Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Left-wing Populist

If I can point to a number of primary and secondary sources that talk about Sinn Fein being left-wing populist, may we add that to ideology? B. M. L. Peters (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean adding "left-wing populism" to the infobox parametre "ideology", I think that has been already discussed thoroughly. I think the consensus is against it because of populism not being an ideology (but a political style). I think this can be disputed, as in the conceptualization of populism as a "thin ideology" developed by Cas Mudde can be brought here, but good luck with changing the consensus, as the issue seems to stir passions.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Unlike in some other articles where people insist on adding ideologies to the infobox in violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE this one does appear to be covered at Sinn Féin#Policy and ideology. This reads

Categorised as "populist socialist" in literature, in 2014 leading party strategist and ideologue Eoin Ó Broin described Sinn Féin's entire political project as unashamedly populist.

References

However, the second reference needs closer examination. It claims Eoin Ó Broin's article is from 2014, it isn't. It's from 3 January 2013. More importantly, a careful reading of Ó Broin's article reveals he said Populism is not an ideology nor is it a project as such. It is a way of doing politics. So, based on that, I would not support the addition of "populism" as an ideology. FDW777 (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I see Ó Broin's article got mentioned quite a lot at Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9#Ideology yet again. FDW777 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I support adding "Left-wing Populism". Despite what one man says in one article, every where else on Wikipedia, if a political party, or group, is left wing populist, it is stated in there info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. M. L. Peters (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Other articles are irrelevant. There is nothing in this article about Sinn Féin's ideology being left-wing populist, therefore per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE it isn't going in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet comments struck through. Based on identical editing style Special:Contributions/67.243.26.125 (in particular this, following by an edit by B. M. L. Peters one minute later, or even more blatantly this and this) is obviously the same person as B. M. L. Peters, so there is no need for the duplicate support. I will be happy to take this to WP:SPI if necessary. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Five articles outling Sinn Fein's populism.

1. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/irish-election-and-possibility-left-populism/
2. https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/populism-sinn-fein-surge
3. https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/02/10/are-sinn-fein-populist/
4. https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/11/irelands-populist-left-makes-best-showing-in-a-century/
5. https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-30979061.html

Not a single one says it's an ideology. Stop wasting the time of other editors. FDW777 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

With respect, only speak for yourself, don't speak for others. Other will form there own opinion different than yours. All five sources outline the parties populism, that's why I ask for review from other editors. Based on your reaction, it suggest leaving populism/Left-wing populism out, is a matter of personal opinion and not fact. I keep bringing sources, no matter what, you don't budge. You have brought no sources disproving the parties populism to the table. It's best not to be rude about it. I'm only trying to help, and I'm being unbiased. So once again, you don't speak for everyone, others we'll form there opinion, and if theirs consensus on the change, it will happen, and your personal thoughts wont be able to stop it. You make no question of other sources proving ideologies on other political party pages in relation to Ireland, but you hold Sinn Fein to a different standard. I believe we can work together to improve all aspects of various pages in relation to Ireland. But again, only if you operate with the assumption you are equal to all other genuine editors, not acting as if you have a monopoly on all edits with a different aspect than yours, especially when evidence is presented, and only if you remain unbiased in your work. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Last point, based on how you act as if you you own these Wikipedia pages we jointly work on, I think it may be fair to assume you wrote the ideology section of Sinn Fein or part of it, if that's true, you have one source for two ideologies, and one for another, and they are out of order, when all other political party pages, the sourced ideologies are in order by reference, and number of references, there is a general lack of sources on this page specifically in relation to ideology. Yet another small detail making me to form the opinion that your belief on the party Sinn Fein, has at least a small amount of bias. And for some reason you disagree with an unbiased editor. Again, we can work together for the education of those coming to our pages. Or you can keep dissenting me because my unbiased, and sourced facts disprove your pre-conceived notions of the party, and in general, the truth. Much love. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not need to provide any references disproving the parties populism because, and you can keep ignoring this as much as you like but doing so is simply proving you are a disruptive editor, you have not provided a single reference that says Sinn Féin's IDEOLOGY is populism. This has been discussed at Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9#Populist?, Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9#Ideology yet again and Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9#Ideology one more time, and the idea that populism is Sinn Féin's ideology has been repeatedly rejected. FDW777 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

B.M..L., finding citations has never been a problem; each time "populism" was added to the infobox in the past, it was followed by three or four refs. Just finding another five news sites that say Sinn Féin is populist (although I have to say that the quality of some of them is better than previous ones) brings us no closer to answering the question of whether populism is the (or an) ideology of Sinn Féin. Let me refer you to WP:NEWSORG, a section of WP:Reliable sources. It says, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". It then says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So, if a news item reported that a Sinn Féin delegate had attended the World Congress of Populist Parties, it would be a reliable source for that fact. But if Sean Phelan, John Spain, Jay Burbank, Kyle Sammin or Michael Clifford writes an opinion piece in which he says that Sinn Féin is populist, or left-wing populist, that piece is not a reliable source for anything other than that writer has expressed that opinion. It's not even a reliable source for the fact that the writer says populism is an ideology of Sinn Féin, because none of them said that.

Now, FDW has linked to three previous discussions where there was a consensus that populism doesn't belong in the infobox (I might add that the person supporting it in the latter two discussions was a notoriously disruptive editor who was indefinitely blocked soon after), so framing it as a "my word against yours" argument doesn't help.

By the way, as far as I can remember FDW didn't write any of the Policy and ideology section, so your assumption there is incorrect. Certainly it could be improved, and if you've any concrete suggestions on how to improve it you are more than welcome to post them here. Scolaire (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also refer to the #Populist socialism section below, where I said I suggest you follow your own advice and improve the article in a different place, instead of being fixated on the addition of two words to the infobox. Obviously that sentiment applies equally well to the same editor's proposed addition of three words to the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed some of the new sources are better than past provided sources. And understandable my knowledge is asked for relating to the rest of the article, I have read it many times I haven't seen anything wrong, ofc if there are new updates, Ill add them or bring them to the attention of the team in the talk page. My concern was that FDW777 seemed to be heavily focused on myself and when dissenting against opinion, he would re approach in a condescending tone as if he was a superior editor, and at the same time start speaking for other editors. I have never had this problem with any editor before. No worries however. I don't bring bias here. I think a lot of pages info boxes could be more descriptive with more sourcing. I understand Sinn Fein can be controversial. Would it make everyone happier if I brought sources to the table for the previously listed ideologies? Because again there is one source for two of them, and one for another. On this specific page, after reading it in entirety many times over, the thing that needs the most improvement is the info box. I have contributed to other areas of the page as well. I understand Sinn Feins infobox ideologies to be out of order in sourcing, and bias could be an explanation for it, you will not find it out of order on any other page, I made sure of it by reordering which FDW777 also brought to my attention. Much love folks. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If my tone has been inappropriate, it is because you repeatedly fail to listen to what I say (and not just me, you completely ignored Scolaire's comments at #Membership Numbers and proceeded to edit war), and all my time wasted having to constantly address the same flawed comments could be spent much more productively. My repeatedly made objection to the addition of either variant of populism mentioned being added to the ideology field in the infobox is that there is nothing in the article about Sinn Féin's ideology being populism. You ignored that objection and presented five references that don't say Sinn Féin's ideology is populism. Nobody is saying Sinn Féin don't employ a populist strategy, but that their ideology is not populism. This has been discussed to death, both in this section, one below at #Populist socialism and the THREE sections in the archive I linked to above. All over the addition of two or three words to the infobox! You complained, This page can be so much more informative. I replied at 07:28, 6 July 2020 saying I suggest you follow your own advice and improve the article in a different place, instead of being fixated on the addition of two words to the infobox. In the nearly four weeks since my comments, your total edits to the article (excluding your attempt to edit war the membership figure into the infobox) are these, updating the slogan and some minor reorganisation of pre-existing material. There is nothing stopping you improving the article in 1,000 other ways, yet you remain fixated on the addition of two or three words to the infobox despite repeated opposition to this change dating all the way back to 2013. It's time to accept that, in the absence of references explicitly supporting your change, consensus is against you and move on. FDW777 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

B.M..L., you completely misunderstand the purpose of an infobox. MOS:INFOBOX says that its purpose is "to summarize...key facts that appear in the article", and that "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Saying that you "have read [the article] many times and haven't seen anything wrong", and that "the thing that needs the most improvement is the infobox" makes absolutely no sense. The article, of which you approve, says in the very first sentence that Sinn Féin is a left to centre-left Irish republican party. The article describes its nationalism (of the left-wing variety) and its socialism (of the democratic variety). These are summarised in the infobox, and the order they appear is obviously the correct order. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that infobox items should be ordered according to "sourcing", or indeed that they should be sourced at all. They are ordered by how well they reflect the article, and that is determined by consensus, and consensus for the last four years is for the order they are in now. You think that "a lot of pages' infoboxes could be more descriptive with more sourcing." I think that a lot of pages' infoboxes are inordinately bloated and should have refs taken out of them altogether. If you want to "bring sources to the table" then by all means do so, and we can talk about how they can be used to improve the Policy and ideology section. You don't improve an article by cluttering up the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

History

There is a dispute at John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and Claire Kerrane, it makes more sense to have a centralised discussion.

• Irish Times Elected in 2016, Sinn Féin’s John Brady was the party’s first Dáil representative in Wicklow for almost 100 years
• Irish Examiner The Bray-based politician, who in 2016 became Sinn Féin's first elected TD in Wicklow in 100 years
• Irish Times Claire Kerrane (27) from Tibohine in west Roscommon, ends a 97-year gap since the Sinn Féin party last held a Dáil seat in Roscommon, in 1923
• Irish Examiner Sinn Féin’s Claire Kerrane looks set to be the party’s first TD since the election of George Noble Plunkett in the famous North Roscommon bye-election "of the snows" of 1917

These are dismissed as poor journalism with no fact checking, as are these academics.

• Creating Ireland: The Words and Events that Shaped Us by Paul Daly (Hachette Books Ireland)
  • page 261 Sinn Féin's Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin won a seat in Cavan-Monaghan and, as the party had dropped its absentionist policy, became the first Sinn Féin TD to enter Dáil Éireann since de Valera led his supporters out of parliament in 1922
• Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years by Brian Feeney (O'Brien Press)
  • page 10 After the Republic's 1997 general election , Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin became the first Sinn Féin TD since 1922 to take his seat in Dáil Éireann
• Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of The Provisional Irish Republican Movement by Robert White (Merrion Press)
  • page 292 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin was the first Sinn Féin TD to take a seat in the Dublin parliament since 1922
  • page 323 Sinn Féin was stronger and more relevant than at any time since the 1920s
• New Sinn Féin: Irish Republicanism in the Twenty-First Century by Agnès Maillot (Routledge)
  • page 1 Sinn Féin: the oldest political party in Ireland. Ironically, this is the party from which most modern political organisations in the Republic are derived, as a result of splits within the ranks of the organisation
  • page 26 Gerry Adams became the first Sinn Féin MP since the 1950s
  • page 32 Sinn Féin had fared well in the 1997 elections, securing two seats and 16 per cent of the vote, and becoming the third largest political party in the north, ahead of Ian Paisley’s Democratic Ulster Unionist Party. This success was mirrored in the south, where, for the first time in over forty years, a Sinn Féin candidate was elected to Dáil Éireann in May of that year
  • page 54 The party as a whole was not very familiar with parliamentary practices, because it had not taken part actively in parliamentary life since 1923 (with the exception of one TD who took his seat in the Dáil in 1997)
• Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA by Richard English (Pan Books)
  • page 294 Politics seemed even more fruitful when the Republic of Ireland's general election the following month saw Sinn Féin winning their first Leinster House seat for decades

It is difficult to give their claims much credibility, since they actively (Boland was FF later) promote (Original SF split into FF and FG) a crackpot fringe theory that Sinn Féin became Fianna Fáil in 1926, which Fianna Fáil themselves don't agree with.

Other than people whose view of history is verging on the insane, I see no reason why history should be censored in this way, does anyone else? FDW777 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice way to start a discussion, by accusing others of being insane crackpots, oh well! This is the second paragraph of this article: "The original Sinn Féin organisation was founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, but has split substantially on a number of occasions since then—notably giving rise to the two traditionally dominant parties of southern Irish politics—Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael—in the aftermath of the Irish Civil War. The party took its current form in 1970 after another split (with the other faction eventually becoming the Workers' Party of Ireland)." I totally agree with this. My question is that how can Modern Sinn Fein, which took its current form in 1970, be the direct continuation of the Original SF? The current party was originally Provisional Sinn Féin, a dissident split from the majority Official Sinn Féin. Spleodrach (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead formerly said, "Originating in the Sinn Féin organisation founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, it took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party.". After literally years of debate over the "it's not the same" issue, a 2010 poll showed that that was the consensus version. The subsequent addition of FF and FG to the mix has muddied the waters. Nevertheless, the article does not say that the party was founded de novo in 1970 and is completely different from any previous organisation called Sinn Féin. There is indeed a continuity between the 1905 organisation and the current party, and this is clearly shown in the History section of the article. It took it's current form after a split in 1970 in just the same way that the Labour party took its current form in 1999 after the merger with Democratic Left. Now, anybody is entitled to hold a contrary view, but nobody is entitled to dismiss reputable newspapers and academic books as "lazy journalism" just because they hold a contrary view. The description of somebody as "the first Sinn Féin member to be elected to the Dáil since 1921" is frequently found in reliable sources, as FDW has shown, and where it is found, it is perfectly valid to state that in the person's article. Scolaire (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"insane" and "crackpot" refer to the theory not the person promoting it, much like flat earth theory. Sinn Féin is a direct continuation, albeit not the only continuation. Fianna Fáil is not a direct continuation, or even the same party, as even the party's (archived, since I can't find a history page on their current website) website says. Fine Gael don't make a claim to be a continuation either. Both have roots in Sinn Féin, nobody is arguing otherwise. FDW777 (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Membership Numbers

Can some others take a look at an article I found, which claims knowledge of membership numbers, even of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, if accurate, should we add a membership section to the info box that reflects these numbers?

Article: https://www.laoistoday.ie/2020/03/11/sinn-fein/

• (If no response, I will add the referenced membership numbers into a new section. Without talk page consensus).

• Response: the figure of 15,000 in that article is provided by the Sinn Féin Director of Finance. It does not have independent verification. It should not be added to the article, still less to a new section. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You you ask if it's acceptable, @Scolaire: says it isn't, and you just ignore that and add it anyway. I think an AE report will be forthcoming if this carries on. FDW777 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that a Sinn Fein source is acceptable for their membership numbers, as I don't think there is any public register of political party members like in the U.S. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As @Scolaire: says, both Laois Today and Belfast Telegraph articles on this attribute the claim to the Sinn Féin Director of Finance. However in the original Irish Times article both get their information from they don't do that (although they do for other parties in the same paragraph) saying This will bring total membership for the party to around 15,000. According to their party spokespeople, Fine Gael has 25,000 members, while Fianna Fáil has 20,000. Curiously, a few months later RTÉ said Fianna Fáil's membership was 18,000. There may be a consensus the Irish Times article is acceptable for the membership of all three parties, if there are no public records of membership. However, that might not be the case. FDW777 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

1970 Ard Fheis and the Provisional Army Council

There seems to be a lack of secondary sources saying that the anti-abstention members that walked out of the 1970 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis – or specifically Seán Mac Stíofáin – pledged allegiance to the Provisional Army Council, so I'm offering a couple of primary sources. The Irish Press of 12 January 1970 (p. 3) reported Mac Stíofáin's speech thus:

There was alternative leadership available and he called on those "who remained Republicans after this Ard Fheis" to support the Provisional Army Council. He was greeted with long applause by his supporters.
After he had walked out of the meeting later in the day, he said they would give their allegiance to the Provisional Army Council and to nobody else.

The Irish Independent of 12 January 1970 (p. 1) reported as follows:

Supporters of the abstentionist policy declared that they were giving their allegiance to the "Provisional Army Council," a breakaway I.R.A. group, which maintains the traditional republican attitude of non-involvement with parliamentary politics and a refusal to recognise the Dail, Stormont and Westminster.

Hope this helps. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably covered by his first pledge of allegiance before walking out, which you added. That is covered in most of the books I checked, what wasn't covered was the claim in the previous version that These members reconvened at another place, appointed a Caretaker Executive and pledged allegiance to the Provisional Army Council. That's not implausible given the quotes you provided, although they are still a bit vague as to exactly when and where the pledge took place, since it could have been while leaving the Intercontinental Hotel and before arriving at Kevin Barry Hall. There was definitely a TV camera and press outside the Intercontinental Hotel, and the Irish Times (who for some reason think Mac Stiofáin is from Liverpool) have a report too. Certainly some people did pledge allegiance to the Provisional Army Council, but the information available at present wouldn't support the previous wording. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's important whether the meeting in the Kevin Barry Hall explicitly referred to the Provisional Army Council or not. What matters is that they followed the Provisional Army Council rather than the Goulding leadership. That's why they were called "Provisionals". The sentence you quoted has now been edited and doesn't need to be restored. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

1994/5 talks?

Sinn Féin then joined the talks, but the Conservative government under John Major soon came to depend on unionist votes to remain in power. It suspended Sinn Féin from the talks, and began to insist that the IRA decommission all of their weapons before Sinn Féin be re-admitted to the talks; this led to the IRA calling off its ceasefire. The new Labour government of Tony Blair was not reliant on unionist votes and re-admitted Sinn Féin, leading to another, permanent, ceasefire

Is this wholly accurate? While the part about Major's government being propped up by the UUP is true, my recollection of events is that Sinn Féin were never admitted to talks at all prior to 1997. Obviously the passage would be greatly improved by the addition of references anyway, but before researching I just wanted to make sure I haven't overlooked some secret multi-party talks in 1994/1995 that Sinn Féin were admitted to. FDW777 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Formatting Broken

I just checked the article page. The infobox is damaged in such a way that it displays as plain text with links thrown in. What happened, and can it be fixed? VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone made a mobile edit that broke the infobox. It should be fine now redlegsfan21 (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Significant material added to the article that's clearly undue weight/neutrality/misrepresentation of references

Regarding these additions.

The party won the election, due to some populist policies, leading many to criticize them for this

Unreferenced.

Some people, such as Fine Gael, accused them of hypocrisy

One TD accused them. Undue weight.

This then resulted in critics bringing up previous Sinn Féin scandals, with mentions to Sinn Féin's involvement with the IRA

Utter synthesis. Occurred almost ten months later.

Sinn Fein have also shown disregard for COVID-19 regulations, in 2020. Several party leaders deliberately broke COVID-19 rules

Speaks for itself.

This material should be removed immediately, 1RR prevents me from doing so. FDW777 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? FDW777 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes until the other editors come here and engage in discussion and a resolution or consenus can be found. I'd recommend pinging all of the editors involved to direct them here. You may want to open a dispute resolution request or a request for comment on the matter. Helper201 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not believe any of these additions are significant to the history of the party, and per WP:ONUS it us up to those seeking inclusion to gain consensus for the addition. To deal with just one part, there is no mention in the Conservative Party (UK) article about any of their response to COVID-19, despite the Conservative government being criticised time and again for their actions during the pandemic. The additions were designed solely to cram in as much negative information as possible with obviously biased wording. FDW777 (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems only positive stories are allowed in this article?? TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

In the connection to IRA section you keep asserting that Sinn Fein deny the allegations. Of course a perpetrator is not going to admit they committed a crime especially if they are counting on votes. An investigation has more weight than a defendant. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased and unbalanced. The UUP, PUP and Sinn Fein all have links to terrorism. The SDLP and DUP have always been democratic. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No changes suggested, no reply is needed. FDW777 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes should be made in conjunction with the Provisional IRA article. Language should be worded the same as "Sinn Fein was the political arm of the IRA" the way it states it in the Wikipedia Provisional IRA article. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

2018 +

I think the headings should be changed as from 2017-2020 the NI assembly was not sitting, making it the longest non-sitting parliament in history. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

making it the longest non-sitting parliament in history, wrong! FDW777 (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Longest non-sitting government correct. It beat Belgium. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IT has it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Northern_Ireland#:~:text=The%20stalemate%20continued%20into%20September,April%202010%20and%20December%202011. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It was January 2017 - January 11 2020. Who has beaten 3 years? Belgium only reaches 590 days. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Belgium is for an entire country without a sitting government. Northern Ireland conversely had a government, it sat in Westminster. Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition your original phrase was the longest non-sitting parliament in history. Did I just imagine the Assembly not sitting between 2002 and 2007? FDW777 (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact this article doesn't mention that the assembly was not sitting during those years or talking about the dispute I think leaves out important info. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In reply: you are incorrect. I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life and it was sitting between 2002 and 2007. It is still the longest non-sitting government, just not the longest non-sitting national government. TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

But that just shows there is bias by emission. It should mention the suspension from 2002-2007 and the recent non sitting government between 2017 and 2020 as the person reading it assumes the party was sitting all those years which it wasn't. Neither has it taken its seats in Westminster during those years. TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

3 Things.

1) Your comments above are contradictory, I'm having a hard time trying to parse them and understand what you're saying. You say it sat between 2002-2007 and then say they were suspended from 2002-2007.

2) Why did you add AfD and MfD tags to this talk page? Why are you trying to delete it (not that any of those templates are relevant to an article talk page)? You cannot delete an article talk page without deleting the article it's attached to. And attempting to delete such a blatantly obviously notable article could be considered disruptive.

3) Fact Check. A bias in emission means there's something wrong with an exhaust pipe. You may mean bias of omission. Please confirm. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. I am not trying to delete the page, but rather some of my own comments on the talk page. You know fine well I know bias of omission, but I can't edit or delete any of my conflicting statements. My point stands that neither the 2002-2007 nor the 2017-2020 periods of a non cooperating administration are mentioned. These are significant pieces regarding Sinn Fein both in the police investigation and disputes with Unionist politicians. Leaving them out gives the reader the impression that the executive was running the whole time which it was not. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also argue this article goes against the Wikipedia guidelines as it does not represent all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on this topic. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a pity someone hadn't already tagged the section for expanation or posted an explanation at #1998–2017 before this thread was ever created.... FDW777 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

SF abbreviation

I was thinking about adding the SF abbreviation to the opening line as the party seem to use it in certain instances such as in logos seen here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sinn_F%C3%A9in_Logo.svg - and here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in#/media/File:Logo_of_the_Sinn_F%C3%A9in.svg However I'm not sure formatting and grammar wise whether to place it within the bracketed "(/ʃɪn ˈfeɪn/ shin FAYN,[7] Irish: [ˌʃiːn̠ʲ ˈfʲeːnʲ]; English: "[We] Ourselves")" section or in its own separate bracketed section. Other editors’ thoughts would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good shout. Based on other pages (for example, German parties SPD and AfD) I'd suggest put SF (boldened of course) at the end of the bracket in the first line, beside "We Ourselves". Also, do consider adding the "| abbreviation = SF" line to the infobox. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure but they might be placed after the translations in those cases because the abbreviation comes from the German language name of the party. In the case of the Social Democratic and Labour Party the abbreviation comes before hand. These are only my guesses though. I also wasn't sure how often this abbreviation is used by and for the party and how well know this abbreviation is for them (so as whether this is warranted or not). Helper201 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless it's planned to amend subsequent uses of Sinn Féin to SF (which I would be completely against) it would be nothing more than acronym clutter in an already cluttered opening sentence. FDW777 (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur. SF isn't normally used unlike DUP or the like, that I can tell. It's always spelled out. So I don't see any advantage to using it in this article. Just because they use it in a logo. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Criticism on racial/religious grounds?

Not a single member of Sinn Fèin’s current lineup is from a non-white, non-Catholic background. Has there been ant commentary on this? (Just a passing thought?) 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:8969:24F2:B1B6:74DA (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Concatenation of different parties

I'm not going to make changes but I would suggest the article be split into different pages rather than suggesting that the parties known as Sinn Fein were the same party evolving over time. The article itself references the 1948 ruling that the party known as Sinn Fein at that time was not the same party as Sinn Fein pre-1923 and the case shows no overlapping trustees. Even though provisional Sinn Fein began as a new party using the same name, no-one contests that Sinn Fein continued to exist and later changed its name. That to me suggests at least 3 different Sinn Fein articles based on their date of founding. 85.93.205.221 (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sinn Féin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Meets the quick fail criteria as it has significant unsourced content as well as active cleanup banners for original research, updating, and other issues. Make sure these are fixed before any renomination. (t · c) buidhe 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

1998–2017

I've added an expand tag to this section. At present, the previous section ends at the Good Friday Agreement and the first thing that's mentioned in this section is the exposure of Denis Donaldson in 2005, so there's a bit of a jump. Any suggestions as to what might need to be added welcome, I'm thinking the 2001 overtaking of the SDLP as the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland is one point that needs to be added. FDW777 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. SDLP was the largest nationalist party from the signing of the GFA in 1998. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be referring to the 2003 assembly elections as Westminster elections are insignificant as Sinn Fein do not take their seats. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Twenty years on from the Ard Fheis at which Mr Morrison made that comment, Sinn Féin is the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland." dated 12 June, 2001. We've already established by your "it was sitting between 2002 and 2007" comment that you don't actually know what you're talking about, so I will not be replying to any assertion that's not backed up by a reference. FDW777 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't put links in but you are incorrect. Look up 2003 general assembly of northern ireland. That article is referring to the General Election. I do know what I'm talking about as I have lived through these elections. The NI assembly election is every 5 years. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is my reference Irish times Sinn Fein set to emerge as largest nationalist party Results in the Northern Ireland assembly election show major gains for the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Féin Thu, Nov 27, 2003, 00 TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As only wikipedia links are allowed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election This proves my point. IT was a general election. Which is confirmed when you look it up. General elections are only Westminster seats. You do not know what you are talking about. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You can copy and paste any URL into the talk page, that's not a problem. Canterbury Tail talk 19:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it blocks me TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave my reference Irish news look it up or here's another link to prove you are referring to a general election 2001_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Northern_Ireland TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ark.ac.uk

2001 Westminster elections in Northern Ireland. Satisfied? TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

SO that's 2 wiki articles and 2 references. What more do you want? TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also add about 2002-2007 that it wasn't a true suspension. This is a direct quote " "The Executive produced a Draft Programme for Government (subtitled 'Reinvestment and Reform') and a Draft Budget for 2003-04. The various Committees published nearly 50 reports on such diverse subjects as the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak in Northern Ireland, protection of children and vulnerable adults, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, fur farming, the Water Service (leakage management and water efficiency) and housing and homelessness. The Assembly debated and passed 17 Acts in 2001 and 14 in 2002. Members also began the practice of presenting public petitions on constituency related issues. The first of these was presented on 15 January 2002 by Maurice Morrow MLA on the subject of Trillick Agricultural Office. There were many important and well-attended debates on such varied topics as the future of education, the Health Service, public accounts, telecommunications and the Children's Commissioner. Members raised matters of importance in their own constituencies by means of Adjournment debates. The final Adjournment debate, which was the last matter for discussion in the first mandate, was on the subject of the future of the Mater Hospital in Belfast. " TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The St Andrews Agreement of 13 October 2006 led to the establishment of the Transitional Assembly. The Northern Ireland (St.Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 set out a timetable to restore devolution in Northern Ireland and also set the date for the third election to the Northern Ireland Assembly as 7 March 2007. Devolution was to be restored on 26 March 2007 and it was the function of the Transitional Assembly to take the necessary steps for this to happen. At the election, the DUP and SF again had the largest number of MLAs elected. While power was not restored by 26 March an historic meeting took place between Dr Ian Paisley (the leader of the DUP at that time) and Gerry Adams (the leader of SF) at Parliament Buildings, Stormont. Both parties made a commitment to set up an Executive Committee in a Northern Ireland Assembly to which devolved powers were restored on 8 May 2007. The Executive Committee includes four Democratic Unionist Ministers, three Sinn Fein Ministers, two Ulster Unionist Ministers, and one Social Democratic and Labour Party Minister. The Rt Hon Peter Robinson MP MLA is currently the First Minister and Martin McGuinness MP MLA is currently deputy First Minister (the two Junior ministers are currently, Robin Newton MLA from DUP and Gerry Kelly MLA from SF). TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hence this supports my argument that the police Sinn Fein investigation should be included in this article as that is what caused the abrupt end of the assembly. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• BBC 12 June, 2001 Sinn Féin is the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland
• BBC But no doubt Sinn Féin - the largest nationalist party since 2001
• The Long Peace Process: The United States of America and Northern Ireland, 1960-2008 by Andrew Sanders page 265 Sinn Féin, which had become the largest nationalist party in 2001
• A Treatise on Northern Ireland, Volume III: Consociation and Confederation by Brendan O'Leary page 217 In votes, it passed the SDLP as the largest nationalist party in the 2001 Westminster and local-government elections
• Labour's Second Landslide: The British General Election 2001 by Jonathan Tonge page 221 Meanwhile, Sinn Féin, for the first time ever, became the largest Nationalist party in Northern Ireland
• Sinn Féin, 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen by Kevin Rafter page 162 the psychological boost of overtaking the SDLP as the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland in the 2001 Westminster elections
• The Long March: The Political Strategy of Sinn Fein, 1981-2007 by Martyn Frampton page 18 The result was that in 2001 , Sinn Féin achieved a major strategic goal , when it established itself as the largest nationalist party in the north
• Sinn Feín: A Hundred Turbulent Years by Brian Feeney page 10 general elections of June 2001 , Sinn Féin achieved one of its most cherished long - term goals when it became the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland

Plus plenty more which aren't needed. It happened in 2001, accept it and move on. FDW777 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No it was 2003. That was the General Election which the English and Americans have no clue about. Your ignorance is laughable. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You proved it in your references too that you are referring to the general election which is the Westminster elections. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

General elections of 2001 your references prove it. You are clueless. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No matter how many people say it, the fact remains that 2001 was the Westminster elections which not a single Sinn Fein MP sit. So its not as big as these so called "historians" put it. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Or should I say Americans and the English have no idea that a General Election in Northern Ireland means nothing as during 2001 the SDLP had the seats that mattered (in the assembly) TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Again 2001 Westminster elections. You have no idea. Your references prove nothing. A 1,000 people can say right is left but it doesn't make it so. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A Treatise on Northern Ireland, Volume III: Consociation and Confederation by Brendan O'Leary page 217 In votes, it passed the SDLP as the largest nationalisdt party in the 2001 Westminster and local-government elections is incorrect as shown by multiple news papers that there was no local elections that year. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You'd better nominate 2001 Northern Ireland local elections for deletion then, since it clearly contradicts your rather unique view of history. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

SDLP has more than Sinn Fein in that election. Sorry to burst your bubble. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In votes, it passed the SDLP as the largest nationalist party in the 2001 Westminster and local-government elections. I put Brendan O'Leary's relevant words in bold for you. FDW777 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of the 2001 election because rarely they coincide, but you seem to dismiss my claims of a 2003 election. You can't pick and choose. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A party is also measured by their representatives, not by their votes. More seats == more power. More seats == largest party. And no I don't have a unique view of history, but rather one can't know everything. TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Especially as I have repeatedly tried to find this 2001 ni assembly election which exact phrase I searched for but it just brings up the general election 2001" TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Or put it simply this way. In the 2016 US election, was the Democrats the largest party? TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You can attempt to draw whatever conclusion you like from the election results, it's of no relevance to this article. I provided you with plenty of references confirming Sinn Féin became the largest nationalist party in 2001, any attempt to dismiss those because Sinn Féin don't take their seats in Westminster is meaningless. That doesn't change the election results. FDW777 (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality articles require proper analysis of the evidence, not just a paraphrasing or regurgitation on what another have said. My analysis is correct as in 2001 the SDLP gained a total of 120 seats in both the local elections and westminster elections (117 in local elections and 3 in Westminster election. Sim Fein only got 108 in the local elections and 4 in Westminster elections giving a total of 112 seats). What you fail to recognize that the 2003 elections were more significant because not only did Sinn Fein become the largest party in Westminster, but they were also the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly as well.

I am just advocating that the same yardstick is used for the 2016 US elections and these elections as neither were the Democrats the largest party in 2016 nor Sinn Fein the largest party in 2001. TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

One thing to take into account, on Wikipedia we don't get to choose how the information is, we can only use what reliable sources are telling us. If reliable sources are telling us that Sinn Fein was the largest at X point, then Sinn Fein was the largest at X point. Unless reliable references can be found stating otherwise that's how it does on. Remember we're based on Wp:Verifiability, WP:NOTTRUTH. We go by the sources, not our interpretations of sources. (Note I am not making any comment on it being one way or another, I have no opinion, just stating that we should use whatever reliable sources are telling us.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that all papers have their own biases and that is what makes Wikipedia an unreliable encyclopedia unlike established encyclopedias(e.g. Britannica) that examine the facts. My method was not interpenetrating, but using the exact quantitative data. TheeFactChecker (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Even with the BBC, fact needs separated from opinion. TheeFactChecker (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Besides can you not see that the 2003 elections have more significance and should be included instead? TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is how encyclopedia britannica puts it which states the facts and does not misconstrue any information.

" Traditionally the second largest nationalist party, Sinn Féin secured more votes than the SDLP and captured four seats in the House of Commons in 2001. Subsequently, its members of Parliament, who refused to take an oath of allegiance to the British monarch and thus could not take their seats in the House of Commons, were granted the use of parliamentary offices for the first time." TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You should read your own references more carefully. Britannica say In subsequent elections Sinn Féin solidified its status as the largest nationalist party, "solidified" because they already became the largest nationalist party in 2001. FDW777 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Subsequent means coming after. E.g. the 2003 elections. TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You missed out important info that gives the exact implications of what it is talking about as well well. In subsequent elections Sinn Féin solidified its status as the largest nationalist party. In the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2003, Sinn Féin won 24 seats to the SDLP’s 18." Read it more carefully. Clearly referring to 2003 here. TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

They made their position even stronger in the 2003 elections. That is what is is clearly saying. TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so as Britannica says in the 2003 election Sinn Féin "solidified its status as the largest nationalist party". Meaning they were already the largest nationalist party prior to the election, and the result of that election simply confirmed it even more. Not that there's even any need to rely on poor quality tertiary references when we have multiple reliable references already saying clearly and unambiguously that Sinn Féin became the largest nationalist party in 2001. FDW777 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You can say as many false truths or half truths as you like, but I have proved though the quantitive data that you are wrong. You just can't accept another point of view. Solidify only means to make stronger; reinforce. You are totally misinterpreting evidence as most papers and news organizations do as they come with their own biases. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And you can try and dismiss Britannica as you like, but it is written by historians, experts, and scientists, not the amateurs that make up Wikipedia. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And I can plainly prove that your proposition is a half truth. They were the largest nationalist party in Westminster but only by one seat and they were not the largest nationalist party in Stormont. And you can't count votes as it is proportionate representation. A clear example of this is the current Irish government. Sinn Fein got the largest share of first preferential votes, but are not the largest party in the Republic of Ireland. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason they needed to solidify or make their position stronger in the 2003 election, was because 1. They had no voice in Westminster and 2. SDLP had more seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)It seems that this article is evidence that the 2022 election was the first time Sinn Fein got the most seats. Not 2001. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-61355419

Error on main page in the news article

In the article on the parties recent win in the Irish national assembly it implies that Michelle O'Neill is the sole leader of the party. The "In the News" piece should be changed to clear this error since it can lead to people citing misinformation. 172.102.183.128 (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there legally two Sinn Féins?

It's not really clear form the article if the Sinn Féin operating in the Republic of Ireland and the one in Northern Ireland are the same organisation or if they are legally two different parties/organisations that are connected in an ideological/mental sense and operate as if they were a single party day-to-day. --217.149.171.6 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sinn Féin is an Irish republican and democratic socialist political party active throughout both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Note the singular "an", therefore one single party. How would you suggest making it clearer? Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Academic sources describing the ideology of Sinn Féin as "Populist"

Please note: From here and throughout, I am using the the word "Populism" here in the academic, political science sense, not in a colloquial or pejorative sense.

I see that in Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 10#Left-wing Populist, FDW777's view is (forgive me if this is a clumsy summary) that sources must state that Populism is an ideology, and that the same sources must state that populism is part of Sinn Féin's ideology. Scolaire's view is that news sources, particularly the opinions of editors, are not sufficient sources to make that claim. In response to both these views, I present the following academic sources asserting that populism is ideological, and that populism is apart of Sinn Féin's ideology:

1. O’Malley, Eoin; FitzGibbon, John. "Everywhere and nowhere: Populism and the puzzling non-reaction to Ireland's crises". European Populism in the Shadow of the Great Recession. Retrieved 19 July 2022. [Dr. Eoin O’Malley of the School of Law and Government of Dublin City University & Dr. John FitzGibbon of the School of Psychology, Politics and Sociology of Canterbury Christ Church University]
2. Phelan, Sean (9 March 2020). "The Irish election and the possibility of a left populism". openDemocracy. Retrieved 19 July 2022. [Sean Phelan is Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow at the Department of Communication Studies, University of Antwerp and Associate Professor at the School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University, Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand.]
3. Reidy, Theresa; Jane Suiter. "Who is the populist Irish voter?". Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. XLVI: 117–131. Retrieved 19 July 2022. [Dr Theresa Reidy teaches political economy and research on elections and political institutions at University Collage Cork, Jane Suiter is an Irish political scientist and professor at Dublin City University]
4. Quinlan, Stephen; Tinney, Deirdre (25 June 2019). "A Populist Wave or Metamorphosis of a Chameleon? Populist Attitudes and the Vote in 2016 in the United States and Ireland". The Economic and Social Review. 50 (2): 281–323. Retrieved 19 July 2022. [Stephen Quinlan is a senior Researcher at the GESIS-Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Mannheim Germany and Deirdre Tinney was an independent researcher. During 2016 she lectured in an adjunct capacity on Comparative European Politics, EU Politics, and Research Methods at the Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick.]
5. "Why is there no radical right party in Ireland?". Working Papers in International Studies Series. 2008. Retrieved 19 July 2022. [Same Eoin O'Malley as above. Please note multiple drafts of this paper exist online, some more complete than others]
6. Jane Suiter; Culloty, Eileen; Greene, Derek; Siapera, Eugenia (23 May 2018). "Hybrid media and populist currents in Ireland's 2016 General Election". European Journal of Communication. 1 (17). doi:10.1177/0267323118775297. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
7. Tom Hayden (6 June 2002). "Sinn Fein Rising". The Nation. Retrieved 19 July 2022. [ Tom Hayden, in addition to being a veteran statesmen, wrote extensively about politics itself]
8. Otjes, Simon; Louwerse, Tom (20 November 2013). "Populists in Parliament: Comparing Left-Wing and Right-Wing Populism in the Netherlands". Political Studies. 61 (1): 60–79. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12089. Retrieved 19 July 2022. [Simon Otjes is assistant professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University, Tom Louwerse is Associate Professor in Political Science at Leiden University]
9. Bíró-Nagy, András; Győri, Gábor; Kadlót, Tibor (October 2015). "Populism, the new zeitgeist? The situation of European populist parties in 2015" (PDF). Retrieved 19 July 2022. [Hungarian political analysts]
10. Best, Volker. "Democracy Reform as a Populist Policy Supply". Continuity and Change of Party Democracies in Europe. pp. 203–253. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-28988-1. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

Many of these sources discuss the populism of Sinn Féin in a very dry political science, data-driven way. Some exceptions are Phelan and Hayden, who, writing in a more political analysis style, make the argument that Sinn Féin's ideology of left-wing populism is an ideological backlash to "Neoliberalism". Not only are they not using the term "populism" here pejoratively, they are using the term "populism" in a supportive sense. Similarly, Volker Best ascribes very specific policy positions by European populists before suggesting that populists in Europe are actually a wave of democratic reformers (in a sense), before citing Sinn Féin as that force in Ireland. Otjes and Louwerse very specifically discuss Populism as an ideology and then go on to cite Sinn Féin as specific international example of left-wing populism from their Dutch perspective. The exact same pattern is seen in Bíró-Nagy, Győri, Kadlót from the Hungarian viewpoint.

These sources (plus an additional one by Richard Dunphy that I don't know if I should throw in or not) make a distinction between left-wing populism and left-wing nationalism, and specifically say that while SF is both of those things, People Before Profit/Solidarity would be an example of a group that is left-wing populist but not left-wing nationalist.

Notable political party articles whose infoboxes also include "Populism"

Another view I saw raised is the notion that "Populism" in-of-itself is not an "Ideology". Well, that can be a legitimate view, but I don't believe it to be the consensus across Wikipedia. Besides the fact that Wikipedia has a dedicated article to Populism, it further splits this into the narrower definitions of Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism. Both the leads and bodies of these articles refer to them as "Ideologies". Additionally, the seems to numerous articles of significance where populism and its variants has been added to the infobox. Some examples include:

• People's Party – Movement for a Democratic Slovakia

• United Socialist Party of Venezuela

• Movement for Socialism (Bolivia)

• Pim Fortuyn List

• Alliance for the Future of Austria

• Danish People's Party

• Vlaams Belang

• Forza Italia

• Lega Nord

• Five Star Movement

• Syriza

• Fianna Fáil (It wouldn't exactly be an even-handed policy that FF's infobox can have populism but SF's can't)

And in additional to all of that, Category:Populism contains dozens of political parties of both the left and right variants. It seems to be the case that "Populism" is used right across Wikipedia to help define political parties and I don't see a strong reason why Sinn Féin should be excluded.

If I was to include some information from the above sources about SF being Left-wing populist in the body of the article (Sinn Féin#Policy and ideology), and then included left-wing populism in the infobox, would this overcome your previous concerns? CeltBrowne (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Asqueladd:, @FDW777:, Scolaire @Bastun:, who've previously discussed this topic CeltBrowne (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't framed as an RfC, but if it were I'd 'support inclusion, based on WP:V and WP:RS - multiple reliable secondary sources describing the party as populist. I missed the previous discussion saying it would be necessary to have populism described as an ideology - no, we wouldn't, that's WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Please forgive slow response, I'm on holiday. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@StairySky: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and WP:EPTALK. Would you please tell me what you find objectionable about the change you reverted? CeltBrowne (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Populism is not a WP:NPOV term, its debated whether populism is even a coherent concept, and whether its an actual ideology is debatable. StairySky (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As clearly outlined above, this is not the consensus across Wikipedia. The "local" consensus of this article cannot supersede the broader consensus, see WP:CONLEVEL and Wikipedia:Pocket consensus. Furthermore, my academic sources that I've listed do state that populism is an ideology and list Sinn Féin as a example of such. Therefore you can't revert on the grounds of WP:NPOV. If an extremely high profile, contested article such as Republican Party (United States) can contain Right-wing populism in its infobox, there is no reason why Sinn Féin can't have left-wing populism in it's infobox based on almost a dozen reliable academic sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no broad consensus on whether 'populism', especially 'left-wing populism', is an actual ideology. I don't see any evidence for this. StairySky (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for this.

I've already made my case, extensively, above, so not I'm going over it all again. I've shown that some of the most significant political party articles on Wikipedia list Populism as a ideology and that that Wikipedia uses categories such as Category:Left-wing populism to explicitly categorise these parties as such. If you'd like to try and reverse that fact, you'll have to take it up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics.

So regardless if you'd like to acknowledge all that or not, I did ping all previous users who discussed populism on this article before. Of those, Bastun has said they support the inclusion and Scolaire has said on my talk page that they're aware of this discussion and so far they have chosen not to object to what I'm doing. So besides the fact that I believe my edit is in line with the broader consensus of Wikipedia, I believe that additionally the local consensus has changed on this issue. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"I've shown that some of the most significant political party articles on Wikipedia list Populism as a ideology and that that Wikipedia uses categories such as Category:Left-wing populism to explicitly categorise these parties as such" What you're doing now is referring to a few select pocket consensuses and inferring from that that there is a broad wikipedia consensus, that's fallacious. I could do the opposite of that and point out some articles where populist is absent from the ideology box and say "Aha there is a consensus it is not an ideology". Also, that's not really an accurate representation of what Scolaire actually said, he said "I'm not going to join the discussion yet" which is not to say he's changed his mind or doesn't care either way. StairySky (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you would have to find some articles where populist is absent from the infobox despite multiple reliable sources describing the article subject as populist. Please don't put words in the mouths of other users. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne: you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy, additionally just because certain individuals have thus far declined to participate in a rehashing of the same discussion ad infinitum does not mean consensus has changed. StairySky (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

mé féiner

Hi all, I was considering adding 'mé féiner' to the 'See also' section. Before I do and someone takes it down, would it be considered encyclopaedic enough? It's relevant after all and it already has a Wiktionary article about it: (Ireland, derogatory) Someone who acts from self-interest, rather than the common good or the national interest. From Irish mé féin (“myself”) +‎ -er. After Sinn Féiner, supporter of Sinn Féin. Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste my time – it'd be reverted. Scolaire (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)