Talk:Fianna Fáil

Restoration of text

Hi Bastun, I don't agree you should have restored this text. It feels clunky and pointed, and it's not in the article's History section. Stara Marusya (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I might have to agree; upon reflection it is quite clunky for a lead section. If I wasn't Irish, I don't know that I'd even understand what the sentence meant. A more simplistic alternative might be

The party was founded as an Irish republican party on 16 May 1926 by Éamon de Valera and his supporters after they split from Sinn Féin. De Valera and his followers were determined to take seats in the Oireachtas while Sinn Féin's policy was to refuse to recognise it. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless Bastun wants to make the case for its retention, I'll change it back. Stara Marusya (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Reduction of Ideologies in Infobox

The ideology parametre looks rather bloated. Due to this, I propose reducing them to a few. Here is the option:

• Irish republicanism
• Populism
• Big tent

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism is all that’s needed IMO. It’s a conservative party over-all (despite the ALDE affiliation), and Irish republicanism could literally apply to all the republic’s political parties.— Autospark (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Conservatism" (possibly "Liberal conservatism"?) is necessary. I would have "Christian democracy" and "populism" too, while I am strongly against "big tent", which is no ideology, and "Irish republicanism", on which I agree with User:Autospark. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism and Christian democracy, or conservatism, populism, Christian democracy would be a fine solution.— Autospark (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Irish republicanism could literally apply to all the republic’s political parties

No, it could not: That would be both a fundamental misunderstanding of both Irish Republicanism and Irish politics in general. While typically all parties in the Republic of Ireland favour of Irish reunification, Irish Republicanism encapsulates a far greater range of policies, values and goals than Irish reunification on it's own.

As of 2023, the parties in the Dáil that are identified as Republican are Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, and Aontú. Fine Gael is traditionally considered "Anti-Republican". Neither the Green Party, Labour, the Social Democrats, People before Profit nor Solidarity would be considered Republican. Hand-waving away the Irish Republican label from "Fianna Fáil - the Republican party" without citing any sources is rather feckless.

I would suggest that those proposing to alter the ideology section of the article should cite modern sources to ground their proposals. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Fianna Fail, "Former ideology" would be more accurate seeing as they currently lack any values beyond holding on to power. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We’ve had this before, but there is no rule declaring a “time limit” for references used to describe ideology. FF is a broadly conservative party, as the bulk of existing referenced sources indicate.— Autospark (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I actually trying to hand out an olive branch there by mentioning modern sources, as modern sources would be more flexible in describing Fianna Fáil's ideology, but certain all historic sources are going to describe Fianna Fáil as Irish Republican. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies; that wasn’t meant to be or sound confrontational. The issue is that FF has been described from terms spanning national-conservative to conservative-liberal, and other than being broadly on the centre-right, it’s arguably a tricky party to nail down the ideology concisely. And if we’re considering modern sources, how recent is modern enough? There’s several variables at play here.— Autospark (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, those are sources which are looking at political parties in Europe at a macro level and trying to link them under broad labels, whereas I know that sources looking at Fianna Fáil at a micro level and discussing it's specific ideology will discuss Irish Republicanism, particularly Irish sources.

Personally, I don't mind if people want to cut Pro-Europeanism from the list as has been done, or refine Conservative to Conservative-Liberal (provided they can adequately source that), but at this moment in time I don't believe Irish Republicanism can be cut from from the ideology section of the infobox, particularly as Irish republicanism is discussed at length in the body of the article, and also the fact that Fianna Fáil is part of the Irish Republicanism sidebar, also included in the body of the article. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• As the above shows, its a complicated question, and therefore not suitable for an infobox. Just blank that parameter. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely, a good compromise would be to keep the "Irish republicanism" box, while having in the infobox only the current ideologies. As I wrote above, I am for "conservatism", "Christian democracy" and "populism", all or any of the three, while I oppose any other ideology that would be out of context. --Checco (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely not, per various views above! Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I definitely support inclusion of "Conservatism" and "Christian democracy" in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely, "conservatism" and "Christian democracy" should stay, given the discussion above. I would also include "populism" that explains a lot about the party's ideology and attitudes, but I could give up on it. Surely, "Irish republicanism" is redundant. --Checco (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I support:

• Irish republicanism
• Christian democracy
• Conservativism

I also think 4 ideologies is far from "bloated" and would be fine with retaining it how it currently is. Helper201 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I also would like to point out my opposition to "big tent" in the ideology camp, as it is not an ideology. --Checco (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I support changing conservatism to conservative liberalism, the party seems to push economic liberalism while maintaining a more culturally conservative stance compared to Fine Gael, which pushes more economically liberal and culturally liberal ideas. Also it can simplify the confusion on how a "conservative" party is a member of ALDE and Renew Europe. Liberal European groups. 2603:7000:3B40:B500:A100:49BD:8D4D:839F (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Ideology summary

I think the political orientation should be limited to 'centre' or 'centre-right' as almost all contemporary reliable sources call the party this, and per WP:FALSEBALANCE, I would support deemphasizing or removing the one source calling it 'right-wing'.

Also, sources saying the party is 'conservative' or 'national conservative' are from 2010 or older, and per WP:AGEMATTERS, I think mentions of the party being 'conservative' should not be put in the lead, and should be limited to historical discussion.

Centre:

• NPR (2024) [1]
• The Guardian (2020) [2]
• Politico (2020) [3]
• BBC (2020) [4]
• France24 (2020) [5]
• VOA (2020) [6]
• The Telegraph (2018) [7]
• EUObserver (2017) [8]
• Self-described (2017) [9]
• UCD professor Thomas Däubler (2021) [10] (said Fine Gael was to the right of Fianna Fail in 2016)
• Parties and Elections in Europe [11] (not 100% sure if this is reliable but seems so [12])

Centre-right:

• Routledge Handbook of European Elections (2015) [13] (page 247)
• Irish Political Studies article (2021) [14]
• Reuters (2020) [15]
• New Public Managers in Europe (2016) [16]
• Irish Political Studies article (2016) [17] Note: In Ireland, both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael can be categorised as centre-right parties, although the former has a more populist outlook, favours more economic interventionism and some of its leaders have sometimes referred to the party's fuzzy ideology as 'left of centre'.
• Plus some sources in article from 2011/earlier

Right-wing:

• Political Ideology in Ireland: From the Enlightenment to the Present (2020) [18]

Ideology:

• Every source in the article calling FF "conservative" is from 2010 or earlier:
  • [19] (2010)
  • [20] (2006)
  • [21] (1999)
  • [22] (1996)
  • [23] (1987)
  • [24] (2005) (national-conservative)
• The [25] more recent sources in the above thread say it has a conservative section, it's traditionally considered conservative, more conservative than Ireland at large, but none I saw said the party was actually conservative now.
• More recent sources have called it Christian democratic [26][27] or liberal-conservative. (van Haute/Close 2019, quoted in article)
• Jack Sheehan of the Irish Times (2023): [28] Unlike Fine Gael, which functions as a standard European Christian Democratic or Liberal-Conservative party, Fianna Fáil has never been comfortable with the label of right-wing, or with having a discernible ideology at all ... For a decade now, a socially conservative, supposedly republican party has been led by a centrist social liberal with a more cautious position on Irish unification than even Leo Varadkar.
• Party leader op-ed in 2023: [29] Fianna Fáil is a progressive republican party which rejects the failed and destructive idea that you must conform to the traditional left/right ideology.

JSwift49 19:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean... They're conservative. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Bastun, FF is clearly a conservative party, and anyone who follows Irish politics would attest that. I reject any claims that the sources are "outdated" on that issue. We also should ignore the self-description "progressive republican party", which really doesn't reflect the party (it's not progressive, i.e centre-left). We aren't here to regurgitate how any political party describes themselves.-- Autospark (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But we need sources to support that. They support FF having a more conservative faction and historically being considered conservative, I’m fine with including that, but typically describe FF as centrist now (not conservative). Even the article Bastun linked says the leader of the party opposes that faction’s stance, so it’s not representative.

Are there any recent sources that say the party as a whole, specifically under Micheál Martin, is conservative? Political parties can change quickly and per WP:AGEMATTERS we shouldn’t rely on sources from 2010 or older. JSwift49 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

When more than half of the parliamentary party call for a 'no' vote on something like Repeal the Eighth, despite the party leader saying the party was in favour, and this was only six years ago - we are in WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Bastun. This a conservative party, it does not matter that they self-describe as "centrist" (would we describe the British Conservatives as "moderate centre ground" as they prefer that description?). Remember that it has been noted that FF and FG are sometimes considered to be in the "wrong" European groups, with FF a party that could quite happily and unremarkably fit into the EPP.--Autospark (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t self description – “centrist” is how at least 10 recent, reliable sources describe the party. Since political orientation is a complex topic I think it requires secondary sources and we shouldn’t label a party “conservative” based on a position some members supported. JSwift49 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we should take self-descriptions by political parties (and their members, grandees and supporters in the media) as literal?-- Autospark (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Again - it's not "some" members, it was a majority of the parliamentary party! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Then we should be able to find recent, reliable secondary sources that describe the party as 'conservative'. Addressing the recent three sources added: two aren't helpful because they either describe it as conservative as of 2006 [30] or refer to the first half of the the 20th century.[31] The third, a study published in 2018 that categorizes FF as conservative [32], is better but seems to be a study covering 2008–2010 The current work is a comparative study of 18 West European countries with data from 2008–2010. Since FF was more conservative during that time, I'd be hesitant to give this categorization too much weight.

Adhering to reliable news sources from multiple countries is exactly what we should be doing here. JSwift49 13:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bastun Looking at the previous discussions/RfC [33][34] and the other editors who have changed the ideology recently e.g. [35][36][37][38][39] there does not seem to have ever been a consensus overall for reducing the lead/infobox to 'conservative'. Also, keeping the lead as 'conservative and Christian democratic' while not mentioning 'centrist' or other nuances is not in line with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

Re. [40] my thinking is until the RfC concludes and more uninvolved editors weigh in, we should keep the lead/infobox as 'centre to centre-right' (which we agree is an accurate description), or at the very least mention both 'centrist' and 'conservative' per the body. JSwift49 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't remove the stuff you called an RfC about during that RfC. You wait until it concludes. I don't know what's hard to understand about that. While I'm here, can I also request that you use edit summaries for all of your edits? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can’t emphasise this enough, please don’t remove or add content prematurely and attempt to pre-empt any consensus.— Autospark (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is that by adding back “conservative” we were doing exactly that: preempting consensus. The last RfC had no consensus and the last discussion before I weighed in had no consensus. JSwift49 10:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we're not. The consensus version has been "conservativism" (why are you not using straight MOS:QUOTES, btw?), or "conservative liberalism", for literally months. The last RfC was nearly five years ago, and had no consensus for inclusion or exclusion. Again - your RfC was premature, but now you've started it, wait for it to conclude. While I'm at it - use edit summaries, and I would also strongly suggest not making three substantial changes separated by several paragraphs in the one edit. You are making it difficult to work collaboratively. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If there was no consensus for inclusion, it shouldn't have been included per WP:ONUS. Previous discussions, and regular recent editor reversions, don't read as a consensus to me; that's why I started this RfC so this can be sorted out.

I have been using edit summaries generally; not perfect at it, though usually I only omit if the edit is minor or obvious (per WP:FIES). JSwift49 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC on 'centrist' vs. 'conservative'

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus against describing the subject solely as either centrist or conservative in the lead. It has been demonstrated that sources conflict about this, so Wikipedia should document the disagreement without assuming a position on it (unless it can be demonstrated that the sources on one side or the other are a minority; so far it has not been). (WP:POV) The lead should reflect the body in this regard. (MOS:LEAD) A compromise label (e.g., conservative or centrist) may be acceptable, or it may be better to just explain the controversy (e.g., something along the lines of …is a Christian democratic political party in Ireland. Historically conservative, in the 21st century it has become more centrist.); I'll let editors decide on how to proceed here. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the party be described in the lead as centrist or conservative? JSwift49 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Centrist I have outlined my arguments in the [41] above thread, but TL;DR, almost all recent reliable secondary sources I could find describe the party as centrist or center-right. The sources in the article/Talk that support 'conservative' are either from/refer to events before 2011 (when the party was more conservative) or seem to discuss an aspect/faction of the party without explicitly describing the party as conservative. JSwift49 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• You can be fiscally/economically "centrist" and be "socially conservative" at the same time? Why are you jumping to an RfC after allowing discussion for only ~16 hours? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• The thread discussing the ideology from 2023 also had both support and opposition for including conservatism. Also, the last RfC from five years ago on this topic had no consensus, and the party's ideology is still being changed back and forth [42] so given all this + new sources/developments I figured it was appropriate to revisit an RfC. JSwift49 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Conservative. It's a conservative party. I also support using "centre-right" as the sole descriptor for the Position field in the Infobox, given "centre to centre-right" is redundant/tautological. (FWIW, I consider calling of an RfC a premature move.)--Autospark (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Conservative. Plenty of recent sources still refer to the party as conservative: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Even more recent sources call it centre-right: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I don't advocate for defining it under one position in the lead given it has more than one that is cited. We could call it centre to centre-right in the lead, but I'm absolutely against calling it solely centrist in the lead or the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• In regards to the infobox specifically I'd be fine with that being "Centre to centre-right" given the abundance of sources we have in the ideology section for centrist but having centre-right is essential and certainly not "dubious" and as such that tag should be removed (and its tag next to conservatism too). We also shouldn't define the party in the lead as either centrist or centre-right when both are well cited, as this would weight in favour of one over the other. Helper201 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • These sources are better, thanks (except the last which just says “more conservative”). I would be fine with calling it center to center right in the lead, but since so many sources call it centrist and sources differ on the specific ideology I can’t support calling it conservative only. I had flagged center right because I thought it should’ve included center (which I added but was removed). JSwift49 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Conservative, because this conservative party is conservative. Per the numerous references listed above, and per their numerous official and unofficial conservative policy positions, which have resulted in less conservative but prominent members of their parliamentary party to resign. Per Helper201, and numerous references, I'd also support describing it as centre to centre-right. And I'd urge the proposer to not call RFCs in future when they've allowed for less than 24 hours of ordinary discussion. This is definitely premature. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC) And sure have some more sources: 2023, 2020, post-2020, undated but recent. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Omit description. Ideologies debated per article body. I would argue no description is required in the lead sentence, and that instead a later sentence detail such. Ideologies in the infobox would have to reflect this as well, which could be a link to the "Ideology" section of the article. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Conservative per numerous refs. Spleodrach (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Conservative as the party is primarily so. A political party or a politician can be conservative and centrist at the same time (think of De Gasperi, Churchill, Kohl, Merkel, etc.), as well as social democrats can be centrist (think of Schmidt, Craxi, Blair, etc.), thus I do not understand the real point of this RfC. This said, I would also have only "centre-right" for FF. --Checco (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Acknowledge the conflict. In the lead, it's "a Christian democratic political party in Ireland, variously described as centrist, centre-right, or conservative." Then the "Ideology and platform" section goes into more detail about the different opinions concerning how to characterize its ideology (including whether it has one). JamesMLane t c 19:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Not a Christian-democratic party, though! And I would not confuse positions (centrist and centre-right) with ideologies (Christian democracy and conservatism). --Checco (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I mean, the entire RfC has a problem, in my view: a party can be both conservative and centrist—and this might be precisely the case of FF! However, as I argued above, this party, whose ideology can be described as a mixture of conservatism and populism, blended by the foam of Irish republicanism (which is a common feature of all Irish parties), stands in the centre-right. Thus, in the infobox I would have only conservatism (populism if possible, Christian democracy for the sake of consensus) and centre-right. --Checco (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

      blended by the foam of Irish republicanism (which is a common feature of all Irish parties)

      Irish republicanism is not a feature of all Irish parties, and in fact several parties in the Dáil could be reasonably described as being in opposed to Irish republicanism.

      What is correct to say is that all Irish parties are reasonably in favour of Irish reunification. Irish reunification ≠ Irish Republicanism. It's a complex but important distinction. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

      I agree I made a mistake with the RfC in that I limited the options to one of 'centrist' or 'conservative'. Given how many different ideologies the party has been labeled as + multiple sources calling the ideology malleable or ambiguous, I agree with JamesMLane's general approach here of acknowledging the conflict. JSwift49 18:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

    OK, I wasn't focusing on the "Christian-democratic" part of the current text. I express no opinion on the use of that term. If one or more editors disagree with it, I suggest that the subject be discussed in a separate thread on this Talk page, culminating in another RfC if necessary. JamesMLane t c 04:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Centre-right" where a single term is wanted. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sorry, what? "Closed as 'no consensus'"?! How did you arrive at that conclusion, @User:Compassionate727?

• Centrist: Jswift.
• Conservative: Autospark, Helper201, Bastun, Spleodrach, Checco
• Omit description: HapHaxion
• Acknowledge/include all: JamesMLane
• Centre-right: Johnbod.

So of the nine people who expressed an opinion, five, a majority, said a description of 'conservative' should apply in the lead, as opposed to the one person who answered the question asked with "centrist" and your decision is a) "no consensus" and b) therefore "conservative" should be removed? That's a bizarre reading. I would suggest you revert, and re-open the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Bastun, there was a clear and obvious consensus arrived upon, namely describing the party as conservative. We certainly did not collectively decide to describe the party solely as "centrist".--Autospark (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DETCON, consensus is determined by the strength of arguments that accord with Wikipedia's policies, not by editors' opinions. As far as that goes: the lead should reflect the body, and the body should reflect the sourcing. The evidence presented showed that historically, the party was consistently described as conservative, and today, is commonly described variously as "conservative," "centre-right," "centrist," etc. The body seems to already reflect this to some extent, and the lead should as well. That means not saying merely that it's conservative, and not saying merely that it's centrist. Whether that means describing it as "centre-right," "conservative and [or "or"] centrist," or something else, or just writing a sentence or two explaining the disagreement, is something for you editors of this page to decide, whether by normal editing or by discussion. I removed the existing description of it as solely conservative in accord with this; my expectation is that it will soon be returned alongside something else that appropriate contextualizes all of this for the reader. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Five people supporting 'conservative' and four (now five) people not supporting 'conservative' is not a consensus... And that's not including the other editors who removed the term when it was added, or who opposed it in previous discussions. JSwift49 23:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)