This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
The National Party aren't Far Right. They're certainly right wing, but if anything just an extremely conservative party.
The @claims of NP being far right usually come from the fact Justin Barret attended far right meetings in Europe, ON BEHALF of a pro-life organisation, it doesn't necessarily mean that the parties meeting he attended reflects his own views, another thing is, people may bring a comment he made on muslim people, which he actually recanted thus, how is it of any importance? The National Party DESCRIBE themselves as nationalist, not ultra nationalist, not white nationalist, no far right term, just as nationalist. As a member I know that the party is a conservative party, it isn't any of this BS. Anyone trying to claim it as "far-right" are either uneducated or want to try make the party look bad.
Tim121212 (
talk)
14:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Pardon me, I am a disinterested
recent changes patroller. As a self-declared member of the party, you clearly have a
conflict of interest and should be proposing changes here rather than editing the article directly. Relying on what the party says about itself goes against
WP:PRIMARY; if they declared themselves centrist, Wikipedia would still rely on secondary sources rather than the party itself. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Read
WP:PRIMARY and
WP:RS (and, while you're here, read the discussions above, too - it would save us all a lot of time). We go by what reliable secondary sources say about the subject, not what the subject says about themselves. Doing the latter would be dumb. The Irish Times, Irish Independent, Examiner, Journal, and Irish Central all describe the NP as far-right. They are all reliable secondary sources. Sorry to break it to you, but a party that protests outside asylum-seekers' accommodation and has depictions of nooses at its protests isn't "just right-wing and conservative."
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Supporting death penalty doesn't equal far right, and you're making the protests sound bad when they're not, but I'm not really bothered debating as i know that it won't change
Tim121212 (
talk)
15:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The person they were protesting with their nooses has not committed any crime, been charged with any crime, or been convicted of any crime, let along a capital one. We both know exactly what they were doing, and why. And it has nothing to do with the death penalty. The protests "aren't bad"? Maybe not if you're the one outside, shouting in. If you were in your accommodation, with the protestors outside, you might think otherwise. You're not bothered debating as you don't have a leg to stand on. Jog on.
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!16:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Whatever about the death penalty, having a leader who quotes Hitler certainly makes a party far-right. Indeed there may even be a case for adding neo-Nazism to its ideology based on that fact alone.
YoungIreland (
talk)
14:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:VER, Wikipedia reflects the reliable/verifiable sources. Multiple such sources, including a recent one referenced by a user who implied that they were a member of the party
in this edit, describe the org as "
far-right".
WP:COI, Wikipedia editors are expected to follow the related policies. As you have
already declared a connection to the subject, please propose changes on this talk page, and do not add images or text (as
here and as implied in your edit summary) to promote or advocate for a subject. Please also consider adding "{{
UserboxCOI|National Party (Ireland, 2016)}}" to your user page.
This section is allowed as the electoral commission has allowed Reynolds faction run in elections under the National Party banner. Removing the section of these candidates it not providing clear information to the public about the National Party, I don't understand how people are removing it.
Tim121212 (
talk)
15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No party gets to list all of its local election candidates. Why should the National Party differ? Do you have a
WP:COI you need to declare? As mentioned by
Ser!, you need to get consensus for your edits - don't just revert; discuss! The
WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus. You won't get consensus to include a list of candidates or set out "eleven principles" in full.
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
1: This section is allowed as the electoral commission has allowed Reynolds faction run in elections under the National Party banner. It is not "allowed", there's nothing in Wiki policy that directly allows this. We don't include any party's list of election candidates per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
2: Copy and pasting a party's policy points from their website is a copyright violation and also
WP:UNDUE.
3: Much of the content you've added outside of this section has been based on YouTube videos, which is not a reliable source. See
WP:RS.
4: "Please do not remove" is attempted
WP:OWNership of the article and does not fly here.
You see no reason to include recent events regarding the National Party? I'd like to know also why the images should be removed also? It also isn't copyright, do you want to get into why it isnt? I am giving an unbiassed look of things, i am a member of the national party and i know for a fact i got permission to copy and paste the parties principles, i have not been biassed even as being a member and I am simply adding on more recent information. Tell me, why has the area about them attending a recent protest with the image of it and also a sticker used by the NP been removed?
Let me add on, removing images showcasing things about the party is not fair. Them recently attending an immigration rally where a member spoke to a large crowd, with a picture of them being in the news, is a fair enough thing to add to their wikipedia page. I am questioning if you simply want to make them look bad? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tim121212 (
talk •
contribs)
Hi. RE: "I am questioning if you simply want to make them look bad?". If you haven't yet read the
WP:COI guidelines, then please do. One of the related issues with COI editing is that, when an editor with a COI adds
uncited, non-neutral and potentially promotional content then they may not be fully self-aware that that is what they have done. And, when an other editor removes it, the COI editor may presume that the removal is based on a "counter" bias. That is not the case. The related content has been removed because it is not compliant with the policies of this project. Including
WP:NPOV policies. Not because anyone wants to "make them look bad". In any event, how would an edit like
this or
this make the subject "look bad"? In any way? (If you think removing a
WP:NOTWEBHOST/
WP:NOTPROMO/
WP:NOTDIRECTORY list of party members makes the subject "look bad", then you need to take a look at your editing motivations.)
Guliolopez (
talk)
20:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree 100% with Guliolopez. And on the subject of images, the Social Democrats have six members of the Oireachtas, and 22 councillors. Their article has a gallery box with images of their Oireachtas members, that's it. The Green Party has 17 members of the Oireachtas, 45 councillors and 2 MEPs. Their article has three images, total, not counting photos of leaders. The Labour Party - which is the oldest party in the state, at 112 years old! - has 12 images on its article (not counting photos of recent leaders). They have 12 members of the Oireachtas and 55 councillors. Fianna Fáil - four images. Fine Gael - one image that isn't logos or leaders! The National Party has zero members of the Oireachtas and zero councillors, yet has four images in its article (not counting the photo of Barrett). I don't think you're being that hard done by!
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!21:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, you're clearly biased, a member of the party, and the Reynolds faction. You can make edit requests in the form "Change X wording to Y wording" or "Add this text" (with references) in new sections, and they'll be examined.
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!23:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi. Per related
ed summ, I've removed the main/article space tag.
That tag is a "cleanup" tag. Highlighting that article cleanup is (currently) required. It is not an advisory tag. Highlighting that COI edits have (previously) occurred.
If a confirmed COI editor has edited the page, then the related (advisory) tag goes on the Talk page. As I had
already done.
Just because "one recent editor has admitted to [having a COI]", doesn't mean the entire article needs cleanup(?) Especially when the COI edits have already been reviewed/addressed/removed/tempered as needed.
If any issues remain (which?) they can be addressed directly. Is there an article-level cleanup issue currently? Or was that tag added simply as an advisory?
Guliolopez (
talk)
00:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Just an advisory, no problem with the removal. I added it as I was expecting further edits from the editor in question or others similarly involved, but the page protection should prevent that. I agree, it wasn't the best of tags to use.
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not relevant anymore as the 2024 Irish local elections are over. Any information on the party's platform is purely for informational purposes only. Besides, the party platform is already explained, even if in a disorderly manner, under the ideology and policies section. I do not understand why an orderly description keeps getting deleted.
HorCrux48 (
talk)
21:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
RE: "I do not understand why an orderly description keeps getting deleted". Please take the time to read the guidelines linked in the related edit summaries. Including
WP:NOTPROMO,
WP:NOTMISSION,
WP:NOTMIRROR and
WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia is not a republisher or mirror for (
copyrighted) content of that type. Whether its "orderly" or not doesn't come into it.
Guliolopez (
talk)
16:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Party slogan translation
The party's slogan, 'Ar dheis ar aghaidh!' is given the translation as 'Forward and to the right!' I feel that this doesn't correctly capture the intention of the statement, and may seem confusing to readers who don't speak English. I understand that translations can often fail to fully grasp the meaning of the original, but even so I think the translation here can be improved. As a side note before getting into translations of the above - does the party not also use the slogan "Right so far"?
So, 'ar aghaidh' has multiple meanings, and I think several of the alternatives better suit the intention here.
'Onward to the right!'
'Advance to the right!'
'On to the right!'
Even 'Forward to the right!' fits better than "Forward and", given the lack of a conjunction in the Irish.
I propose that the page currently titled "National Party (Ireland, 2016)" be moved to a more appropriate title, such as "National Party (Ireland)" or "National Party (political party)".
Rationale for the Move:
The current title, "National Party (Ireland, 2016)," suggests a temporary or defunct political grouping specific to the year 2016, rather than an active political entity. This is misleading as it does not accurately reflect the ongoing activity.
HorCrux48 (
talk)
20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. While I partially agree with the nominator's position (that the "2016" suffix is a less-than-ideal disambiguator), neither of the proposed titles account for the fact that there have been other parties (in Ireland and elsewhere) called the
National Party. If the nominator is proposing
National Party (Ireland), then the nominator needs to justify/support an assertion that the "current" party of this name is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among other/former such Irish parties. If the nominator is proposing
National Party (political party), then the nominator needs to justify/explain how the Irish party is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC relative to all other such parties globally.
Guliolopez (
talk)
21:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Deputy leader
If the leader of the party is disputed, then surely the deputy leader is too? The naming of Patrick Quinlan as the deputy leader in the infobox should have a footnote stating he is deputy to James Reynolds, not Justin Barrett. If Barrett's deputy is not known, that should be stated too. It would also be desirable to have an independent source, rather than the NP website.
2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:1591:E40F:72E3:CE69 (
talk)
15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Following his defeat in the 2024 European election, James Reynolds stated that he would never run under the National Party banner again, because "the National Party brand is a toxic brand."
[1]
Could we discuss the edits which have been reversed by The Banner. I don't see how they're political POV pushing. I explained my rationale in the edit histories. In addition to naming a person who has not yet been named elsewhere on the page, and who is not named in any third party source, the current sentence is just poorly worded gramatically. Discuss.
Mikebarrett0 (
talk)
11:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Mikebarrett0 removed the surname 'Conroy', which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Who is this 'Conroy'? We shouldn't have to click through to (Justin) Barrett's blog to find out. The removal was therefore correct, given that the name by itself has zero context. The version you reverted to now reads He used the organisation to attack the Reynolds and Conroy faction within the party National Party (my emphasis), which is ungrammatical. There is nothing 'not neutral' about leaving out the name of someone who is not mentioned anywhere else?
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What I also removed was The Reynolds-led faction fielded candidates in 15 local electoral authorities, returning one councillor - Patrick Quinlan in Fingal County Council.The Bannertalk23:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, you removed that at
11:47 yesterday - correctly, IMO. Mikebarrett0 made two subsequent edits, 1) removing the Conroy name, and 2) correcting the grammatical error - also both correct. He did not reinstate the claim about Patrick Quinlan. You reverted those two changes at
12:48 - incorrectly. You should self-revert that last edit.
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I propose making the following addition to the leadership dispute section when restrictions are lifted:
As of April 2024, the leadership was still in dispute, with competing submissions being made to the
Electoral Commission.[1][2] Both factions ran candidates in the
June 2024 European elections, with two candidates each running in the Dublin and Midlands-Northwest constituencies. Both Barrett and Reynolds ran unsuccessfully in the latter constituency. One councillor, Patrick Quinlan, was elected to Fingal County Council in the in
local elections.[3] BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply