Wikipedia". God help 'em....

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong desire to go out and bat for Ireland First, but as a general rule, I do think registration should qualify for listing on this page, if not necessarily notability for a page. Notability for a page is the first criteria under WP:CSC, but including all registered parties falls under the third criteria, "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". While registration isn't an extremely high burden, in practice, there aren't all too many minor parties floating around, and in practice, it's rare for a party to register without contesting at least once. If this criteria would add dozens, I could understand the concern, but in this case, it's a single line in a table.

My comparison with PAW was in response to the observation that they haven't fought an election yet, and may yet disband. That said, I also note the distinction that PAW has separately gained WP:ORG for an article.

Well any good journalist should also check the register (or whatever the relevant references are in a given case), but if we're not trying to build a reliable resource, I'm not sure what we're up to! Often I think journalists could at least check here first, they often make mistakes that could have been avoided by that!

I do think registration should warrant at least a line on a table on this page. But unless anyone else is with me, we can wait out and see if they get any coverage before the election, or add them if they have candidates next year. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. As noted, I agree that we should "wait out and see". And, if/when the coverage builds up, take relevant action then (listing/article/redirect/whatever). Guliolopez (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed your recent revert of the page here. While I would still prefer to list all registered parties here, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for that, and I can wait until they stand candidates in the locals. I will note though, 100% Redress is actually a registered party. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. RE:

• Registered. Indeed, I confirmed myself subsequently and recognised that I misspoke in one area of this ed summ. "100% Redress" do, indeed, seem to be registered.
• Notable/inclusion. In honesty, and the reason I didn't self-revert, is that (per the discussion above) I don't think they yet meet the inclusion criteria. (I mean, of course the party has no representation. As they've never stood a candidate in any election. Largely existing "on paper" for the time being. And hence being TOOSOON. The WP:EASTEREGG nature of the link was also hard to overlook.)

IMO at any rate.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have expected you to self-revert, my reply here was an FYI only! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Political Position/Ideology

It strikes me that the Position column in the table doesn't really give a clear picture of what the parties stand for and I wonder should it follow the example of the List of political parties in Australia and give a brief description of Ideology e.g. Republicanism, Social Democracy, Christian Democracy etc.? Ccferrie (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ideology (again)

What decides what is included as the "ideology" of a party - especially one that doesn't have its own article? I'm talking primarily about the section dealing with parties with no elected representatives, specifically the National Party and Ireland First. Both are listed as having Irish Nationalism as their only ideology, but Irish nationalism is not what comes to mind first when you see them mentioned anywhere. Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem with former Parties section?

I seem to be unable to access the section. Is this a bug exclusive to me? Brian boru642 (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to load fine for me, you might need to click the show button in the corner of the box is collapsed. r0paire (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That section only contains the template Template:Historic Irish parties. A navbox. That navbox is of a type that does not display in the mobile view. Per WP:NAV, navboxes would ideally not be relied upon for critical links (or content). Specifically: "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers. See Phabricator ticket T124168 for progress on the mobile issue". Personally I wonder (and had wondered at the time) whether using a navbox/template (over content) was a great idea. If it means that half of readers just see a "blank" section, then that's perhaps something to revisit. Guliolopez (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see.

Thanks. Brian boru642 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)