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. |
Hi. Two previous articles on this subject were deleted relatively recently (Sep 2018 and Mar 2019). Has something materially changed to address the concerns of those involved in the AfD discussion(s) since then?
The main concern previously raised were related to WP:TOOSOON (in that the party was unregistered and had not announced nor fielded any candidates in any election). This is still the case.
The other concerns related to WP:GNG (in that the subject had, other than ROTM reprinted press-releases/etc, not been the subject of much coverage). As far as I am aware, the main material coverage in the meantime has related to the reports in The Times, Today FM, and elsewhere, about the group's apparent use of stock photos and placeholder text in place of actual candidate profiles. And the subsequent confusion that caused.
Anyway... Is there consensus that the results of the previous AfD and previous deletion decisions are now superceded? Guliolopez ( talk) 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I got a 4 month ban for editing this page !!!!
Fair enough - I will, as a result, no longer make donations to wikipedia if you allow this facist hatred to go unchallenged. Notwithstanding this page for which I have received a ban for editing contravenes wikipedias rules in that it has been set up under the auspices an article of public interest whereas its an advertisement and free exposure as a 'new' player in Irish politics (even though they are financed by the british brexit community). To date (the lead in of the EU elections) they have not achieved any recognition or notability in the political arena (another wikipedia rule). As such I will still encourage people to visit
http://irexitfreedom.eu/ to give a more honest reflection to the international community of the national position in OUR country. I know it's reiterating what is being said on this talk page, but while this wiki page continues to exist it is providing free advertising and google bot notice. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.71.159.189 (
talk) 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Irishpolitical - as you should well know by now - the WP:BRD process is Bold (you made your edits), Revert (you got reverted), Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Re-revert and tell the other person to take it to the talk page. So, I'm going to put the article back to the first reverted state, while we discuss.
1) Membership - the figure for membership is imprecise and unsourced. Yes, they have a figure on their website, but that's just a claim and unsubstantiated.
2) Parties that have doubts about the EU and want to see reforms - minor to major - are described as eurosceptic. Parties that want to leave the EU - especially ones set up with that as their primary aim - can be safely described as hard eurosceptics]. I'm really not seeing your problem with describing them as such.
3) The party is unregistered and should be described as such until such time as they register. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1. So it's unsubstantiated when it's that but you're happy to use the website as a primary source for many other references. Again it's nitpicking and selectively choosing when the follow rules.
2. Hard eurosceptic vs. soft eurosceptic are not terms used by any genuine eurosceptic or anti-EU Party.
3. The fact they're unregistered is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede. No reason to keep mentioning it other than to demean the party as "illegitimate".
Honestly this article is fairly good currently as it's neutral, and it's only a matter of time before editors like yourself, Scoilaire, Speolodrach, etc. come in and grief the page and carricature them as 'far-right' un-Irish nationalists, just as has been done on the National Party, identity Ireland, and other pages. A clear axe to grind against parties of the right. Very biased. Irishpolitical ( talk) 07:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, Irishpolitical removed an otherwise reasonable claim: that Peter Casey is "linked to the party". (A claim which is supported by more than one source.) And replaced it with a claim: that Peter Casey is a candidate "standing for the party". (A claim which is supported by no other source. And, in fact, directly contradicts other available sources, including the subjects' own websites.)
The first rationale for this change was essentially that "Cahill and Kelly are also independent - what's the diff?". Which doesn't stack up. Not least because the difference is that Cahill and Kelly have declared for the party, have been declared as candidates by the party, and are listed as members and candidates on the party's website. NONE of which apply to Casey.
A second rationale for this change is essentially that "we must reflect the source". Which also doesn't stack up. Not least because no other source makes the same claim. NONE.
Even Kelly's own Twitter post, in which he seems to endorse Casey, describes Casey as an independent candidate. [1] Which perhaps supports a general "linked with" statement. But directly contradicts the otherwise dubious "candidate for" claim.
In short, I see no reason to be adding claims which we know to be questionable. And which are supported only by a single source. I would be interested to hear other thoughts, but my understanding of WP:VER is that questionable claims require multiple sources. And this claim seems questionable in the extreme. (Not to mind a month out of date). Guliolopez ( talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I made the edit because of what I read and having looked into it he seems to have made references to an Irexit. This source seemed fairly reputable to me. There are various sources which list the other 2 IFP candidates as independents only. The distinction is blurry, considering the status of IFP as unregistered & not on the ballot paper.
Let me have a look for alternative sources & I'll get back to you.
Bye.
Irishpolitical ( talk) 08:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
What does the phrase "right-wing to far-right" in the opening sentence mean? Is it to say that some members are right-wing and others far-right? Or is it to say that some of their policies are right-wing and other policies far-right? That's not a very coherent description to me. StairySky ( talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. As per a recent series of edits, and as summarised in my edit summ here, it seems that this O'Keeffe/Examiner article contains a slight error. Or can be read as such. As per the various and verifiable records available, the Irish Freedom Party (IFP) ran 11 candidates in 11 constituencies. This is a matter of public record. While the O'Keeffe/Examiner article talks about the National Party (NP) and the IFP in the same sentence, and then seems to imply that the latter ran candidates in 21 constituencies alone, this is clearly an error. As we see elsewhere ( like this Journal piece which reads: "The Irish Freedom Party and the National Party stood candidates in 21 separate locations, receiving 2% or less of first-preference votes in every instance"), the "21" number in O'Keefe's piece clearly a combination of the IFP and the NP. Not the IFP alone. Given that this is a clear error, we shouldn't be repeating it. I have already emailed O'Keeffe@Examiner suggesting a correction. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, an IP editor:
Ignoring issues #1 and #2 for now, I have removed the text relating to #3 (as failing verification), and restored the text relating to #4 (as it is reliably sourced and relevant). I suggest that it is relevant (that Cahill stood as an independent in the July 2021 by-election) because it aids in the understanding of the subject and in particular of Cahill's changed relationship with the subject. (And yes, while it is somewhat OR to rely on the fact that Cahill was still all over the party's website (including its homepage) at the time of the by-election, I do not otherwise understand the argument that Cahill's move from party candidate to independent candidate is "irrelevant" to an understanding of the subject).
How, precisely, is the fact (that Cahill stood as an independent shortly after resigning her chair) either "erroneous" or "irrelevant"? Guliolopez ( talk) 18:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I acknowledge that Gript is a conservative opinion based publication, but I cannot find any other source that reports the attendance of Saoradh and individuals purporting to be Antifa at the December 2019 demonstration. Both sources I indcluded have photographic evidence of the party leader of Saoradh present as well as a banner with the word "anti-fascist" on it.
Please see sources here: https://gript.ie/revealed-far-left-group-investigated-in-connection-to-the-murder-of-lyra-mckee-attended-ngo-event/ and here: https://gript.ie/trocaire-stand-with-masked-antifa-against-free-speech/ Randolph-Bourne ( talk) 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
It appears most are in agreement that Gript is a reliable enough source to appear in the article.Huh? Excluding the IP with a WP:POINTY argument I'm counting two editors arguing against it being reliable, one in favour and then you chiming in now. On the actual noticeboard discussion linked above, excluding the two editors in this discussions, there's three against it being a reliable source and none in favour. There's no "most" or any of the gatekeeping you talk about. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 17:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
"Most are in agreement"; it's two people other than you, one of whom was a drive-by IP. Gript is documented as being a regular publisher of conspiracy theories and deliberate misinformation. It is not a reliable source for anything, but it's especially not a reliable source for reporting on the Irish far-right, with which it is deeply interconnected. AntiDionysius ( talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
It looks like an earlier editor tried to circumvent a deprecated source flag by linking to a page on the Irish Freedom Party website that no longer seems to exist. The source used is LifeSiteNews containing an interview Kelly gave in which he speaks about Irish abortion, birth rates falling below replacement levels, mentioning "great replacement of our children". I have added the original article in place of the dead link to the party webpage, but move that it should be excised entirely from the article in the interests of consistently not using anti abortion sources.
Other editors on this page do not want to use Gript, which is funded by the Life Institute lobby group, yet Gript is not declared a "deprecated source" by the wiki community. Randolph-Bourne ( talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Some sections of this article contain highly biased language and often state untruths that are not backed up by the sources they cite. In particular the Ideology section is littered with misleading language that almost seems by design to imply Hermann Kelly is "Alt Right".
I have tried to add better context to statements made by Kelly, and specify who made what assertions. Lines like Some commentators have linked party leader Hermann Kelly with alt-right ideologies are highly misleading as the source cited is only one publication, the Sunday Business Post. The only source which even mentions the epithet "Alt-Right". Moreover it mentions it in the context of Kelly appearing in YouTube video with an interviewer alleged to be Alt-Right. Other citations that dont mention "Alt Right" appear to be thrown in to give the veneer of this being a reliable statement. Bastun has claimed that the great replacement and "Alt-Right" ideology which is factually untrue, seeing as it originated from French Identitarianism and not the United States. Furthermore, the context in which the words "great replacement" are used by Kelly often are in the context of replacement birthrates etc.
I'd also like to draw attention to the use of dead links and unreliable sources. One line cites a video on youtube that does not exit. Another quotes an article from Anti-abortion website that flags on wiki as a deprecated source. Whichever user added this appeared to try circumvent the flag by quoting a copy and paste of the article on the IFP website. Then there are the tweets which are cited as sources, often picking and choosing lines to quote.
I've tried to make the language less biased and misleading, I have also added better context to quotes by Kelly. However, Bastun has reverted my edits. This whole section is a dumpsterfire, at the very least it needs to be cleaned up Randolph-Bourne ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
...also known as the replacement theory,[1][2] is a white nationalist[3] conspiracy theory, so I'm not really sure where you're going with that. Yes, the SBP describes Kelly as alt-right. The Irish Times says he promotes the Great Replacement theory. Rebel News includes him as 'far right'. The Journal accuses him of spreading far right messages against Roderic O'Gorman. Would you like those sources added?
Guliolopez We have multiple reliable sources that call the party right-wing. Saying "Far-right is a sub-set of "right-wing"" is not an agreed upon justification for not allowing right-wing on the page and/or in the infobox. There are a vast number of parties across Wikipedia where the terms of left-wing to far-left and right-wing to far-right are used. Its very commonplace and would need a wider consensus than an ad-hoc case-by-case dismissal. Helper201 ( talk) 10:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The Irish Freedom Party is described as "far-right" by multiple reliable sources, all writing this year. For example:
Normal right-wing parties don't attend protests where banners depict nooses or they're shouting slogans outside peoples' accommodation.
Seriously, Helper - we're in WP:SKYISBLUE territory, here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
and think all cultures are equal- and thus, in one fell swoop, you ended any chance you had at getting anything done on this page. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems well demonstrated above that the amount of sources describing the IFP as being expressly far right significantly outweigh any describing it as right-wing. Imo removing “right-wing” is the correct call here. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 15:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
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. |
Hi. Two previous articles on this subject were deleted relatively recently (Sep 2018 and Mar 2019). Has something materially changed to address the concerns of those involved in the AfD discussion(s) since then?
The main concern previously raised were related to WP:TOOSOON (in that the party was unregistered and had not announced nor fielded any candidates in any election). This is still the case.
The other concerns related to WP:GNG (in that the subject had, other than ROTM reprinted press-releases/etc, not been the subject of much coverage). As far as I am aware, the main material coverage in the meantime has related to the reports in The Times, Today FM, and elsewhere, about the group's apparent use of stock photos and placeholder text in place of actual candidate profiles. And the subsequent confusion that caused.
Anyway... Is there consensus that the results of the previous AfD and previous deletion decisions are now superceded? Guliolopez ( talk) 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I got a 4 month ban for editing this page !!!!
Fair enough - I will, as a result, no longer make donations to wikipedia if you allow this facist hatred to go unchallenged. Notwithstanding this page for which I have received a ban for editing contravenes wikipedias rules in that it has been set up under the auspices an article of public interest whereas its an advertisement and free exposure as a 'new' player in Irish politics (even though they are financed by the british brexit community). To date (the lead in of the EU elections) they have not achieved any recognition or notability in the political arena (another wikipedia rule). As such I will still encourage people to visit
http://irexitfreedom.eu/ to give a more honest reflection to the international community of the national position in OUR country. I know it's reiterating what is being said on this talk page, but while this wiki page continues to exist it is providing free advertising and google bot notice. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.71.159.189 (
talk) 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Irishpolitical - as you should well know by now - the WP:BRD process is Bold (you made your edits), Revert (you got reverted), Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Re-revert and tell the other person to take it to the talk page. So, I'm going to put the article back to the first reverted state, while we discuss.
1) Membership - the figure for membership is imprecise and unsourced. Yes, they have a figure on their website, but that's just a claim and unsubstantiated.
2) Parties that have doubts about the EU and want to see reforms - minor to major - are described as eurosceptic. Parties that want to leave the EU - especially ones set up with that as their primary aim - can be safely described as hard eurosceptics]. I'm really not seeing your problem with describing them as such.
3) The party is unregistered and should be described as such until such time as they register. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1. So it's unsubstantiated when it's that but you're happy to use the website as a primary source for many other references. Again it's nitpicking and selectively choosing when the follow rules.
2. Hard eurosceptic vs. soft eurosceptic are not terms used by any genuine eurosceptic or anti-EU Party.
3. The fact they're unregistered is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede. No reason to keep mentioning it other than to demean the party as "illegitimate".
Honestly this article is fairly good currently as it's neutral, and it's only a matter of time before editors like yourself, Scoilaire, Speolodrach, etc. come in and grief the page and carricature them as 'far-right' un-Irish nationalists, just as has been done on the National Party, identity Ireland, and other pages. A clear axe to grind against parties of the right. Very biased. Irishpolitical ( talk) 07:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, Irishpolitical removed an otherwise reasonable claim: that Peter Casey is "linked to the party". (A claim which is supported by more than one source.) And replaced it with a claim: that Peter Casey is a candidate "standing for the party". (A claim which is supported by no other source. And, in fact, directly contradicts other available sources, including the subjects' own websites.)
The first rationale for this change was essentially that "Cahill and Kelly are also independent - what's the diff?". Which doesn't stack up. Not least because the difference is that Cahill and Kelly have declared for the party, have been declared as candidates by the party, and are listed as members and candidates on the party's website. NONE of which apply to Casey.
A second rationale for this change is essentially that "we must reflect the source". Which also doesn't stack up. Not least because no other source makes the same claim. NONE.
Even Kelly's own Twitter post, in which he seems to endorse Casey, describes Casey as an independent candidate. [1] Which perhaps supports a general "linked with" statement. But directly contradicts the otherwise dubious "candidate for" claim.
In short, I see no reason to be adding claims which we know to be questionable. And which are supported only by a single source. I would be interested to hear other thoughts, but my understanding of WP:VER is that questionable claims require multiple sources. And this claim seems questionable in the extreme. (Not to mind a month out of date). Guliolopez ( talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I made the edit because of what I read and having looked into it he seems to have made references to an Irexit. This source seemed fairly reputable to me. There are various sources which list the other 2 IFP candidates as independents only. The distinction is blurry, considering the status of IFP as unregistered & not on the ballot paper.
Let me have a look for alternative sources & I'll get back to you.
Bye.
Irishpolitical ( talk) 08:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
What does the phrase "right-wing to far-right" in the opening sentence mean? Is it to say that some members are right-wing and others far-right? Or is it to say that some of their policies are right-wing and other policies far-right? That's not a very coherent description to me. StairySky ( talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. As per a recent series of edits, and as summarised in my edit summ here, it seems that this O'Keeffe/Examiner article contains a slight error. Or can be read as such. As per the various and verifiable records available, the Irish Freedom Party (IFP) ran 11 candidates in 11 constituencies. This is a matter of public record. While the O'Keeffe/Examiner article talks about the National Party (NP) and the IFP in the same sentence, and then seems to imply that the latter ran candidates in 21 constituencies alone, this is clearly an error. As we see elsewhere ( like this Journal piece which reads: "The Irish Freedom Party and the National Party stood candidates in 21 separate locations, receiving 2% or less of first-preference votes in every instance"), the "21" number in O'Keefe's piece clearly a combination of the IFP and the NP. Not the IFP alone. Given that this is a clear error, we shouldn't be repeating it. I have already emailed O'Keeffe@Examiner suggesting a correction. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, an IP editor:
Ignoring issues #1 and #2 for now, I have removed the text relating to #3 (as failing verification), and restored the text relating to #4 (as it is reliably sourced and relevant). I suggest that it is relevant (that Cahill stood as an independent in the July 2021 by-election) because it aids in the understanding of the subject and in particular of Cahill's changed relationship with the subject. (And yes, while it is somewhat OR to rely on the fact that Cahill was still all over the party's website (including its homepage) at the time of the by-election, I do not otherwise understand the argument that Cahill's move from party candidate to independent candidate is "irrelevant" to an understanding of the subject).
How, precisely, is the fact (that Cahill stood as an independent shortly after resigning her chair) either "erroneous" or "irrelevant"? Guliolopez ( talk) 18:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I acknowledge that Gript is a conservative opinion based publication, but I cannot find any other source that reports the attendance of Saoradh and individuals purporting to be Antifa at the December 2019 demonstration. Both sources I indcluded have photographic evidence of the party leader of Saoradh present as well as a banner with the word "anti-fascist" on it.
Please see sources here: https://gript.ie/revealed-far-left-group-investigated-in-connection-to-the-murder-of-lyra-mckee-attended-ngo-event/ and here: https://gript.ie/trocaire-stand-with-masked-antifa-against-free-speech/ Randolph-Bourne ( talk) 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
It appears most are in agreement that Gript is a reliable enough source to appear in the article.Huh? Excluding the IP with a WP:POINTY argument I'm counting two editors arguing against it being reliable, one in favour and then you chiming in now. On the actual noticeboard discussion linked above, excluding the two editors in this discussions, there's three against it being a reliable source and none in favour. There's no "most" or any of the gatekeeping you talk about. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 17:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
"Most are in agreement"; it's two people other than you, one of whom was a drive-by IP. Gript is documented as being a regular publisher of conspiracy theories and deliberate misinformation. It is not a reliable source for anything, but it's especially not a reliable source for reporting on the Irish far-right, with which it is deeply interconnected. AntiDionysius ( talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
It looks like an earlier editor tried to circumvent a deprecated source flag by linking to a page on the Irish Freedom Party website that no longer seems to exist. The source used is LifeSiteNews containing an interview Kelly gave in which he speaks about Irish abortion, birth rates falling below replacement levels, mentioning "great replacement of our children". I have added the original article in place of the dead link to the party webpage, but move that it should be excised entirely from the article in the interests of consistently not using anti abortion sources.
Other editors on this page do not want to use Gript, which is funded by the Life Institute lobby group, yet Gript is not declared a "deprecated source" by the wiki community. Randolph-Bourne ( talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Some sections of this article contain highly biased language and often state untruths that are not backed up by the sources they cite. In particular the Ideology section is littered with misleading language that almost seems by design to imply Hermann Kelly is "Alt Right".
I have tried to add better context to statements made by Kelly, and specify who made what assertions. Lines like Some commentators have linked party leader Hermann Kelly with alt-right ideologies are highly misleading as the source cited is only one publication, the Sunday Business Post. The only source which even mentions the epithet "Alt-Right". Moreover it mentions it in the context of Kelly appearing in YouTube video with an interviewer alleged to be Alt-Right. Other citations that dont mention "Alt Right" appear to be thrown in to give the veneer of this being a reliable statement. Bastun has claimed that the great replacement and "Alt-Right" ideology which is factually untrue, seeing as it originated from French Identitarianism and not the United States. Furthermore, the context in which the words "great replacement" are used by Kelly often are in the context of replacement birthrates etc.
I'd also like to draw attention to the use of dead links and unreliable sources. One line cites a video on youtube that does not exit. Another quotes an article from Anti-abortion website that flags on wiki as a deprecated source. Whichever user added this appeared to try circumvent the flag by quoting a copy and paste of the article on the IFP website. Then there are the tweets which are cited as sources, often picking and choosing lines to quote.
I've tried to make the language less biased and misleading, I have also added better context to quotes by Kelly. However, Bastun has reverted my edits. This whole section is a dumpsterfire, at the very least it needs to be cleaned up Randolph-Bourne ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
...also known as the replacement theory,[1][2] is a white nationalist[3] conspiracy theory, so I'm not really sure where you're going with that. Yes, the SBP describes Kelly as alt-right. The Irish Times says he promotes the Great Replacement theory. Rebel News includes him as 'far right'. The Journal accuses him of spreading far right messages against Roderic O'Gorman. Would you like those sources added?
Guliolopez We have multiple reliable sources that call the party right-wing. Saying "Far-right is a sub-set of "right-wing"" is not an agreed upon justification for not allowing right-wing on the page and/or in the infobox. There are a vast number of parties across Wikipedia where the terms of left-wing to far-left and right-wing to far-right are used. Its very commonplace and would need a wider consensus than an ad-hoc case-by-case dismissal. Helper201 ( talk) 10:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The Irish Freedom Party is described as "far-right" by multiple reliable sources, all writing this year. For example:
Normal right-wing parties don't attend protests where banners depict nooses or they're shouting slogans outside peoples' accommodation.
Seriously, Helper - we're in WP:SKYISBLUE territory, here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
and think all cultures are equal- and thus, in one fell swoop, you ended any chance you had at getting anything done on this page. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems well demonstrated above that the amount of sources describing the IFP as being expressly far right significantly outweigh any describing it as right-wing. Imo removing “right-wing” is the correct call here. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 15:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)