Talk:National Party (Ireland, 2016)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well they were opposed to the GFA and also have done things like commemorate Seán South and Francis Hughes. I'd be inclined to agree we should use Irish nationalist but not because they're a less radical party (as in SDLP) but because they've frequently touted themselves as Irish nationalist. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I can not seem to find any evidence they have commemorated those figures. Could you provide a link?185.145.202.171 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the nod to Francis Hughes was in a speech on their Youtube channel. But looking at their social media they've commemorated republican heroes such as Liam Mellows, Dan Breen and Sean South. So I would say it's apparent they have an Irish republican ideology. Even the description in the post about Sean South "died fighting for Irish freedom and unity in the border campaign" is a very republican statement to make. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2018 (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)

Once again - you don't have consensus to remove "neo-nationalist", and you have removed sources. I refer you once again to the opening paragraph in this section. The party espouses racial profiling, banning immigration by all Muslims, sending immigrants "home", and... well, most of this. These are all far-right neo-nationalist policies - as distinct from Irish nationalism, a view which the party also espouses, in its more Republican form. I must ask again - do you need to declare a conflict of interest on this article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been no consensus on the label neo-nationalist - nor is it found within the sources. However, there are sources which do use the label nationalist, there are sources which say far right and there are sources which say right wing. But not neo-nationalist. This is you projecting your own opinion here. I have attempted to compromise with you, I originally requested Irish nationalist be used - however in the interests of compromise I have suggested nationalist. The party is undeniably nationalist. The situation here is that the relevant secondary sources say nationalist, not neo-nationalist. We ought to go by what the relevant secondary sources say as you've been so insistent on earlier. I requested in the past that if you want to include neo-nationalist to please provide a relevant secondary source to support that label, and you did not do so. Please stop reverting my edits, which are actually taken from the relevant secondary sources. And I am not the one with a conflict of interest here, I am going by the sources - you are the one who is ignoring the relevant secondary sources in favour of your own personal biases and opinions. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you've been reverted by three different editors within the last 24 hours would suggest there is indeed no consensus for removal for WP:SKYISBLUE facts. As an aside - can you explain your naming convention for references? It's not obvious at all how you're arriving at the names, and it's evidently leading to errors. Most of us use something rather more obvious, such as the initials of the publication combined with a date. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Claiming this is a WP:SKYISBLUE issue is wholly untrue as no relevant evidence exists for your claim. The party do not use the label neonationalist. The press do not use the label neonationalist. The only person I see who uses the label neonationalist is Bastun. Can you provide a relevant secondary source which calls the party neonationalist? Because I have provided a secondary source citation that the party is nationalist. In the interests of NPOV and the fundamentals of following the secondary sources we should be using the label nationalist as it is what reliable sources use. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is in the policies espoused by the party and its leader and have been outlined above, multiple times now. There is consensus to retain the label neo-nationalist. There is no consensus to remove it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The policies espoused by the party and its leader have been categorised as nationalist by a secondary source. The only person who is caracterising them as neonationalist is yourself. I am imploring you to either find a secondary source which backs up your neonationalist label or remove it in favour of the actual sourced label of nationalist.Irishpolitical (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This tweet by the party leader Justin Barrett I would argue is a further example of the party being quite different from the parties listed on the neonationalist wiki page. Whether the things cited ("Tradition, Family, God and Country") are indicators of Irish nationalism or are merely nationalism being espoused by an Irish party is debatable, but it's evidently not indicative of neonationalism. Anyway, the sources are saying nationalist as opposed to neonationalist. It's time we changed that label in the opening paragraph which is only being so stridently argued for by you, without backing it up with relevant secondary sources.Irishpolitical (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. It's almost like that tweet was crafted just to be used in an argument about whether the party is neo-nationalist or merely nationalist on some other venue. Whatever. The party leader (whether in Paddy Pearse pose or not) still espouses neo-nationalist values, as does the party he leads. No consensus for removal remains the case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're suggesting I told him to do it I did not and I reject that assertion. Anyway, I'm not using it necessarily as a source, but merely an attempt to show you the error here (in case you honestly couldn't see the error). Anyway, you're saying there's no consensus for nationalist - yet you claim there is for neonationalist. The reality here is that the secondary sources say nationalist. You claiming these certain policies are neonationalist is merely your interpretation of the policies. However the fact is there are sources for nationalist. We ought to go with that. You're being deliberately obtuse here. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the page to reflect the reliable secondary sources here. The previous edition violates WP:NOR. Whether you see the party as neonationalist or not is your own opinion, but the sources say nationalist. So that's what we use. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And I've reverted again. You've been reverted by three different editors and don't have consensus to remove "neo-nationalist" - something you keep ignoring. I can't speak for the other editors, but I'd agree to a compromise where the party is described as "a right wing to far-right neo-nationalist, Irish republican political party that self-describes as Irish nationalist" but that seems somewhat tautological when "Irish republican" is right there anyway. If you persist in trying to force your version onto the page, you may well end up blocked for disruptive editing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the reversion of the other two was because I removed those gratuitous sources which you were using to supposedly support neonationalist. The only person consistently reverting sourced edits is yourself. I've tried to compromise and level with you on multiple occasions. Even I find describing them as nationalist as opposed to Irish nationalist insinuates that only a certain type of party can be irish nationalist. The fact of the matter is here that I've presented to you reliable secondary sources which describe the party as nationalist. I've asked you on multiple occasions to please provide a reliable secondary source which describes the party as neonationalist and it has not been done. Even if you view that page neonationalist and view the parties characterised as such, on none of their respective articles are they described as "neonationalist" as opposed to "nationalist". How is this for a compromise: to say "a right wing to far-right political party in Ireland". There is precedent for not going into the specific ideology of the party in the opening paragraph on other similarly sized Irish political parties' pages (e.g. Christian Solidarity Party, Identity Ireland, Saoradh, Direct Democracy). We already have a separate section on policies and ideology which deals with that more in depth anyway. We both agree the party ranges from right wing to far-right (as evidenced by secondary sources). Irishpolitical (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My further attempt at compromising on this opening paragraph issue was once again rebuffed and gratuitously reverted. I am going to once again lay out clearly why the current version is inadequate. Firstly the original claim for Bastun's use of the label neonationalist was that it was the label which best described the policies espoused in secondary sources, however Bastun could not and have not to this date provided a secondary source which describes the party or its principles as neonationalist. In response to this lack of a source I have stated it ought to be removed and replaced with the more appropriate nationalist label, as the nationalist label is explicitly used by a [reliable secondary source] to describe the programme of the National Party: "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform." Bastun's continued insistence of the neonationalist label (unsourced) as opposed to the nationalist label (sourced) is breaking WP:NOR. Bastun has stated that there is no consensus for the removal of his favoured neonationalist label, however no consensus was achieved originally for the introduction of such a label -as it was forced into the article rather aggressively despite not being found in any secondary sources and a better secondary source existing which has been selectively ignored. In hopes of achieving consensus I have proposed many alternatives all of which have been rebuffed and reverted by Bastun. For these reasons as outlined above it is clear that the neonationalist label should be removed from this article. If again these edits are gratuitously reverted I'll take it up on WP:RSN. Thank you. Irishpolitical (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. I refer you again to my comment of 3 April. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly there was no consensus for your original pushing through of your chosen neonationalist description. Secondly, realistically there are only two editors here who are debating this issue - you and I. Nobody else is weighing in here. Until that point, it only makes sense to follow the secondary sources.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Jebus. That's not how consensus works. You've been reverted by - count them! - three editors! It's 3-1 in favour of the version using neo-nationalist. Revert, discuss, get consensus for your proposed change. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous with this one, Bastun. Those three reversions were made by people who saw the removal of two sources and took issue with that fact. I removed those sources as they weren't relevant to the claim they were meant to be supporting. However, for the last edit I made I added an extra source to it and retained the already present two sources. That source which I have added explicitly calls them nationalist "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform". Whereas no source says neo-nationalist. If these other editors had an actual issue with the changing of the label neonationalist to nationalist they should post here to that effect. As the only person who is currently reverting this edit is yourself. I've been attempting to get consensus from you as you're the only other editor who's engaged here yet you are merely reverting and ignoring my points.Irishpolitical (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bastun:, I'm attempting to reach a consensus with you here over neo-nationalism vs. Irish nationalism vs. nationalism. My original point here and the one I would still consider most applicable is to label the party as Irish nationalist for the reason that Irish nationalism is the Irish variant of nationalism and the party has proven to have a distinctive Irish character. However, just calling them nationalist is acceptable as it's found within the secondary sources. But this neo-nationalist label as I have explained is not recorded in the sources. For you to say "they have these policies as found in the secondary sources ergo they're neo-nationalists" strikes me as breaching WP:NOR. Also, it's selective as you are removing a reliable secondary source which describes those policies as being "nationalist" as opposed to "neo-nationalist": "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform." This is me attempting to reach a consensus with you over this issue. My proposal is to just use nationalist as evidenced by the sources, over neo-nationalist or Irish nationalist. Is this acceptable to you? Do you have any alternative proposals? Thanks.Irishpolitical (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No takers from your forum shopping then, after prompting from the blocked sockmaster? I wonder if Jon C. and MatthewVanitas would agree with your assessment of their edits? Why not ask them?

Obviously it is not acceptable to me whitewash the article and frankly, I still suspect WP:COI here. The party is a neo-nationalist party, as demonstrated by its policies - racial profiling, banning Muslim immigrants, sending immigrants home, etc. So that's remaining. I am not aware of any other Irish nationalist party that espouses such policies - maybe you can point one out? The SDLP are an Irish nationalist party. They've accepted the Good Friday Agreement, as voted on by the people of Ireland, north and south. Sinn Féin are an Irish republican party. They've accepted the Good Friday Agreement, as voted on by the people of Ireland, north and south. The National Party don't accept the Good Friday Agreement, as voted on by the people of Ireland, north and south. That puts them in the same camp as the likes of Éirigí and Republican Sinn Féin. Dissident republican would fit? So we could say that "The National Party is an Irish far-right neo-nationalist and dissident republican political party, that itself claims to be Irish nationalist". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bastun:, the supposed policies you reference (racial profiling, Muslim immigration halt, repatriation of immigrants) you are correct are not shibboleths of Irish nationalism, but I am not advocating that we call the party Irish nationalist. What I am advocating is we refer to them as nationalist, because of the reason that it is a description which is found within a reliable secondary source. Neo-nationalist is the label you are projecting onto the party, yet it is not backed up by any secondary sources. The label of nationalist (not Irish nationalist) is backed up by at least one secondary source. Until the point that you can provide a secondary source which describes the party or its platform as neo-nationalist then the appropriate description to use is the one which is found within the secondary sources. Regarding dissident republicans, that description applies to political groups which are party fronts for IRA splinters, Éirígí has links to the Real IRA and likewise RSF with Continuity IRA. Also the bit about it "claims to be Irish nationalist" is strange, as the NP is objectively an Irish nationalist party - as according to most definitions the act of supporting a United Ireland constitutes Irish nationalism - and the party supports a United Ireland ergo they are Irish nationalists (as are the SDLP, SF, etc). I'm willing to compromise here in many different ways with you in hopes of reaching consensus and have made many compromise proposals. The most objective opening description would be something like "is a far-right nationalist political party founded in 2016". Surely this is satisfactory to you? It's the same sort of description used by other parties of this type around the world (e.g. the Dutch Party for Freedom, the Swedish Democrats, etc). Another common label used for parties of this sort is national-conservative (e.g. Polish Law and Justice party, National Alliance (Latvia), etc), maybe this could serve as a good description of the NP given its opposition to immigration but also its conservative positions (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage, etc)? Would you be content with the use of national-conservative? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bastun: You're being deliberately uncooperative with me. Likely that stems from your belief that I have a WP:COI here but I have assured you I do not. All I've been trying to do here is adhere to WP:NOR. I understand you'd be concerned about white-washing for this article, but nothing of what I've been arguing for is a white-wash. If you recall I was one of the people in favour of adding about Barrett's background with far-right rallies in Germany/Italy in the article, as opposed to ATL who was insistent on leaving it out, as I felt it was important for the article and WP:NOR. I have been attempting to be cooperative and gain consensus with you, but you frequently rebuff these attempts. This is WP:NOTAFORUM, we're here to try and improve the article. Please review your position here and try and be more cooperative with me on this. Thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

TL;dr version: "My arguments have failed to convince you to change your mind, so please just change your mind anyway." No. Barrett is a far-right neo-nationalist, as demonstrated by the policies he and the party he leads espouse. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The crux of your rationale rests on that line "as demonstrated by the policies he and the party he leads espouse", however you are yet to provide a secondary source which characterises these policies as being neo-nationalist. You are deliberately ignoring a secondary source which characterises them as being nationalist. I've attempted compromising, reaching consensus, etc. multiple times despite the fact your sources for your claim are entirely baseless, you merely asserting it does not make it reality. We will have to take this to some higher board of arbitration if you continue to revert sourced content in favour of what is your original research. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spleodrach:, could you please explain why you reverted my edit? Given it was drawn from adding a relevant secondary source. Could you please provide your rationale for reverting sourced information? Irishpolitical (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My reasons are the same as the other editors who have reverted your changes. There is no consensus for your edits. You've been reverted by 4 editors now, so stop edit warring or you will reported to ANI. Spleodrach (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jon C.:, could you also please weigh in here. I've been attempting to gain consensus, however it's just been me and Bastun. Bastun has been frequently rebuffing my attempts at compromise, consensus, etc. Despite the fact there are zero sources which characterise the party as neo-nationalist, yet there are sources (being ignored) which characterise it as nationalist. Please read over some of this Redux page and weigh in on this topic, as I'm getting nowhere with Bastun. Thanks. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you accept the fact that the label in question of the current revision (neo-nationalist) is Bastun's unsourced characterisation of the policies espoused by the National Party (as evidenced in the secondary sources)? Yet a characterisation of those policies is provided in at least one source, and that characterisation is "nationalist". So the current revision is using an unsourced description and ignoring a sourced description. For what good reason is the sourced description ignored in favour of the unsourced one? Irishpolitical (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Irish republican party 2

The National Party is a reactionary party, one of whose objects is a reversion to the old Article 2 of the Constitution: "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas." This is not enough on its own to call it "Irish republican" or "Irish nationalist". Apparently, from earlier comments, it has used the rhetoric of republicanism on its Facebook page. This is not enough to make it "Irish republican" or "Irish nationalist" either. When a reliable secondary source says that it is "Irish republican" or "Irish nationalist", this article can. Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a 2004 An Phoblacht article referring to Justin Barrett as a "right-wing, self-styled republican". It's obviously useless as a source for this article, but it does suggest a way of describing the party – in the article body, not in the lead or the infobox – if a reliable secondary source could be found to support it. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I already said elsewhere that using "republican" (even "Irish republican" and wikilinking so it looks like a compound word even when we don't write it that way) in the sense of "pro-unification" is problematic when it doesn't necessarily also mean, y'know, republicanism (theocracy and fascism are basically antithetical to republicanism). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well by what merit are you defining "Irish nationalist" if not supports a United Ireland, which the National Party does? That is the metric we've used for all Irish nationalist parties, therefore why not include the reality here? To remove it suggests they are anti-reunification which couldn't be further from the truth. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

My proposal here would be to just say it's a right wing nationalist party. While not directing Irish nationalist necessarily. The current neo-nationalist label for example is not substantiated in the secondary sources, and is basically OR speculation. Whereas there is a secondary source describing the party as "nationalist, eurosceptic and anti-immigration". Irishpolitical (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

or rather an "unregistered far-right nationalist party". All of these descriptions are unambiguously found within the sources. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Irish nationalist" and "neo-nationalist" have the same problem, which is that neither is stated in reliable secondary sources. "Unregistered far-right nationalist party" is probably the best description for the opening sentence. "Right-wing nationalism" should be changed in the infobox, not because it is inaccurate, but because it redirects to Nationalism#Varieties, which doesn't actually talk about right-wing nationalism. I suggest it be replaced with [[Right-wing politics|Right-wing]] [[nationalism]]. Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine. There is at least one source which characterises the party as nationalist (among other descriptions). Let's just use "unregistered far right nationalist" party then. As for the inclusion of Irish nationalism in the infobox I would regard it as being acceptable given there are sources which show the party's support for a United Ireland. Another alternative could be to just include United Ireland in the infobox, it's a referenced description. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject that say it is a United Ireland party? If so, what are they? Scolaire (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire:This source contains information about the party supporting "unity by consent". Irishpolitical (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Irishpolitical, that source contains a quote from a press release by the party that references "unity by consent". Is there a reliable, secondary source independent of the subject that says, in its own voice, that it is a United Ireland party? Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire:I understand there are rules surrounding WP:PRIMARY, however it has already been mentioned in the Ideology and Principles section that the party supports a United Ireland in [its assertion http://www.nationalparty.ie/principles/] that the national territory is the whole island, territorial seas, etc. This is a pretty unambiguous statement in favour of a United Ireland by any metric. This coupled with the journal.ie article which mentions their support for "unity by consent" is obvious evidence of the party's professed support for Irish Unity. Irishpolitical (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand WP:PRIMARY. That puts that to bed. So, is there a reliable, secondary source independent of the subject that says, in its own voice, that it is a United Ireland party? Scolaire (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire: There are parts of the article already which mention the party's support for a united Ireland under the Ideology and policies section. I see no reason not to include something about their support for a 32 County Ireland, whether we call it Irish nationalism / Irish republicanism / United Ireland. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead is not a reproduction of the article body. Neither is the infobox. Racial profiling, anti-abortion and the death penalty are not in the lead or the infobox. United Ireland, like them, is fine in the Policies section. Scolaire (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I'm speaking specifically about the infobox here. However, we can determine policies like anti-abortion are social conservatism and therefore that's in the infobox, it's criticism of the EU and anti-euro currency is therefore Euroscepticism and that's in the infobox. Similarly I would add it's support for a unified 32 county state is Irish nationalism/United Ireland/Irish republicanism/pro-Irish reunification and therefore it ought to be included in the infobox.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It fits under right-wing nationalism just as well. There's no need to add a separate ideology for it any more than there's a need to add one for racial profiling, anti-abortion or the death penalty. I'm not going to keep going round in circles with you. Continue to talk to yourself if you want. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post article

I removed "...right wing to..." as OR not directly supported by any source (none of the sources support the assertion that they exist somewhere on a "spectrum"), but also because the sources were not great for the assertion anyway. WP is a reliable enough source for American politics, but this topic is so peripheral to their primary area of interest that I would assert they are not reliable for that kind of stuff anyway: the statement that The National Party supports banning abortion is laughably anachronistic, and even our article could have corrected them on it, as abortion already is banned in Ireland; the party actually opposes the legalization of abortion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If a source says it, it should be added. Simples.Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Shinnerfeiner: Well, can you locate a source that says it then? Regarding this sarcastic edit summary: May 2017 may have been a long time ago, but it's more recent than either of the sources your text cites that don't support the clarification. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait... unless you are referring to the bogus claim that Ireland doesn't currently have a ban on abortion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is common practice. Look at Fianna Fail for example.Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

"Centre-right" is not a subset of "centre", so those sources are not all saying the same thing, just some in a more vague manner. It is WP:OR to take a group of sources that specify that the group is "far-right" and some other sources that less specifically (because the group didn't officially exist yet?) say "right-wing" and interpret this as placing them "somewhere on the spectrum from right to far-right". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What about National Front (France) then? Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE. I haven't checked those sources, and I doubt you did in the two minutes it took you to fire off the above response, but given how old and well-established (some might say notorious) FN is I would be surprised if all of the four saying "right-wing" were either (a) superficial foreign sources that got basic (relevant) facts about the group wrong or (b) predated the group's founding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it's a bit weird to have a brand new account with less than ten edits before this week telling me what is "common practice" on Wikipedia. Have you read through any of the policy pages I linked you to? They might help you form more convincing arguments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

BT2W, your revert of my edit but not the intervening edit by AnomieBOT inserted a redundant citation. I would fix it for you, but you haven't convinced me that your edit should not just be reverted a third time. I could revert you again and if you reverted back you would run afoul of WP:3RR: the only reason we are here is because I am choosing to discuss rather than revert, but you don't seem to be offering very compelling discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In what way is that odd? I have read wikipedia for a while, just like everybody else. BTW your own link states "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Did YOU read your own link?Shinnerfeiner (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

May be valid or invalid. In this case, for the reasons I outlined above and you appear to have ignored, it is the latter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two sources which describe the party as right-wing. One local Irish source, another an international sources. You cite the (largely semantic) error given by the WP, however as we have seen there are citations here which also contain vast errors regarding the policies of the party. Such as the "deportation of all immigrants" policy as said in thejournal.ie, which has been qualified and corrected by the party. Are we to believe that a glorified blog is a more truthful source on the party's actual policy than the party itself? I do not think so. Many of these sources are riddled with errors but we work with what we have. There are sources which say "right-wing", there are sources which say "far-right". It makes the most sense to include them both, as the party does exist on a range here. If you look at Nazi Party it's just "far-right" there's no dispute, to suggest that the National Party in Ireland are also far-right with no dispute we're heavily implying these people are just one step off genocide - which is a very heavy accusation to imply. Let's just retain the right wing to far right description as it is evidenced by secondary sources and is more in line with WP:NPOVIrishpolitical (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: If you look at Nazi Party it's just "far-right" there's no dispute, to suggest that the National Party in Ireland are also far-right with no dispute we're heavily implying these people are just one step off genocide - which is a very heavy accusation to imply. I don't think it implies that at all: would you say that our article on the British National Party "implies those people are just one step off genocide"? Plenty of sources could be found that simply consider "far right" to be a subset of "right wing" and so freely refer to them as "right wing"; the distinction you are imposing is artificial and wholly original. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You are still removing a source from a very reliable journalist and newspaper which refers to the party as right-wing. You made the claim that because that particular WP article refers to the party's wish to ban abortion in Ireland, then you say that it must be flawed given abortion is already banned. Well the party has stated its wish to repeal the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (2013) which provides limited abortion, they have also advocated a reversal of the X-Case Judgement. So to say the party supports banning abortion in Ireland is a correct thing to say. Removing the WP source seems to me to be rather an artificial way of conforming the party to notions. I'm not advocating for removal of far-right, but merely that we ought to include right wing as well as there are at least two sources which refer to the party as right-wing.Irishpolitical (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject. It is impossible to discuss with you when you do that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

there are citations here which also contain vast errors regarding the policies of the party...which has been qualified and corrected by the party. Are we to believe that a glorified blog is a more truthful source on the party's actual policy than the party itself? Primary sources (the party's stated policies), are a form of self publishing./ source about itself.WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE caution that such a self source shouldn't be used if it is unduly self-serving. So yes, the party's "[stated] actual policy" shouldn't be taken as gospel. ____Ebelular (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ebelular: of course that makes sense. It would be helpful if secondary sources complimented the party's official stances on certain issues, so as to translate them into more objective terms and to dispel self-serving descriptions of one's own policies or self. However, that's not the situation we're in. We're often faced with a situation here that a newspaper has written something claiming that the party supports a particular position, meanwhile the party says something wholly different. I'm not talking about the party trying to sugar-coat its policy, I'm talking about something objectively incorrect. Like the claim made by thejournal.ie that the party supports sending home all immigrants, this is not something (to my knowledge) the party has ever advocated. Regarding the actual topic here, the WP article seems to me to be a relevant and high-quality secondary source and chucking it out strikes me as a rash and bad decision. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Irishpolitical: To deny a policy, or belief, is a form of "sugar coating". One shouldn't just dismiss it out of hand. The party's stated policy, it's self description is not gospel. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ebelular: That's a problematic statement to make. If an article were to be published that said the National Party was in favour of a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum, yet the party denies that is the case and instead advocates a No vote who are we to believe? Discarding party/media relations and rights of reply, just we as editors - which side are we to believe in this instance? Irishpolitical (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What? What's that got to do with anything? What if the moon was made of cheese? This hypothetical is irrelevant. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, I still am contending the gratuitous removal of a reliable secondary source. You haven't reached consensus here, neither I nor @Shinnerfeiner: agree that the source ought to be removed. The WP is a very credible source, not just for American politics but also for international affairs. Your argument that because the article says "ban abortion" as opposed to "keep abortion banned" doesn't add up given the fact abortion is already semi-legal here with the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 which the NP has vowed to repeal, the X case judgement the NP has vowed to overturn, etc. Therefore it would be reasonable to say the NP's policy on abortion isn't satisfied to keep things as they are, but in fact to make an even more strict abortion law and ban it outright, so it isn't a mistake on their part. The assertion that the party is merely far-right without dispute is an unfair characterisation, some sources have said "right-wing" whereas (most) others have said "far-right", suggesting there exists a rang between which it falls. We should therefore include both for the purposes of WP:NPOV. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

By misrepresenting the problem as you have above (the gratuitous removal of a reliable secondary source) you demonstrate that it is not worth attempting to discuss with you. Either you have read my comments and completely misunderstood them, you lazily did not read them, or are deliberately misrepresenting them (either to push a POV or just to troll, it doesn't really matter): in any case, I am not going to respond to a straw man. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The NP "has vowed to overturn" the Supreme Court's decision in a case; overriding the separation of powers and interfering in the courts process would strike me as far-right... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll let the talk page know that Shinnerfeiner was a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician and is currently blocked indefinitely, whose edits included POV pushing in Celtic/Gaelic articles. -Jamez42 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, beware 80.111.x.x IP addresses... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There is debate here over what exactly the ideological position of the party is. There are sources which exist which call the party right wing: One being from an international source The Washington Post, the other being from an Irish source The Leitrim Observer. Also, various sources refer to the party as far-right. The party is obviously considered far-right by many, but not by all. In the interests of WP:NPOV we should retain the two sources which describe the party as right wing, while also including the sources which refer to it as far-right in order to present a more balanced and neutral view.Irishpolitical (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Give it a break already. Sources that say "right-wing" are not disagreeing with sources that say "far-right", since the latter is a subset of the former. You've literally been edit-warring and arguing over this for a year at this point, so maybe it's time you just dropped it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The article said right wing to far right for a long time before you changed it. Saying that far right is a subset of right wing, therefore sources which say far right overrule all that say right wing is a bizarre point to make. Including both deceptions as both are reliably sourced for the purposes of WP:NPOV is what makes the most sense Irishpolitical (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not "a long time". Two months. And even during that time it was not stable. You need consensus for these edits, but so far not a single non-banned editor has agreed with your edit in a whole year. If you edit-war over this again I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Same goes for your removal of neo-nationalist. You're the only editor removing it. You have no consensus to do so. Sneaking it in, in the midst of a formatting change to the infobox? Low. Stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, not exactly. Please see the following section. I have agreed with replacing neo-nationalist with nationalist, for reasons stated there. Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I also agree with removing "neo-nationalist". The question is really whether the use of "nationalist" in Junior Cert history and geography textbooks (and their preferring "proponents of the nation state" or whatever when describing non-Irish nationalists) makes that sense the only correct one for the word as used in Irish English, which would effectively prevent us from using it here. I would say it doesn't. Irish news media and scholarship use the word "nationalist" in the same way as non-Irish all the time, so there's no need for us to come up with an "alternative" to distinguish this group's nationalism from pro-unification "Irish nationalism". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As for calling the party nationalist it is generally the consensus in the Irish media to refer to "far-right nationalists" as different from "Irish nationalists", the latter being mostly used in the north (SDLP for example). There's multiple sources for "far-right" and there's at least one for "nationalist". It's generally the used description for similar parties of this nature in the world. Also, I am still saying we should include "right-wing" here, given there are sources for it. Why are we removing sourced content here just to further narratives? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Scolaire and Hijiri88, I urge you to reconsider your support for use of the term "nationalist" over "neo-nationalist". Irishpolitical has been edit-warring over this for months, sneaking in removals amidst other edits as recently as yesterday. As even Irishpolitical admits the NP are "far-right nationalists" rather than "Irish nationalists" (like, e.g., the SDLP) and their policies include racial profiling, a complete ban on all Muslims coming into Ireland, and deportation of all immigrants. I can't imagine Colum Eastwood, Micheál Martin or Mary Lou McDonald calling for the same... Irishpolitical, your removal of the term neo-nationalist has also been reverted, I believe, by Jon C., Spleodrach, and MatthewVanitas so no, you still don't have consensus for removal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that Irishpolitical has been and continues to be disruptive. It is not, however, good policy to oppose a reasonable compromise on the grounds that it is proposed by an unreasonable person. When Jon C, Spleodrach, and MatthewVanitas reverted the removal of "neo-nationalist", did they revert a change to "far-right nationalist" or a change to "Irish nationalist" or "Irish republican"? There is a world of difference; "far-right nationalist" does not embrace Colum Eastwood, Micheál Martin or Mary Lou McDonald, but it does embrace, for instance, the British National Party. I oppose "Irish nationalist" or "Irish republican" on the grounds that there are no reliable secondary sources that use those terms to describe the party. Irishpolitical has reasonably pointed out that there are no reliable secondary sources that use "neo-nationalist" either. We have to be consistent in how we apply WP:V. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

At any rate Neo-nationalism, despite its 84 references, is a very vague article about a very vague concept. At the start, it appears to be about Donald Trump and Brexit, but once it goes into list mode it includes the entire political spectrum from Xi Jinping to Viktor Orbán, including Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been around since the 1980s! Even Alternative für Deutschland and Vlaams Belang, which appear in the list, are not described as neo-nationalist in their own articles. So, as a link, it's not awfully useful at all. Scolaire (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not "sneak in" nationalist yesterday, this was agreed upon in the section below. Bastun is making a false equivalency here, as if I am arguing for it to say "is an Irish nationalist party". That I am not. Also, you claim these people (Jon C., Spelodrach, and MatthewVantias) are in favour of using the label neo-nationalist yet they haven't said that anywhere on the Talk page. The fact of the matter is here that the label neo-nationalist is unsourced, using it is OR speculation. Nationalist as a label is found in a secondary source yet is being routinely ignored. Are we actually trying to follow the sources and agree on a consensus-driven compromise here or just push unsourced narratives? Irishpolitical (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not a nationalist party. I would describe the SDLP as nationalist, this crowd - no. Neo-fascist is probably more accurate here. Spleodrach (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Spleodrach What you're talking about is Irish nationalism (i.e. SDLP), and that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the label of "far-right nationalism", which almost all would concede is applicable, indeed it is referenced by a secondary source. Irishpolitical (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference between "far-right nationalism" and fascism is what exactly? Spleodrach (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You did sneak the change in, in the middle of another major edit, with no edit summary. I made no such claim about the other editors - what I wrote is right there in black and white a few lines above. Stop putting words in my mouth. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok well there are at least three editors who have stated that neo-nationalist ought to be removed from the article, as it is unsourced. You are the only person who has actually argued in favour of using the term, despite it being unsourced. The term isn't sourced, the consensus is to remove it. So it's time to remove it, as discussed here.Irishpolitical (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your maths is as flawed as your SPA hero-worship. You don't have consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Irishpolitical, Scolaire, Hijiri88 aren't in favour of use of neo-nationalist. Jon C., Spleodrach, and MatthewVantias and I have all restored that version. Somehow that's 3-1 in favour of removal?! Get a grip. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Potentially we could skip "neo-nationalist" and use "far-right nationalist" and fascist instead, Spleodrach and Hijiri88? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait ... do you mean making the lead sentence read "[is a] far-right nationalist and fascist [party]"? That is not clear from the above if so, and I don't agree. Saying it has been called fascist by X somewhere in the body might be OK. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The label "fascist" is only used by Shane O'Curry as a quote within thejournal.ie article, it isn't a reliable secondary source independent of the subject that uses it. I'm against using it, using it is just agenda pushing and totally flies in the face of WP:NPOV, whether you personally think the party are "fascists" or not. The current edition of the article is the result of compromise and consensus and while it's not going to satisfy everyone it at least presents a sourced version of the party instead of OR speculation or narrative-pushing.Irishpolitical (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

totally flies in the face of WP:NPOV, whether you personally think the party are "fascists" or not Umm ... no, that's really not the problem. The problem with the lead calling them either "neo-nationalist" and "fascist" in Wikipedia's voice is that they are both basically unsupported by sources. "far-right nationalist" (which is supported by all the sources) is almost as bad as "fascist" anyway, so NPOV has nothing to do with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Death penalty

Per this source and the associated The Jim Jefferies Show video linked from that article, Barrett has called for the death penalty for (specifically) doctors who carry out abortions. They're his words. On video. Irishpolitical is changing that, both on this article and on Justin Barrett, to "those who carry out abortions". Despite it being pointed out that that's not what the source - Barrett's own mouth - says. Instead we're getting "The "policy" obviously would refer to all who perform abortions, not just doctors. If they believe abortion is murder, they believe the penalty for murder should be death."

Sorry, IP - that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "Doctors" is literally straight from the horse's mouth. Please stop edit warring on these two articles. Or it'll be AN/I and tban time. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Either way it's a violation of WP:PRIMARY and you've admitted that fact numerous times above. Does a reliable secondary source say that he supports the death penalty for abortion doctors? No? Until that point it should simply be removed, given WP:INTERVIEW. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:INTERVIEW: "Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself." What was it that the source said? He was asked a question and stated an opinion: "Doctors who perform abortions should receive the death penalty." What are you changing it to? "Those who perform abortions whould receive the death penalty." OR and SYNTH, and a misreading of WP:INTERVIEW. Stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying now is it should be deleted as it violates WP:PRIMARY, as you've demonstrated above. Can we find a reliable secondary source which validates this claim or is the best you have a quote taken directly from a YouTube video? Hardly a credible source. It should be removed. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying now is the same as I said back in August of last year, available above: "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." Barrett as a source for his opinion that doctors performing abortions should receive the death penalty is perfectly allowable per WP:PRIMARY. You interpreting that to "he actually meant everyone who performs abortions so I'm changing it from 'doctors' to 'those'" is interpretation and needs a secondary source. As for the source - I can fully accept you're not familiar with The Jim Jefferies Show, but it's not a "YouTube video", it's a Comedy Central TV show, also available on Netflix. An allowable primary source. But we're not using that. The source we're actually using is the Daily Edge report about the segment on the TV show. I.e., a secondary source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Claimed membership

The insertion of the claimed membership of 1,000 people into the infobox has been reverted by three different people now. It should of course have been discussed here after the first removal before reinserting it - never mind re-inserting it after it was removed by a second person. The most that can be said about membership is in inline text, along the lines of "Barrett claims that the party has 1,000 members, though it has not yet registered as a political party." Including it in the infobox, where it appears as a 'fact' is misleading. But as demonstrated elsewhere on this talk page, Irishpolitical, you don't seem to quite get the difference between primary, secondary and self-published sources and what and isn't appropriate for use. The continual push by your largely single-purpose account to paint the party in the best light possible and remove content that you don't like is bordering on the farcical at this stage. A topic ban will have to be sought if it persists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I imagine the reason it was reverted on 29 May was due to no source being given, which is a totally legitimate reason to do so. However, now a source has been provided. It is the custom on many other political party pages to have "(claimed)" next to the membership figure if it cannot be independently verified, as in this case. The membership figure of ~1000, as claimed, is described in a secondary source. If you don't believe the claim that's fine, but until you can provide a source for that please stop removing sourced content. Conversely to your unfounded points that I'm just trying to "paint the party in the best possible light", you merely attempt to paint it in the worst possible light and run-roughshod over rules and standards because you don't like what certain sources say. Basically you've been trying to build a caricature of this party to suit your own narrative and the reason I am spending more time here than elsewhere is because I have to keep fending off your narrative pushing and violations of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Anyway, until the point that you can provide a better source for membership figures, please refrain from removing sourced information. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You imagine wrong. You made this edit, including use of the same source you reinserted since. Guliolopez reverted you, with an edit summary (you should use those more!) of "Dubious and self-published claim. Unsupported by anything. In the same quote Barrett claimed that the group were “in the process of registering as a political party”. A statement also unsupported by any evidence." You ignored that, paid no heed to WP:BRD and reinserted on 7 June without addressing Guliolopez's concerns. I reverted. You re-inserted again, still without discussion. Grayfell reverted you, and you're only discussing now because I created a talk page section. So please stop being so disingenuous. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So without all the "so and so did this", what actually is the crux of your opposition to this source? Especially given it is common with various political parties to have a claimed membership tally in the infobox. This source provides a claim for that, published in a secondary source as a claim. Therefore it is useful to readers to know how many members the party claims to have. If you have a better source for membership figures please provide it. Until that point I see no reason to ignore this source. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I can agree with Grayfell regarding the use of template:increase, given this is the only source (that I have seen) referencing the claimed membership figure. But I see no reason to not include the claim in the infobox, especially given it's listed in a secondary source which makes quite clear it is a claim rather than an objective statement.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not going in the infobox. It's a dubious claim from the party itself without any them providing any supporting evidence. As Bastun suggested, an inline sentence saying "the party claims to have a 1,000 members" is all that can be added here. Anymore edit-warring and I will be supporting a topic ban. Spleodrach (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to take that sort of strict line there is basically no supporting evidence for half the things written about the party which are presented in the article as objective reality. If you find it acceptable to include the claim in the article body, then why not the Infobox - given the infobox is there to provide quick information at a glance? Very inconsistent and arbitrary to selectively ignore a source.Irishpolitical (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As per Spleodrach, Bastun, and others (and indeed my own previous edit-summary) the claim made is dubious at best (and overtly spurious at worst) and has no business being in the infobox. We should not be adding claims which are inherently dubious. Other than to state that the dubious claim was made. Also, FYI, the membership details of other parties is not left to self-published or "claimed" sources. The attendance to Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis events is a matter of observable public record - as is the number of members that contributed to the 2017 Fine Gael leadership election for example. Other/smaller parties do not have infobox entries for membership - likely because they are not verifiable independently. This "OSE" argument is both inappropriate and invalid. Further, continued adherence to "I didn't hear that" or "I don't like that" type arguments (in particular in relation to questioning the applicability of otherwise reliable sources) is not helpful. There has been significant discussion and effort applied to keeping this and related articles balanced and factual, and disruptive or warring patterns which is contrary to policy, is unlikely to be successful relative to this goal - and could potentially result in escalation. (For myself I first thought Bastun's TBAN proposal a bit harsh. But this continued IDHT tone and seeming unwillingness to even acknowledge the counter argument (not to mind to propose compromise or seek consensus) is starting to make it sound less so. Please note that the revert button is very close to the self-destruct button...) Guliolopez (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If I am over-ruled here as a matter of consensus then I accept the views of other editors. However, I still maintain that the source is not any more dubious than any other claim made in the article. It's not self-published, given it is from a reliable secondary source, the source is merely from within the party itself. Nowhere have I argued that this is a perfect metric to assess the party's membership numbers, I do however challenge other editors to provide a better source. Until the point a better and more reliable source can be provided I would argue it's fair to include the claim in the article infobox. That is my position and it's within the scope of WP established customs. Until the point that other editors concur with me or until there is another source available re membership numbers I shall refrain from re-adding the claimed membership no. to the infobox. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)