Talk:Irish Freedom Party

Recreation of deleted material?

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 Is there consensus that the results of the previous AfD and previous deletion decisions are now superceded?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)

Ah - a slightly different name - that's why I couldn't find the previous AFDs. Still WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. Article is premature until they've at least announced actual candidates for next month's elections. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that the organisation has actually been launched (and crucially has been named) since the original Sep 2018 AfD, it would seem that WP:TOOSOON may no longer apply. While, perhaps, the coverage has not yet reached critical mass to make it a clear-cut keep/retain, it may no longer be such an obvious delete. (IE: In Sep 2018 it was clearly black and white. Where the "black" was a clear delete. While we are perhaps still not clearly black and white (where "white" might indicate a clear keep), it is at least sufficiently "grey" as to be worth retaining. If the group do not register soon, and the group's candidates for EU elections are not subject to coverage soon, it might be worth revisiting this however. To allow the community to revisit the previous consensus decision.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:26, 2 April 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)

April 1st

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)

1) Honestly, read WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. There are limited cases where it's fine to use primary sources; claims of numbers of numbers isn't one of them.

2) Maybe the parties don't use them, I don't know. Others, including WP, do. SF, for example, could be decribed as a eurosceptic party - they've campaigned against every European referendum and want reform - but they don't advocate leaving the EU.

3) I'll remove the last paragraph, so.

4) No need for the personal attacks, leave it out. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Casey as candidate? Single source for questionable claim?

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)

Is Politico not a fairly reputable source?

Of course receiving an endorsement isn't the same as supporting or being a member of the organisation which endorsed you. Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the KKK newspaper. However, this source does quite clearly say that the party is standing 3 candidates as independents, one of which is Peter Casey.

Here is an example of the Irish Freedom Party speaking about their candidate in Ireland South, whom they refer to as an Independent: [2], so I think that fairly invalidates your point that simply because they themselves referred to Casey as an independent therefore means he isn't a party member or candidate who is standing as an independent. That said, Cahill's membership is totally unambiguous given she holds the "chair" post.

That said, I am open to correction on this if I am just objectively wrong here. I too was under the impression Casey was just an independent and that's it. But looking more into it he has advocated Irexit and has this link with the Irish Freedom Party. Irishpolitical (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Irishpolitical. RE:

• "Is Politico not a fairly reputable source?". Perhaps for insight into US politics. But not in this case. The claim is at best out-of-date. And at worst a misinterpretation of reality. IE: wrong. (I would note that, for many of the other statements made on that webpage, including the other section [which deals with Casey's status as an independent, and which markedly makes no mention of an association with Kelly's movement] Politico provide links to other sources. By way of reference. But they provide no such link or support for the claim in question).
• "Cahill's membership is totally unambiguous". And that's the point. Cahill and Kelly's membership and candidacy is entirely unambiguous. The (single/unsupported) claim relating to Casey's is far from it.
• "I too was under the impression Casey was just an independent". Then why make a claim which is neither reflective of your understanding of reality or of all the other available sources? Which, at best (like this one) "link" Kelly and Kelly's movement with Casey. While nothing else supports the other claim.
• "I am open to correction on this". Please correct it then. By restoring this revision. Or similar wording. Otherwise, if you're not going to correct it, then please provide other sources to support it. Per the request. And as expected by WP:VER.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 23:39, 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)

"Let me have a look for alternative sources". Knock yourself out. If you find alternative sources, and they support a change to the wording, then I'm happy to assist in reviewing/amending accordingly. In the meantime I have restored the compromise/tempered wording. Which already reflects the multiple available sources. Rather than one single questionable 10-word passing mention of a claim. In just one month-old source. Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears the claim that he is a party member is incorrect & Casey has disavowed the idea of Ireland leaving the EU in the RTÉ twip debate Irishpolitical (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Right. And that is why we have policies for this type of thing. I have since removed the text entirely. Because, "a press outlet implied something that wasn't valid" is not really relevant to this article. If Casey's apparent flip-flopping on an Irexit position should be discussed anywhere, it should be discussed in the Casey article. It's just "noise" here. Guliolopez (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think so.Irishpolitical (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"Right-wing to Far-Right"

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)

It means that on the commonly understood spectrum of political ideologies, which runs from far-left to far-right, the IFP's policies fall on that spectrum comewhere between right-wing and far-right. You'll find similar descriptions on many political party articles. Hope that helps. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

2020 general election

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)

• Concur. It's pretty clear that 21 is the aggregate count for both parties - Alison ^❤ 21:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Cahill as independent

In this edit, an IP editor:

1. made an ad hominem attack, which is without justification
2. removed a relevant reference from the lead, without explanation
3. added a claim (about Cahill being "asked to resign from the party", when the source says "asked to resign as chairperson of the [party]"), which fails verification against that source
4. removed otherwise reliably sourced text with a suggestion that it is somehow "erroneous" and/or "irrelevant".

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)

IP editor here, sorry to offend one with so many wiki internet points...

Your 1 to 4 points are all almost entirely false. Ignoring number 1, your irrelevant information was in fact removed with explanation. Claim added that Cahill was asked to leave the party is consistent with the article, and seeing how she both stood as an independent (i.e. not a candidate of the party) as well as being reported to have asked to leave her position as chair, it is erroneous to imply her affiliation with the party during the DBS by election. The source for your text does not back up your claim that she was still a :member, seeing as it is just the election results. Moreover it goes against it, stating Cahill to be an independent.

The Irish Independent source does not fail verification, and your hearsay claim that "at the time of the election Cahill was still on the party website" is not backed up by any source, nor is it relevant. Any honest individual would presume a minor party (as stated in :the article introduction), may have overlooked this and/or failed to update their website in a timely manner. 79.97.251.165 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. A short (20 word) sentence, stating that Cahill ran as an independent (towards the end of or shortly after her tenure with the party) is relevant to the article/section. And is reliably referenced. Unless you can explain why you think it should be removed (and gain consensus for its removal), then the rest of this (including your attacks on other editors) is just noise. Guliolopez (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Public Demonstrations and Gript as a source

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)

The general consensus (see the discussion on the Roderic O'Gorman page for example) is that Gript is unreliable, and by that metric, until there's reports from another news outlet it can't be included, even if there's a photograph published. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you please quote or link this "general consensus", because I see none. And a discussion had on a separate page for an individual who has nothing to do with the events in question should have no bearing on a source being used here. If Gript can add more information to the article surrounding an event that clearly did happen, then it should be used. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, Gript is not a reliable source and may not be used on Wikipedia. In any case, I don't see that it's due to highlight attendance at an event by Saoradh on the IFP article. Even less so for "individuals purporting to be Antifa". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You are linking to a discussion between yourself and couple other users. If I was to comment that I believe Gript to be a reliable source would this break your consensus? The presence of Saoradh at the protest in question is of note as they were the individuals arrested Randolph-Bourne (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, as you would need more than your opinion to back up any assertion, and until such time as that consensus is overturned at WP:RS/N, it is in force. The arrest of Saoradh members is appropriate for the Saoradh article - it's currently not mentioned there at all. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, please recommend how I may challenge this decision. From what I can see it appears to be yourself and two other users who have declared Gript unreliable. Does it require mediation from an admin uninvested in the dispute? Randolph-Bourne (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it requires consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, already linked. Please ping me if opening a discussion there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have responded the discussion Randolph-Bourne (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What does that mean in English? Did you reopen a discussion? If so, link to it, please. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find my in-English response to the discussion you linked here. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

gript is a member of the press council of Ireland, just like the other publications you reference. The only difference is your bias. 109.76.13.147 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What has membership of the Press Council got to do with anything? Anyone can join it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in here. It appears most are in agreement that Gript is a reliable enough source to appear in the article. Edit warring and a couple users gatekeeping the page seem to be only thing that is keeping from being used. I am in favour of using Gript at least in conjunction with other sources User:ZigNZack — Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 2 December 2023 (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)

LifeSiteNews as a source

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)

What is the point you are trying to make? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

For consistency, I think we should remove anything that references Life Site as a source Randolph-Bourne (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistency with what, exactly? I did that, anyway, and you reverted, so... A bit WP:POINTY, no? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistency with not using anti-abortion sources, especially those which flag as a "deprecated source". This whole line in an interview with LifeSiteNews, referred to what he called the "great replacement of our children". should be excised from the article. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want deprecated sources to be used, don't add deprecated sources. And don't reinsert them when they're removed. Simple, no? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove the line now Randolph-Bourne (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Section on ideology and Alt-Right epithet

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)

Please outline what are "untruths"? Our article on Great Replacement states ...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?

One reference is a direct link to a YouTube video, which has since been taken down "because the YouTube account associated with this video has been closed." Yup, YouTube have a habit of (slowly) blocking far-right channels. It is not the case that the video "does not exist". Anyway - an easy fix. It was archived. You yourself changed the perfectly fine IFP reference to instead point at a deprecated source. And tweets are - in some circumstances, including these - permitted sources. I don't know exactly what it is you're setting out to do here, but maybe pull in the horns and try working with us? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing

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)

Excluding the Business Post article I found 3 other reliable sources that call the party right-wing which I correctly cited. Helper201 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. RE:

• "Business Post article". In your EDSUM, you implied that the Business Post article didn't state/support the term "far-right". By my read, it does.
• "its very commonplace [for other articles to give a spectrum 'range']". I'm not sure what other text/articles you're referring to, but that could well be because, in the case of those parties, there isn't (for example) a judgement/statement/finding (from the equivalent of the Press Council / Press Ombudsman / whatever) which upheld the use of a more specific term.
• "[added] 3 other reliable sources that call the party right-wing". The Independent (UK) source predates the Press Council/Press Ombudsman finding. The Irish Examiner source also uses the term "far-right groups".

Happy to have the discussion but, IMO, just because other articles use a spectrum-range, doesn't mean we need one here. And, certainly, do not agree that the existence of a 'range' here justifies the outright removal of supported text elsewhere.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Guliolopez

• In regards to the Business Post article I am unable to read its full text but what I can read I can see where it explicitly states right-wing.
• We generally do this on other political party pages because it is neither fair nor balanced to omit one political position over another if reliable sources can be provided that back up both claims.
• The fact that the Independent source predates the Press Council/Press Ombudsman finding does not mean it can discounted or ignored (WP:RECENTISM). While the Irish Examiner uses the term "far-right groups", it explicitly states the Irish Freedom Party to be right-wing very clearly and explicitly. The source doesn't explicitly call the Irish Freedom Party a far-right group (that would be WP:SYNTH). The same goes for the Independent and Irish Independent sources I provided in regards to explicitly and specifically calling the party right-wing.
• In regards to the removal of far-right from Hermann Kelly's page I thought it seemed unnecessary to repeat info that is already available right here on the party's Wikipedia page where it is most applicable. I also was attempting to implement balance after adding another position to this page. I've got no problem with keeping far-right on his page, nor do I have a problem with retaining that here, I'm simply also trying to add right-wing with reliable supporting citations. Helper201 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, most of the western media are left wing biased. Fox News in the US and GB News in the uk were setup to bring a smidge of balance.

Terms such as far right, fascist, racist and xenophobe are used to close down debate and differing views. Anyone who wants to preserve their nation state and culture by being self governed and have controlled immigration is immediately tarred with the brush. UKIP was dismissed as fruitcake, gadflies, closet racists and loonies. They were called fringe. Yet when the referendum came, a majority of people voted to leave the eu. In other words, leaving was mainstream.

I suggest you and your progressive friends tone down your slurs. You are the fringe. Stuartnoyes (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The Irish Freedom Party is described as "far-right" by multiple reliable sources, all writing this year. For example:

• 12 March: The Irish Times: "In making immigration its defining issue, Ireland First, which did not respond to queries for this article, joins the ranks of other registered far-right parties like the National Party and the Irish Freedom Party..."

• 16 March: The Irish Echo: "Now, the anti-immigrant Irish Freedom Party (IFP), with links to white supremacists and an agenda that also rejects LGBTQ+ rights and laws against hate speech, plans to run candidates all over the country. The growth of this far-right party and similar movements is a problem for the people of Ireland..."

• 12 Feb: Extra.ie: "Confirming the Coalition fears far-right groups will try to 'weaponise' anti-immigrant sentiment for political gain, the leader of the Irish Freedom Party, Hermann Kelly, revealed they plan to run candidates in every constituency in the country at the next general election."

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)

I never said it’s a normal right-wing party, nor do I think far-right should be removed. I agree with retaining far-right but that doesn't mean right-wing can't be added also, due to the fact there are multiple reliable sources calling it as such. With all due respect what you state regarding nooses and shouting slogans outside accommodations is simply your own personal views, not to say I disagree with them, it’s just not how Wikipedia works. We go by simply what reliable sources state, not our judgements on whether their style of protesting etc meets what we expect of a certain political position. Helper201 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. As above, and to my understanding, "far-right" is a sub-set of "right-wing" (such that a category of right-wing parties would include centre-right parties and far-right parties). Given that there are (as above and per Bastun) sufficiently numerous and reliable sources which use the more specific sub-set term, I don't see why we would use the broader super-set term. As if the subject here could somehow be confused or considered a centre-right party. As Fine Gael is labelled. (Or, to put it another way, if some sources gave Kelly as being "in his 50s", and others as being "54", wouldn't we use the more specific source? If reliable/verifiable/etc? Why add ambiguity or imprecision where there is apparent clarity?) Guliolopez (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Other articles on Wikipedia will describe party ideologies as "right-wing to far-right" in order to show some variety within the party's stances, and differing positions given by different sources. Since a good number of reliable sources call this party right-wing, in addition to far-right, wikipedia should reflect both positions, and mark it as "right-wing to far-right," as is quite common for such a party. 172.58.167.76 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems well demonstrated above that the amount of sources describing the IFP as being expressly far right is significant 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)

It is a strange thing to say that a party, which has been called "right-wing" by multiple reliable sources, cannot be marked as such, in addition to far-right, of course, as multiple reliable sources call it this also. 172.58.167.76 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I want to make it clear, additionally, that I fully agree with the far-right label, and am not contesting that in any way. I merely think that there is some nuance to be noted here. 172.58.167.76 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)