This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liberty Republic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
On 12 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Direct Democracy Ireland to Liberty Republic. The result of the discussion was moved. |
There appears to be a low level edit war going on here, could all users refrain from removing reliably referenced material and from accusations of vandalism or bias? Please discuss your issues with the current content here first, before editing. Snappy ( talk) 20:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, the content dispute centres around the following issues, (please add, if I have missed any point):
We all need to discuss these issues calmly and politely. No name calling and with moderated language. Sources need to be checked and verified, personal opinion is not allowed. If we can't resolve these issues here, the good people at Administrators Noticeboard will be happy to intervene and decide the outcome. Snappy ( talk) 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The party is certainly minor having no elected representatives. I cant see the party gaining any representatives any time soon, even after the local elections next year. The right wing description is certainly debatable. Leave it out for the moment. CivisHibernius ( talk) 17:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not a member of DDi but I am an advocate of Direct democracy principles as have been used in Iceland, Switzerland, in many US States, in many commercial organizations, research groups and online debating forums for many years now. DDI is simply promoting the concept of Direct democracy in Ireland as apposed to representative democracy. Claims that DDi is linked to FOTL, Christain groups etc simply shows the ignorance in the concept by certain media and vested interests in Ireland. Even if these claims were true under a DD system the individual advocates personal opinions and beliefs (in this case Ben Gilroy and Co.) would be entirely benign/irrelevant, as should they be elected they would simply be conduits to voice and concerns of the electorate on any given issue. Any decision made that would go against the wishes of the majority would invoke the right to recall. The 'Mission Statement' on their website is concurrent with those of other DD movements in other parts of the world and I should add is totally devoid of FOTL type statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djivor ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Once again here is edit warring going on here over the content of this article, could all users refrain from removing reliably referenced material and from accusations of vandalism or bias? Please discuss your issues with the current content here first, before editing. Also, could newer editors read Conflict of interest?
The current content dispute centres around the following issues, (please add, if I have missed any point):
As before, we all need to discuss these issues calmly and politely. Sources need to be checked and verified, personal opinion is not allowed. Snappy ( talk) 13:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Snappy.
The claim by the CPPC does not have a valid reference. I removed it and gave this reason, but you added it back in.
The party is not connected with the Freemen On The Land movement or the Christian Solidarity Party. The references cited for these claims are opinion pieces, the are not fact-based, therefore I don't think this content should be allowed. And the cited article by the Irish Times doesn't seem to dispute this at all. The reference in the article is to "Giolla Rua", a search of this term on the Freemen On The Land's website does not match anything. The most that can be claimed on the basis of the cited articles is that DDI has been accused of having ties to the Freeman On The Land movement.
Whether or not the party is "right wing" or "minor" are matters of opinion and definition. The fact is that they are an Irish political party, so this is what the content should express. Johnro76 ( talk) 14:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I am going to edit to reflect the above.
Thanks, Johnro76 ( talk) 15:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
One further point before I edit: the ideology section lists "Freeman[sic] on the Land" and the cite/reference is to a SIPTU bulletin, which I don't believe can easily be claimed to be a source of fact.
Thank you, Johnro76 ( talk) 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Response
Response
There simply is no links to the CSP and Freeman stuff in the mandate, constitution and rules of Direct Democracy Ireland besides what An Phoblacht or other newspapers might try repeatedly trying to lie and state as ALLEGATIONS as they try defeat DDI as the fastest growing Irish political party in Ireland. This should be allowed stated - or a statement allowed that the ALLEGATIONS as referenced are disputed. There is a lot of references to allegations (and thats fair enough for what they are) but these such be taken as such - not accepted and passed as proof.
Wikipedia fails to mention any of the FULL truth you will also see...
Jeff Rudd ( talk) 17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Johnro76 ( talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I will quote CommieMark's response again in order to reply: New users who are openly members of DDI should read Conflict of interest
The FOTL & CSP links have been highlighted by a large number of publications including Phoenix Magazine, Irish Times, An Phoblacht, Liberty, Law Society Gazette and others. The BNP allege they are not fascist yet on their page the content box includes this as an ideology they subscribe to due to numerous references which show this link.
The description of the party as "minor" was also reached previously by editors as it has no elected reps at local, national or EU level.-- CommieMark ( talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Again I must point out that there simply is no links whatsoever to the Christian Socialist Party and Freeman stuff in the DDI mandate, constitution and rules of Direct Democracy Ireland.
One person person MIGHT be of that thinking partly - however we are a democratic organisation and have NO mandate, ideology, etc to Freemanship, no proof, ONLY ALLEGATIONS coming from questionable sources referenced (allegations - not proof), there simply is not a connection by our many thousands (see the numbers on our facebook alone) of members and fans being connected to the freeman stuff.
Nothing. One person is not a majority nor is it proof of majority thinking.
I formally request that the Ideology box section be edited to reflect this. We do NOT follow an Ideology of Freemanship. Its the complete opposite to our actual constitution if anyone actually reads it for example.
I am (a) also on record as stating our political position ON PUBLIC RECORD - this should be at least referenced and (b) I have directly notified Mr J Wales of the inability so far of anon' others willing to correct lies that are out there still. Jeff Rudd ( talk) 18:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing.
|
---|
Assuming that ALLEGATIONS are in fact proof - is not good faith either! Its cannot be stated simply enough - there is NO PROOF ANYWHERE that there is ANY Freeman ideology in: (a) the constitution of DDI (b) the mandate of the Organisation (C) the official rules legally adopted by democratic vote by everyone in the organisation - except for one person who MIGHT (and they even have NOT been proved either! Just more ALLEGATIONS!) think of some of those notions. As he is one person with one vote, the other 4,000 people that like DDI and have created a democratic structure which has voted to adopt said rules, mandate and constitution, are not voting with him to adopt Freeman ideology. They NEVER did and still do not. It is NOT anywhere in our mandate, our constitution or in our rules. It simply don't exist. Why continue to post on this site ALLEGATIONS that are not or ever been proved - and allow the ALLEGATIONS to be posted as confirmed PROOF? Fine, mention the ALLEGATIONS - but please not have your site state that its verified and true - it has NOT been proven (and frankly, cannot be). Direct Democracy Ireland is NOT an Freeman Ideology based organisation. Ask your editors to provide proof to this - they have provided references to ALLEGATIONS - ones made by other anon' people previous - some (yes we know the exact names of these people) who are posting crap around the internet then referencing their own allegations as supposed roof - which it is not. I REPEAT: Ask your editors to provide proof to where DDI is undeniably Freeman ideology - they simply cannot. They will just post links to allegations - ones they have made themselves anon'. I ask that the page be edited to reflect that there is NO PROOF that DDI is of Freeman ideology. Ask the one editor all the time posting this to show where on news media sites, DDI sites, DDI postings around the web world state ANYTHING that proves we are of Freeman based ideology. Ask him to show where EXACTLY the Freeman ideology exists in structure, rules and direction it exists. You will be kept waiting for proof. ALLEGATIONS are NOT proof! You will be kept waiting for verifiable proof - you will get the same old allegations - just no proof whatsoever - because it don't exist and never did. All one has to do is examine Freeman ideology and then look at the www.directdemocracy.ie website - the two are worlds apart and do not match up in content in ANY way. Its that simple to see the difference. Plain as day and night. My organisation will continue to talk to Mr Wales about this and continue to highlight the lies that are being still allowed to be wrongly broadcast through this site - further bringing it into disrepute and ruining it reputation - and that's a shame to those that work hard on this site alone to keep it true! Jeff Rudd ( talk) 23:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Its ironic that I now stand accused of conflict of interests when one anon' CommieMark is breaking the COI rules. . The rule he is breaking is namely: Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. . The anon' editor is an element/supporter of Sinn Fein, by his own words on a COI page on Wiki: a front for an Irish terror organisation known as the IRA - He is constantly altering the data about other political parties that are peacefully opposing his own - that includes Direct Democracy Ireland. All anyone has to do is look that the serious number of edits he does for a number of websites including very regular, his political parties newspaper "An Phoblacht" and other related sites that try to publish information related to other atrocities. These people are know to us as they are known to the Irish Gardi (police) and other countries police as well as investigation departments as home in Ireland, England and elsewhere. He even uses a well known expression on his personal Wiki page "Tiocfaidh Ár Lá" that is TOTALLY connected and used ONLY by the Sinn Fein and IRA organisation. (1) Google it as an image as well as text format. See: sinnfeinbookshop dot com/tiocfaidh-ar-la/ See: img854.imageshack dot us/img854/2468/v7cy.jpg . (2) This is without question. It can be simply goggled and the facts are there in the hundreds to view. User Commiemark is in conflict of interests as laid used without question, under your current guidelines. Again: namely: "Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." . (3) All his edits and submissions should be taken in the light that by his own words he's a rival/competitor. He states this himself "I do have an interest in left-wing politics and Irish republicanism" (See the COI page related to this matter) This much is very clear - all one has to do is check the items he's been editing. His own specialised "tiocfaidh-ar-la" statement on his own Wiki personal page which is DIRECTLY related to a political competitor to Direct Democracy Ireland. There is no if's or but's about this - its very clear, can be easily checked - thus he's repeatedly editing a pages of his political competitor. IF I stand accused of COI - then so does he and for some time it looks like he has gotten away with it. ALL his edits should be taken in this light - and the question should be asked (a) "Why is he doing this?" abd (b) Why is he doing this with so much repeated vigor, so regular?" ...Why? Because its politically motivated - as he has stated himself and its now on record: "I do have an interest in left-wing politics and Irish republicanism" - Irish republicanism" = Sinn Fein, a rival political party and other elements of similar nature. some peaceful - sadly some very not so peaceful. . I state all this knowing that I am putting my life at very risk via other people/supporters out in the real world - and should anything happen to me now or in the future, I wish Wikipedia to notify the Irish Gardi and Interpol as to the events that has occurred here and what might be connected to my sudden death or any injury that might fall upon me. I have already been threatened by phone call prior to this and this matter is being brought to the attention of our Irish police (Gardi) force. I have now made a public similar statement on my own personal website, that my health and welfare might be at risk. I have now notified a number of people to the events surrounding this page and topic should anything happen to myself. . Again I request that in the box on the right of the DDI Wiki page, where it states our ideology, we are NOT of Freeman origin. This alone is still stated here - as a moderator has already pointed out, it is unsubstantiated and not proven - yet there it still is! I ask for that ideology slur to be removed at the very least. Its insulting to the many, many good people in our nations organisation. Jeff Rudd ( talk) 07:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
Collapsing.
|
---|
CommieMark is in CLEAR breach of the COI rules. In regards to "Competition" and "Bias" There is no if's or but's about this. Also because CommieMark is biased given his Republican ideology (he admits himself he has this), the FULL truths of items on the page are (not surprisingly) left out! 1. Ben Gilroy was arrested for not submitting his election expenses - correct - but the case was dropped by the law and the media when it was discovered this latter related to him not claiming money off the state that he was actually entitled to. 2. The radio clip that was played to Ben Gilroy on LMFM raidio was from from a previous auction TWO years ago - not as stated from the one most recent. Because of the bad way in which LMFM tried to put it across to listeners that the clip was actually from the recent one, there are a number of official complaints with the Broadcasting authority of Ireland on this matter. For example: Complaint Ref No. 64/13 - this matter is being resolved as I type and the owner of the station has acknowledge that the show as aired, had problems. ...All this is cleverly not mentioned - why? Because someone that is breaking the Wikipedia rules, who is competition with our organisation and has a political bias, wishes not to mention any of this mainly due to it reflecting a different light on matters than he would rather be seen - for obvious reason. Jeff Rudd ( talk) 08:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi talk, just on the removal of the ILR reference. I realise they have republished from a blog but ILR is a quarterly publication which prints articles from left-wing activists (including from their personal blogs) and is considered to be of a fairly high standard. On the person involved, while clearly a leftist I don't believe that warrants discounting his analysis of DDI as right-wing populist. (Cedar Lounge Revolution and Irish Election Literature would be two other high-standard blogs often referenced by mainstream news sources) Cheers -- CommieMark ( talk) 19:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I propose we remove the inclusion of "right-wing populism" under ideology. Despite very tenuous association with the right, DDI haven't actually committed any real right-wing action or talk. So at this stage it's all just speculation. They claim themselves to have neither a right nor a left wing stance (since in direct democracy the views of a politician would be incidental to those of the constituents). They very well may turn out to be the right-wing in sheep's clothing, but they haven't done anything to give them that description yet to my knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.120.34 ( talk) 18:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry now, but I am completely new to this. All I would like to know is whom originally wrote this article, and whom is responsible for it's alteration. Just so everybody knows, I am a member of DDI and I find most of the articles here offensive and designed to do one thing, discredit DDI. Now one would have to ask, Who would do such a thing? The mind boggles. Why? The mind boggles. As someone who has only got into politics, it's been a steep learning curve. Rather than be honest, it seems the opposite is the trend. If the authors of this piece had any honesty and integrity they would write a balanced piece. Unfortunatly they have not. And shame on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrymccarthy ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the removal of "right-wing populism" in ideology, the parties leanings in any direction is only accusation and speculation, left wing parties call DDI right wing, and right wing parties call DDI left wing, even the sources given are only speculation, one of which in fact is no longer there, not to mention it was an RTE piece that was heavily edited with the goal of making it look like DDI was extreme right wingers and freemen (which might be partially why it was removed, due to the amount of criticism it received for its biased "attack"). DDI has always from the very start made it very clear that it was neither right, left or centrist, the very meaning of Direct Democracy disallows the party to have any heavy leanings because it is mandated by the people, not the party. So having "right-wing populism" in its ideology is simply a lie with no bearing other than oppositions speculations/accusations and some internet warriors blogs... I should add that I won't be making the edit myself as I am a DDI member, in fact I'm a member of it's executive committee, so as one of the people helping to run the entire party I can confirm here and now that it IS NOT right, left or centrist. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecablt1 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
i am requesting that under idealogy that it be change to Centre as direct democracy when reinstated in back in the constitution will negate whether a party is left wing or right wing under article 47 of the 1922 constituiton direct democracy was in force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Railsparks - apart from your Request for Adminship and a couple of articles on Dáil constituencies, you don't appear to have edited any pages apart from this one. Do you need to declare a conflict of interest? The reference you are using - "(political position changed from right wing to centre [3])" to support changing DDI's political position from right-wing to centre isn't a valid one, as it's quoting a primary source. You would need to find a secondary source to support that. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
so is it ok to use material based on allegations rather than fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
user murry1975 and if you read that article it says and i quote "neither left or right but about balance" and balance is in the middle or also know as centre. Railsparks ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
user murray1975An Phoblacht is a sinn fein paper which is allowed to be used as material for reference even though most of the story is absolute rubbish but when DDI give an ansewer its what the party said,but you allow this as reference even though the paper is biased towards DDI. Railsparks ( talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) user murry1975with regard to using blogs as citable material you said it cannot be used but under reference No.9 on the ddi page connor farrells page which is a blog is allowed to be used Railsparks ( talk) 21:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
user murry1975 so now its ok to use a blog as citetable material,connor farrells page is a wordpress [4] Railsparks ( talk) 22:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
user murry1975yes it is try reading that word after conorfell.com "WORDPRESS" do i have to spell it out for you. Railsparks ( talk) 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
user murry1975 so connorr farells page says wordpress but it isnt wordpress in your eyes and a blog is not a blog Railsparks ( talk) 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I am now asking for the removal of "right-wing populism" in ideology, the parties leanings in any direction is only accusation and speculation, left wing parties call DDI right wing, and right wing parties call DDI left wing, even the sources given are only speculation, one of which in fact is no longer there, not to mention it was an RTE piece that was heavily edited with the goal of making it look like DDI was extreme right wingers and freemen (which might be partially why it was removed, due to the amount of criticism it received for its biased "attack"). DDI has always from the very start made it very clear that it was neither right, left or centrist, the very meaning of Direct Democracy disallows the party to have any heavy leanings because it is mandated by the people, not the party. So having "right-wing populism" in its ideology is simply a lie with no bearing other than oppositions speculations/accusations and some internet warriors blogs. Railsparks ( talk) 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi batsun things change it is only in the last couple of weeks that DDI has come together with 3 other groups forming a left wing pact i have cited this several times and added a link from the irish times if the irish times is not a creditable source then please remove all other links to the irish times on the DDI reference list,also i would like to point out that there is a reference from a political party newspaper and used as a reliable source i didnt realise that a newspaper from a political party was a reliable source if that is the case then a blog is a reliable source,i have other issue that have been highlighted but nothing done if you look at previous posts on the talk page i would like to discuss without any interference from other admins who have constantly reverted pages to what they want one them has just asked you why i havnt been blocked. Railsparks ( talk) 18:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
hi no i dont have a COI, but clearly 3 admins who work on the DDI page have and i thought that the admins were supposed to have a NPOV as i have stated before that most of the references that have been used are pure speculation,i didnt realise that heresay and conjecture were a reliable sourse you wouldnt even get a conviction in court if you were to use that,so i am asking now will the page be updated on fact and not opinion based articles. Railsparks ( talk) 12:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
snappy DDI have signed up to the right2change platform which is to promote left wing parties and i have cited the irish times several times where it it says they have signed up but still no change is allowed on the DDI page i was asked before if i had citable material which i have used but has not been allowed to do so. [5]
DDI has signed up to the right2change platform but when the you click the link on the DDI page it brings up right2change wiki but no reference to DDI why is this. [6]
while we are on about reliable sources half the references on the DDI wiki page are hearsay i didnt realise that a party political paper such as An phoblacht was a reliable source,and also what references on the DDI wiki page are used to say that DDI right wing,Do you have a reliable sources that proves DDI is right wing? Railsparks ( talk) 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
A third opinion has been requested. There appear to be three editors, in which case a third opinion is not applicable. If there are only two editors involved, what is the question? Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
there is a content dispute,references used are not factual only opinion. Railsparks ( talk) 11:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi robert,under political position on DDI it says Right Wing though there is no evidence or creditable source supporting such/Two Editors17:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
sorry but its been Murry1975 and Snappy nearly all the the time batsun only came in to fix broken links,the third opinion still stands Railsparks ( talk) 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I am calling for the removal of right wing under the heading of Political Position on the Direct Democracy Ireland page,there is not one reference on the page that says Direct democracy is Right Wing. Railsparks ( talk) 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
care the to list the three unreliable sources then Railsparks ( talk) 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Not one of them mentions right wing Railsparks ( talk) 14:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
please list the ones that are populist and which are Right-wing? Railsparks ( talk) 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
there is not one mention in those references of right wing. Railsparks ( talk) 11:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
which reference refers to DDI as right wing,you obvious wont answer the question as you know well enough that it is not there Railsparks ( talk) 17:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
so a newspaper by a political party is a reliable source,second the articles do not directly say DDI is right wing that is not a reliable heresay and opinion which is not fact. 95.83.253.130 ( talk) 21:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! yet again supposed references to DDI being right-wing are unproven not one of the articles say that DDI are Right-wing but more so speculation,if people were to be jailed under speculation half the country would be jailed. Railsparks ( talk) 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Railsparks, stop changing "right-wing populism" to "populism" using an edit summary of "typo fixed". You're fooling nobody. I've restored the referenced text. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:51, 14 November 2016 UTC
there is still no substantial or solid evidence that proves that DDI is right wing any of the reference used are just heresay,so if DDI is to share a tweet from a left wing party and say i have i have admiration from that man would that make the party left wing Railsparks ( talk) 18:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Direct Democracy Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Direct Democracy Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://directdemocracyireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Raymond-Whitehead.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://directdemocracyireland.ie/allsops-michael-reade-and-the-shameful-abuse-of-lmfm-for-political-gain/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.conorfarrell.com/wordpress/politics-2/the-hidden-face-of-ddiWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Railsparks, you are removing referenced content; stop. The current version has consensus. You appear to edit almost exclusively on this article and I suspect a WP:COI due to that and your attempt to minimise or remove anything that could be perceived as negative about DDI. The references you have removed back the assertion that a protest happened. The later text and references cover the remarks from Gilroy perceived to be racist by the interviewer and others. Stop whitewashing, and get consensus for any changes you're proposing. Right now, you have none. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC) (Edit to add: You may also want to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Bastunthe protest did happen and the papers never said that gilroy or DDI shouted racist abuse which is used a refence as the party right wing,on the political position DDI have repeatedly said they are "left nor right" but about balance which would make them centre grouping but you choose to use the right wing argument Railsparks ( talk) 19:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! and it says in the article for your consideration it does not say leave,i didnt realise that reference from one own website was allowed to be used as citable material,so ddi were to do an article that are left nor right wing but about balance ie a centre party would that then be considered as citable material Railsparks ( talk) 17:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! its already mentioned in ref#8 irishtimes that the party is niether left nor right but about balance there is also a 1 or 2 other sources saying the samething and ddi already have it up on their website so it wouldnt just pop up as you say if you said yes to my question but choose to ignore it http://www.ourcampaigns.com/PartyDetail.html?PartyID=5680 Railsparks ( talk) 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! he acutally said The party is not “left or right but about balance”, party member Ben Gilroy said Railsparks ( talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!and the withrawl from eurozone on ddi website is primary aswell and this is third party http://www.ourcampaigns.com/PartyDetail.html?PartyID=5680 Railsparks ( talk) 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This party is labelled as right wing, but with some cursory glances at their stances and manifesto they seem pretty firmly left-wing.
https://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/direct-democracy-ireland-wikipedia-page/ 139.0.28.18 ( talk) 15:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted to the last good version by Spleodrach. An Phoblacht isn't a great reference, admittedly, but it is still a reliable source for what it's used to back. And frankly, Helper201, if you can read this and come to the conclusion that it can't be used to cite DDI as right wing, you may need to check your editing privileges... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
first of all the village isnt a reliable source. second of all can you point to where ddi is explicitly called right-wing? 41.75.76.75 ( talk) 13:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
if it is very clear then please give the paragraph or sentence where ddi is explitly called right wing. so ddi cant be used as a reliable source but the magazine of the sinn fein party can? are you for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.75.76.75 ( talk) 14:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Direct Democracy Ireland → Liberty Republic – It has rebranded, and the Electoral Commission has proposed to change its registration. It doesn’t have the prominence of Renua, so the same issues don’t arise in terms of that rebranding. However, my caution is that the registration won’t take effect for these elections, so candidates will still appear on the ballot as DDI. I’d be inclined to call them Liberty Republic, but with an explanatory footnote, but worth a discussion before implementing any change to the article title. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 12:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)