This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 26-12-2020 by Davidwr.
|
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. |
On 28 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Centre Party (Ireland). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
There's already beginning to be a useless build up of information that seems to have no purpose except to make the party look bad. The bit about Terence Flanagan's interview has no relevance on the parties article seeing that it will be largely forgotten by next month if not week. Put it on his personal article. Also, the bit about a fake Facebook account will rapidly become out of place as the party matures. Going to start trimming these bits if no one objects. Tomh903 ( talk) 18:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This has been repeatedly changed to "Right". This is incorrect. Renua is a centrist party (maybe Centre-Right at a push. It is certainly not a right wing party. Renua is positioned roughly the same as, or to the left of, Fine Gael - which is listed as Centre Right on its page. Given that no references have been provided for the "Right" edit, where references are provided for the Centre edit, I have changed it back to Centre/Centre-Right (I dont know how to hyperlink so if someone can help out by linking to the Centre and Centre Right pages, I would appreciate it. Since its launch, Renua has repeatedly described themselves as neither left or right. The media have variously referred to them as either centre, or centre right. I have never seen them referred to as right wing. If there are any sources to the contrary, I would be interested to see them. 86.41.107.101 ( talk) 03:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Cathaloc
Sorry, but "Flat Tax?" does not exactly constitute a case. Particularly not when what you are referring to is a tax which disproportionately benefits those on lower incomes, at the expense of those currently taking advantage of the many tax breaks available to the wealthy. The flat tax, according to their manifesto and the tax calculator on their site gives the largest percentage increase to minimum wage and below earners, who actually end up on a negative rate of tax. That can hardly be called right wing. So fiscally, I dont buy the argument that they are right wing. Socially, they are quite conservative, so I think a label of Centre-Right is a fair compromise. One of the sources given is inappropriate, as it is highly POV, given that an opposition TD labelled them as right wing. The other, I would take on board, but there is far more evidence for a centre right position. As an aside, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia,if I am not using the talk feature correctly, please let me know CathalocIre ( talk) 02:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Cathaloc
You are referring to a simple flat tax, which is in no way the same as what Renua have proposed. The system is almost exactly the same as the "american style tax system" currently being kited by FG, although less regressive than what they are proposing. So it is fair to say renua are fiscally to the left of FG. That's not my opinion, that's just a simple fact. By repeatedly vandalizing the page by adding incorrect information, you are letting yourself and Wikipedia down. CathalocIre ( talk) 22:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Journalistic sources are less authoritative, so I have added an academic source which calls Renua "right-wing". One-word summaries are always simplistics, but more nuanced discussions of its position(s) belong in the prose of the article rather than the infobox. How party leaders describe it is very noteworthy, though not definitive. How individual Wikipedians describe it is irrelevant. jnestorius( talk) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Renua's political position is definitely not centre-right today. Many of the founding members such as Lucinda Creighton have left the party, taking the more moderate elements with them. Today they are a party which staunchly opposes immigration and abortion, and advocates Irish nationalism. I propose changing Renua's political position from "centre-right to right-wing" to "right-wing to far right". All sources which are used to justify Renua as a centre-right party are outdated. Wikipedia defines far-right politics as "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies." Today Renua fulfil these criteria. The editorrrr ( talk) 22:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm changing the template from dark blue as they seem to be primarily using yellow [3], I'm changing it to a yellow-orange as it would be easier to see than yellow
Renua's constitution says their colours are yellow. I have changed their colours to yellow. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
27.124.109.42 (
talk) 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The one in the lead absolutely needs to go, as it doesn't use the word "reboot" even once, and the one further down is problematic since it doesn't state that "Reboot Ireland" was a preliminary name for the party this article discusses. Obviously all the relevant information appears to be accurate, which is why I am neither removing it nor tagging it for removal, but it still needs to be sourced. (And no, the sentence The party has launched a website rebootireland.com and a hashtag rebootireland. in the source does not verify was given a temporary name of Reboot Ireland, nor could it -- in January 2015 the name does not appear to have perceived as being "temporary".) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
According to a recent Sunday Independent article he wrote, he has left the party. Culloty82 ( talk) 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [4]
@ S.Staines:, please stop edit-warring over Renua's political position. There is a section above already dealing with this and the consensus is 3:1 that the party is right-wing. That is backed by the references. The Journal.ie reference you use even quotes a Renua member as saying they are perceived as right-wing. Added to that are the policies listed in the article - flat tax and "three-strikes" rules are right-wing, not centrist. If you continue to edit-war against consensus you will be blocked. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi :@ Bastun:, if there "are any number of sources" to justify Renua being right-wing then could you please include them, it's not enough to say there are sources yet not use them, which is after all what you claimed I was doing. Otherwise the "centre-right" tag is the only justifiable one which I will agree to compromise on. Regarding the Liberal Democrats tag - ideology has nothing to do with a party name, you are confusing the two there. What is relevant is that he said the majority of Renua members consider themselves to be Liberal Democrats, and it is the basis of the party's ideology. Whether or not they put Liberal Democrats in their party name has nothing to do with their ideology; we don't call FF's ideology "Republican" because it's in their name... this is ABC stuff. S.Staines ( talk) 08:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Your needless personal slights aside. The points you've made re policies are your own personal opinion, if you back them up then fair enough. Their colour is Yellow - what has this template been based on? S.Staines ( talk) 12:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
1) & 2) These are the same references from before which do not mention Renua being right wing, yet you've left them in.
3) References a political opponent who called one specific policy right wing.
4) Journalistic opinion piece which says they are right-wing - fair enough.
5) Says they are Centre-Right.
6) Says more Renua candidates surveyed support repealing the eight amendment than not - hardly right wing!
Sorry Bastun but the majority of these references need to be moved to justify the "centre-right" position, and not the "right-wing" position. S.Staines ( talk) 12:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I will make a couple of observations:
jnestorius( talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Could the anon IPs please stop removing references - especially when their edit summary fails to mention that they're also changing the content of the infobox? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Please tidy up the infobox as has been suggested several times.
Again your 8 references are not up to standard:
1) 1st one is fine.
2) The cited reference does not say Renua are right-wing.
3) The cited reference does not say Renua are right-wing (merely having a party figure note that they were branded as such - not the same thing as the article stating they are right-wing).
4) The reference does not state Renua are right-wing. It quotes an opposing party TD who says a particular policy is right wing - again you cannot conflate that to a news source claiming they are right-wing.
5) Your fifth reference also claims that The Labour Party is right-wing. Any source which claims that the Labour party are right-wing is either satire, or completely out of touch with understood principles of Irish politics. To use such an article as a reference for Renua being right-wing is highly dubious as the author clearly has a left-wing bias.
6) Your sixth reference (which states Renua are right of centre-right) is from a known left wing website called Fair-society; in their "Guide to Voting for First Timers" they openly state: "...so we know we can only vote for anti-austerity candidates (AAA, PBP, Sinn Fein, Social Democrats, R2W, IDP, DDI, WP, etc.) and some Independents." and "No matter how brilliant your local FG/FF/Labour/Renua TD might be at getting stuff done for you and your area... they can’t vote according to their own conscience, or how we want them to vote."
How can a source which directly tells it's readers exactly who / who not to vote for be deemed an objective reliable source on an opposing party's political position? It can not.
7) Your reference states that Renua are a right-wing party, a more reputable source than a college newspaper would be helpful.
8) Your reference states that Renua are a right-wing party.
Please tidy this up Bastun, it simply isn't up to par. I will change them myself if required. S.Staines ( talk) 18:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of your references from what are left-wing websites are against Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, also given that university newspapers and online blogs are not considered reliable sources. Labour are not a right-wing party, it's a waste of time to try and justify such an obviously extreme left position. You have been asked several times to roll up your references, yet it's not done. You have not justified any of the above assertions either.
You are not the gate keeper of this page. We are supposed to work through consensus. Some of your references are perfectly fine and some are not up to the quality which Wikipedia expects. It is not a case I am trying to remove the right-wing description. But when you feel the need to hold onto so many references so doggedly - some of which are dubious - it makes it quite clear that you have an agenda. S.Staines ( talk) 06:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Bastun: I've already agreed with "right-wing" being included (even though I disagree with it), showing my ability to compromise and work through consensus. You won't accept that even one of your many references may not be up to par - there appears to be no consensus with you.
There are references which are 1) Not up to standard (based on your own link, questionable sources section) & 2) are not rolled up. Please correct both of these issues. S.Staines ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The party colour is Yellow. I have used the Alliance of Liberals in Europe colour code because it is also yellow. Using a colour code does not attribute any connection whatsoever, and no connection is claimed whatsoever. If it is simply annoying to you that a particular colour code is being used then make a new one; to have a description saying Yellow and colour box which is orange makes much less sense. S.Staines ( talk) 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. It states the colour is yellow and the colour box is not yellow; this is as basic as it gets. S.Staines ( talk) 15:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Party colour is yellow, all literature is yellow - Renua Yellow: https://www.google.ie/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=DGafW5fdFNDawALtkKToBw&q=renua+yellow&oq=renua+yellow&gs_l=img.3..35i39k1.5971.6846.0.7810.6.6.0.0.0.0.72.383.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.6.383....0.yt3jRdGJams
No literature is published in orange or used anywhere - Renua Orange: https://www.google.ie/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=FWafW-ktkcXBAsq7ojg&q=renua+orange&oq=renua+orange&gs_l=img.3..35i39k1.132714.133554.0.134246.6.6.0.0.0.0.71.380.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.6.380....0.GHipNQniYf4 S.Staines
Anonymous, block-evading IPs, also breaching WP:3RR do not get to make demands. Especially when their own edits themselves insert unreferenced information and remove referenced information... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
What was the referenced information removed out of curiosity? S.Staines ( talk) 08:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
S.Staines wrote in this edit summary: "@Bastun was asked multiple times since July to roll up references and stop deleting info;. They have again deleted 15 edits and removed the political position."
Actually what I did was revert the removal of referenced content, that you had removed. Above, you agreed to leave the political position at 'right wing' (well, you had to, as that's what both the references and consensus say). Then you changed it yet again, against consensus. You'll therefore understand my reluctance to remove any references, given those circumstances. I have not deleted any relevant info - I have in fact restored 3,281 bytes. I have deleted your original research about pensions - the reference doesn't mention Renua at all. Kindly stop edit warring on this article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
you had agreed to include centre right along with right. Where did I say you agreed to replace it? I never said that so you are now fabricating. I'm using my real name unlike yourself and have only ever edited as such. Several times as per talk items have been raised to which you have failed to respond. The policy on Citation Overkill clearly says that 8 references is not needed. If you cannot accept that three references is enough for a citation it is clearly you who has an agenda; as notified previously I will be removing any references surplus to three in line with Wikipedia policy. The link for the pensions clearly states to replace defined benefit with defined contribution; The Journal reference outlines the pension crisis; two separate references.
Stop removing additional information and deleting the political position of centre right. The history above demonstrates your unwillingness to cooperate. S.Staines ( talk) 20:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I also presume it was you who deleted the policy sections which I made a start on fleshing out. No mention of it in talk just deleted an entire section, so you clearly have form in this area. S.Staines ( talk) 20:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Users favouring "right-wing"
Users favouring "centre-right"
Users who said they would accept "right-wing", then continued to remove it
Users who have been told they said they'd agree to inclusion of "centre-right", but have yet to see a diff supporting this
Since it seems to need repeating:
Why are you removing content:
Please stop edit warring on this article or you will be blocked again. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference no. 5 [5] does not state Renua is right wing anywhere in the article. Will remove unless it can be demonstrated here that it does. S.Staines ( talk) 20:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference no. 6 [6] paraphrases John Leahy saying that Renua being branded as extreme-right is incorrect, and Lucinda Creighton stating that Renua is a centrist party. It does not say anywhere that Renua is a right-wing party. Will remove unless it can be demonstrated here that it does. S.Staines ( talk) 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Patrick McKee has quit the party, as has Mailo Power. Culloty82 ( talk) 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Keith Redmond and Frank Durcan have also left. Culloty82 ( talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Going by Twitter, and then his website, Ronan McMahon, who ran for them in February, and is a Cllr in South Dublin, is still in the party. Culloty82 ( talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renua 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renua 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
S.Staines, please stop edit warring, including editing while logged out (Vodafone IP 89.19.67.193 made identical edits to yours). Blanking content you don't like is not acceptable. There is nothing unreliable about the source. And if you don't like that particular one, add another. The party's ideology has been discussed at length. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Please justify the party's colour as being orange? The party has nothing in orange. Please use talk and stop edit warring which you have done three times now. The rules apply to you as much as anyone.
No idea why you will not take colour to talk and get consensus. It appears that you are indeed the gatekeeper. I have a copy of Renua's constitution which states their colour is yellow. It will be case closed. I was just curious as to why you wanted Renua's colour to be orange despit no evidence of it. Good man. You are the reason why people don't trust Wikipedia. If they use a "variety of colours then kindly list them!
It's clear they don't. You just want to be the sole authority on this page which really is a shame for all of Wikipedia.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Renua's colour is yellow. Please see links I've posted in talk which have been ignored as I tried to gather consensus to no avail. There is no precedent for renuas colour to be orange. others seem to have a political agenda, which is why they failed to engage and then protected this page. S.Staines ( talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)I don't know why Bastun refuses to accept Renua's colour is yellow. It states it in the second schedule of Renua's constitution that the party colour is yellow. It is irrelevant if another party uses it (which is an argument used to justify the inclusion of Orange - again baseless). Clearly Bastun has an agenda to implement as there is no other explanation. He has been asked several times not to edit war but continues unabated.
If you continue to edit war you wil be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.124.109.42 ( talk) 00:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
So because there's orange in Fine Gael's logo, that should be one of their colours? What a ridiculous argument. If you believe that then list every colour in the bird logo! I don't know why you have constitution in inverted commas, are you unsure of its meaning?
You edit war three times and you should be blocked, no need to get sensitive over it, it's just the rules. I will gladly provide the the reference so this can be put to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.12.69 ( talk) 23:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Renua's political position is definitely not centre-right today. Many of the founding members such as Lucinda Creighton have left the party, taking the more moderate elements with them. Today they are a party which staunchly opposes immigration and abortion, and advocates Irish nationalism. I propose changing Renua's political position from "centre-right to right-wing" to "right-wing to far right". All sources which are used to justify Renua as a centre-right party are outdated. Wikipedia defines far-right politics as "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies." Today Renua fulfil these criteria. The editorrrr ( talk) 22:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
John Leahy has resigned as leader, and left the party. [1] Culloty82 ( talk) 11:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
References
If the Irish Simpsons Fans party actually registers, it would be the equivalent of Germany's Die PARTEI, but presumably they would have to be recorded in Iris Oifigiúil to be officially considered as one. [1] Culloty82 ( talk) 20:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I don't think it's right to call this far-right especially with only one source that barely mentions them. LoneWolf1992 ( user talk) 23:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
LIt's referenced to a reliable source, and we don't describe them as far-right, we describe them as 'right-wing to far-right'. I mean, we can also add this, this, if you want? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
While RTE is a legit source, The Canary has an explicit left-wing bias. LoneWolf1992 ( user talk) 23:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 16:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Renua → Centre Party (Ireland) – Its name now is the Centre Party of Ireland. However, given it's now a microparty, and for most of the time was known as Renua, there's a case that it's common name is still Renua, and that we should wait before moving, especially as someone searching for Centre Party will still probably be looking for the National Centre Party (Ireland). Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Where does the proposed title come from?
If we're moving it, then I would support moving it to Centre Party (Ireland, 2023) - this would be in keeping with, e.g., National Party (Ireland, 2016). That said, no need to move until and if the party becomes more commonly known by the new name, rather than Renua. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
ClydeFranklin, why are you relisting? There's a consensus for not moved, including the original proposer. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
had a quick scan through their official website linked on the page and it seems to not fit the "right wing to far right" label, there's no mention of social issues like abortion or LGBT issues and immigration is only talked about briefly. personally I would consider their new ideology from their own platform to be center-right but I'd be curious what anybody else thinks? Matthew McMullin ( talk) 07:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 26-12-2020 by Davidwr.
|
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. |
On 28 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Centre Party (Ireland). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
There's already beginning to be a useless build up of information that seems to have no purpose except to make the party look bad. The bit about Terence Flanagan's interview has no relevance on the parties article seeing that it will be largely forgotten by next month if not week. Put it on his personal article. Also, the bit about a fake Facebook account will rapidly become out of place as the party matures. Going to start trimming these bits if no one objects. Tomh903 ( talk) 18:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This has been repeatedly changed to "Right". This is incorrect. Renua is a centrist party (maybe Centre-Right at a push. It is certainly not a right wing party. Renua is positioned roughly the same as, or to the left of, Fine Gael - which is listed as Centre Right on its page. Given that no references have been provided for the "Right" edit, where references are provided for the Centre edit, I have changed it back to Centre/Centre-Right (I dont know how to hyperlink so if someone can help out by linking to the Centre and Centre Right pages, I would appreciate it. Since its launch, Renua has repeatedly described themselves as neither left or right. The media have variously referred to them as either centre, or centre right. I have never seen them referred to as right wing. If there are any sources to the contrary, I would be interested to see them. 86.41.107.101 ( talk) 03:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Cathaloc
Sorry, but "Flat Tax?" does not exactly constitute a case. Particularly not when what you are referring to is a tax which disproportionately benefits those on lower incomes, at the expense of those currently taking advantage of the many tax breaks available to the wealthy. The flat tax, according to their manifesto and the tax calculator on their site gives the largest percentage increase to minimum wage and below earners, who actually end up on a negative rate of tax. That can hardly be called right wing. So fiscally, I dont buy the argument that they are right wing. Socially, they are quite conservative, so I think a label of Centre-Right is a fair compromise. One of the sources given is inappropriate, as it is highly POV, given that an opposition TD labelled them as right wing. The other, I would take on board, but there is far more evidence for a centre right position. As an aside, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia,if I am not using the talk feature correctly, please let me know CathalocIre ( talk) 02:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Cathaloc
You are referring to a simple flat tax, which is in no way the same as what Renua have proposed. The system is almost exactly the same as the "american style tax system" currently being kited by FG, although less regressive than what they are proposing. So it is fair to say renua are fiscally to the left of FG. That's not my opinion, that's just a simple fact. By repeatedly vandalizing the page by adding incorrect information, you are letting yourself and Wikipedia down. CathalocIre ( talk) 22:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Journalistic sources are less authoritative, so I have added an academic source which calls Renua "right-wing". One-word summaries are always simplistics, but more nuanced discussions of its position(s) belong in the prose of the article rather than the infobox. How party leaders describe it is very noteworthy, though not definitive. How individual Wikipedians describe it is irrelevant. jnestorius( talk) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Renua's political position is definitely not centre-right today. Many of the founding members such as Lucinda Creighton have left the party, taking the more moderate elements with them. Today they are a party which staunchly opposes immigration and abortion, and advocates Irish nationalism. I propose changing Renua's political position from "centre-right to right-wing" to "right-wing to far right". All sources which are used to justify Renua as a centre-right party are outdated. Wikipedia defines far-right politics as "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies." Today Renua fulfil these criteria. The editorrrr ( talk) 22:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm changing the template from dark blue as they seem to be primarily using yellow [3], I'm changing it to a yellow-orange as it would be easier to see than yellow
Renua's constitution says their colours are yellow. I have changed their colours to yellow. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
27.124.109.42 (
talk) 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The one in the lead absolutely needs to go, as it doesn't use the word "reboot" even once, and the one further down is problematic since it doesn't state that "Reboot Ireland" was a preliminary name for the party this article discusses. Obviously all the relevant information appears to be accurate, which is why I am neither removing it nor tagging it for removal, but it still needs to be sourced. (And no, the sentence The party has launched a website rebootireland.com and a hashtag rebootireland. in the source does not verify was given a temporary name of Reboot Ireland, nor could it -- in January 2015 the name does not appear to have perceived as being "temporary".) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
According to a recent Sunday Independent article he wrote, he has left the party. Culloty82 ( talk) 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [4]
@ S.Staines:, please stop edit-warring over Renua's political position. There is a section above already dealing with this and the consensus is 3:1 that the party is right-wing. That is backed by the references. The Journal.ie reference you use even quotes a Renua member as saying they are perceived as right-wing. Added to that are the policies listed in the article - flat tax and "three-strikes" rules are right-wing, not centrist. If you continue to edit-war against consensus you will be blocked. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi :@ Bastun:, if there "are any number of sources" to justify Renua being right-wing then could you please include them, it's not enough to say there are sources yet not use them, which is after all what you claimed I was doing. Otherwise the "centre-right" tag is the only justifiable one which I will agree to compromise on. Regarding the Liberal Democrats tag - ideology has nothing to do with a party name, you are confusing the two there. What is relevant is that he said the majority of Renua members consider themselves to be Liberal Democrats, and it is the basis of the party's ideology. Whether or not they put Liberal Democrats in their party name has nothing to do with their ideology; we don't call FF's ideology "Republican" because it's in their name... this is ABC stuff. S.Staines ( talk) 08:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Your needless personal slights aside. The points you've made re policies are your own personal opinion, if you back them up then fair enough. Their colour is Yellow - what has this template been based on? S.Staines ( talk) 12:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
1) & 2) These are the same references from before which do not mention Renua being right wing, yet you've left them in.
3) References a political opponent who called one specific policy right wing.
4) Journalistic opinion piece which says they are right-wing - fair enough.
5) Says they are Centre-Right.
6) Says more Renua candidates surveyed support repealing the eight amendment than not - hardly right wing!
Sorry Bastun but the majority of these references need to be moved to justify the "centre-right" position, and not the "right-wing" position. S.Staines ( talk) 12:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I will make a couple of observations:
jnestorius( talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Could the anon IPs please stop removing references - especially when their edit summary fails to mention that they're also changing the content of the infobox? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Please tidy up the infobox as has been suggested several times.
Again your 8 references are not up to standard:
1) 1st one is fine.
2) The cited reference does not say Renua are right-wing.
3) The cited reference does not say Renua are right-wing (merely having a party figure note that they were branded as such - not the same thing as the article stating they are right-wing).
4) The reference does not state Renua are right-wing. It quotes an opposing party TD who says a particular policy is right wing - again you cannot conflate that to a news source claiming they are right-wing.
5) Your fifth reference also claims that The Labour Party is right-wing. Any source which claims that the Labour party are right-wing is either satire, or completely out of touch with understood principles of Irish politics. To use such an article as a reference for Renua being right-wing is highly dubious as the author clearly has a left-wing bias.
6) Your sixth reference (which states Renua are right of centre-right) is from a known left wing website called Fair-society; in their "Guide to Voting for First Timers" they openly state: "...so we know we can only vote for anti-austerity candidates (AAA, PBP, Sinn Fein, Social Democrats, R2W, IDP, DDI, WP, etc.) and some Independents." and "No matter how brilliant your local FG/FF/Labour/Renua TD might be at getting stuff done for you and your area... they can’t vote according to their own conscience, or how we want them to vote."
How can a source which directly tells it's readers exactly who / who not to vote for be deemed an objective reliable source on an opposing party's political position? It can not.
7) Your reference states that Renua are a right-wing party, a more reputable source than a college newspaper would be helpful.
8) Your reference states that Renua are a right-wing party.
Please tidy this up Bastun, it simply isn't up to par. I will change them myself if required. S.Staines ( talk) 18:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of your references from what are left-wing websites are against Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, also given that university newspapers and online blogs are not considered reliable sources. Labour are not a right-wing party, it's a waste of time to try and justify such an obviously extreme left position. You have been asked several times to roll up your references, yet it's not done. You have not justified any of the above assertions either.
You are not the gate keeper of this page. We are supposed to work through consensus. Some of your references are perfectly fine and some are not up to the quality which Wikipedia expects. It is not a case I am trying to remove the right-wing description. But when you feel the need to hold onto so many references so doggedly - some of which are dubious - it makes it quite clear that you have an agenda. S.Staines ( talk) 06:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Bastun: I've already agreed with "right-wing" being included (even though I disagree with it), showing my ability to compromise and work through consensus. You won't accept that even one of your many references may not be up to par - there appears to be no consensus with you.
There are references which are 1) Not up to standard (based on your own link, questionable sources section) & 2) are not rolled up. Please correct both of these issues. S.Staines ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The party colour is Yellow. I have used the Alliance of Liberals in Europe colour code because it is also yellow. Using a colour code does not attribute any connection whatsoever, and no connection is claimed whatsoever. If it is simply annoying to you that a particular colour code is being used then make a new one; to have a description saying Yellow and colour box which is orange makes much less sense. S.Staines ( talk) 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. It states the colour is yellow and the colour box is not yellow; this is as basic as it gets. S.Staines ( talk) 15:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Party colour is yellow, all literature is yellow - Renua Yellow: https://www.google.ie/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=DGafW5fdFNDawALtkKToBw&q=renua+yellow&oq=renua+yellow&gs_l=img.3..35i39k1.5971.6846.0.7810.6.6.0.0.0.0.72.383.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.6.383....0.yt3jRdGJams
No literature is published in orange or used anywhere - Renua Orange: https://www.google.ie/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=FWafW-ktkcXBAsq7ojg&q=renua+orange&oq=renua+orange&gs_l=img.3..35i39k1.132714.133554.0.134246.6.6.0.0.0.0.71.380.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.6.380....0.GHipNQniYf4 S.Staines
Anonymous, block-evading IPs, also breaching WP:3RR do not get to make demands. Especially when their own edits themselves insert unreferenced information and remove referenced information... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
What was the referenced information removed out of curiosity? S.Staines ( talk) 08:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
S.Staines wrote in this edit summary: "@Bastun was asked multiple times since July to roll up references and stop deleting info;. They have again deleted 15 edits and removed the political position."
Actually what I did was revert the removal of referenced content, that you had removed. Above, you agreed to leave the political position at 'right wing' (well, you had to, as that's what both the references and consensus say). Then you changed it yet again, against consensus. You'll therefore understand my reluctance to remove any references, given those circumstances. I have not deleted any relevant info - I have in fact restored 3,281 bytes. I have deleted your original research about pensions - the reference doesn't mention Renua at all. Kindly stop edit warring on this article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
you had agreed to include centre right along with right. Where did I say you agreed to replace it? I never said that so you are now fabricating. I'm using my real name unlike yourself and have only ever edited as such. Several times as per talk items have been raised to which you have failed to respond. The policy on Citation Overkill clearly says that 8 references is not needed. If you cannot accept that three references is enough for a citation it is clearly you who has an agenda; as notified previously I will be removing any references surplus to three in line with Wikipedia policy. The link for the pensions clearly states to replace defined benefit with defined contribution; The Journal reference outlines the pension crisis; two separate references.
Stop removing additional information and deleting the political position of centre right. The history above demonstrates your unwillingness to cooperate. S.Staines ( talk) 20:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I also presume it was you who deleted the policy sections which I made a start on fleshing out. No mention of it in talk just deleted an entire section, so you clearly have form in this area. S.Staines ( talk) 20:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Users favouring "right-wing"
Users favouring "centre-right"
Users who said they would accept "right-wing", then continued to remove it
Users who have been told they said they'd agree to inclusion of "centre-right", but have yet to see a diff supporting this
Since it seems to need repeating:
Why are you removing content:
Please stop edit warring on this article or you will be blocked again. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference no. 5 [5] does not state Renua is right wing anywhere in the article. Will remove unless it can be demonstrated here that it does. S.Staines ( talk) 20:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference no. 6 [6] paraphrases John Leahy saying that Renua being branded as extreme-right is incorrect, and Lucinda Creighton stating that Renua is a centrist party. It does not say anywhere that Renua is a right-wing party. Will remove unless it can be demonstrated here that it does. S.Staines ( talk) 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Patrick McKee has quit the party, as has Mailo Power. Culloty82 ( talk) 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Keith Redmond and Frank Durcan have also left. Culloty82 ( talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Going by Twitter, and then his website, Ronan McMahon, who ran for them in February, and is a Cllr in South Dublin, is still in the party. Culloty82 ( talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renua 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renua 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
S.Staines, please stop edit warring, including editing while logged out (Vodafone IP 89.19.67.193 made identical edits to yours). Blanking content you don't like is not acceptable. There is nothing unreliable about the source. And if you don't like that particular one, add another. The party's ideology has been discussed at length. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Please justify the party's colour as being orange? The party has nothing in orange. Please use talk and stop edit warring which you have done three times now. The rules apply to you as much as anyone.
No idea why you will not take colour to talk and get consensus. It appears that you are indeed the gatekeeper. I have a copy of Renua's constitution which states their colour is yellow. It will be case closed. I was just curious as to why you wanted Renua's colour to be orange despit no evidence of it. Good man. You are the reason why people don't trust Wikipedia. If they use a "variety of colours then kindly list them!
It's clear they don't. You just want to be the sole authority on this page which really is a shame for all of Wikipedia.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Renua's colour is yellow. Please see links I've posted in talk which have been ignored as I tried to gather consensus to no avail. There is no precedent for renuas colour to be orange. others seem to have a political agenda, which is why they failed to engage and then protected this page. S.Staines ( talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)I don't know why Bastun refuses to accept Renua's colour is yellow. It states it in the second schedule of Renua's constitution that the party colour is yellow. It is irrelevant if another party uses it (which is an argument used to justify the inclusion of Orange - again baseless). Clearly Bastun has an agenda to implement as there is no other explanation. He has been asked several times not to edit war but continues unabated.
If you continue to edit war you wil be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.124.109.42 ( talk) 00:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
So because there's orange in Fine Gael's logo, that should be one of their colours? What a ridiculous argument. If you believe that then list every colour in the bird logo! I don't know why you have constitution in inverted commas, are you unsure of its meaning?
You edit war three times and you should be blocked, no need to get sensitive over it, it's just the rules. I will gladly provide the the reference so this can be put to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.12.69 ( talk) 23:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Renua's political position is definitely not centre-right today. Many of the founding members such as Lucinda Creighton have left the party, taking the more moderate elements with them. Today they are a party which staunchly opposes immigration and abortion, and advocates Irish nationalism. I propose changing Renua's political position from "centre-right to right-wing" to "right-wing to far right". All sources which are used to justify Renua as a centre-right party are outdated. Wikipedia defines far-right politics as "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies." Today Renua fulfil these criteria. The editorrrr ( talk) 22:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
John Leahy has resigned as leader, and left the party. [1] Culloty82 ( talk) 11:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
References
If the Irish Simpsons Fans party actually registers, it would be the equivalent of Germany's Die PARTEI, but presumably they would have to be recorded in Iris Oifigiúil to be officially considered as one. [1] Culloty82 ( talk) 20:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I don't think it's right to call this far-right especially with only one source that barely mentions them. LoneWolf1992 ( user talk) 23:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
LIt's referenced to a reliable source, and we don't describe them as far-right, we describe them as 'right-wing to far-right'. I mean, we can also add this, this, if you want? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
While RTE is a legit source, The Canary has an explicit left-wing bias. LoneWolf1992 ( user talk) 23:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 16:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Renua → Centre Party (Ireland) – Its name now is the Centre Party of Ireland. However, given it's now a microparty, and for most of the time was known as Renua, there's a case that it's common name is still Renua, and that we should wait before moving, especially as someone searching for Centre Party will still probably be looking for the National Centre Party (Ireland). Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Where does the proposed title come from?
If we're moving it, then I would support moving it to Centre Party (Ireland, 2023) - this would be in keeping with, e.g., National Party (Ireland, 2016). That said, no need to move until and if the party becomes more commonly known by the new name, rather than Renua. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
ClydeFranklin, why are you relisting? There's a consensus for not moved, including the original proposer. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
had a quick scan through their official website linked on the page and it seems to not fit the "right wing to far right" label, there's no mention of social issues like abortion or LGBT issues and immigration is only talked about briefly. personally I would consider their new ideology from their own platform to be center-right but I'd be curious what anybody else thinks? Matthew McMullin ( talk) 07:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)