Talk:Aontú/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Representation

Is there a need to list every single cllr they have? The information will be irrelevant in a few months time anyway. A brief line that they've attracted 7 cllrs in the South & 1 in the North should suffice. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, list of names removed. Spleodrach (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
"The information will be irrelevant in a few months time anyway" - I'm afraid I don't follow the reasoning there, unless it is postulated that Aontú will definitely lose all its councillors in the forthcoming elections. Harfarhs (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a source for the number seven? A source says 8, but it may include NI, and/or it may be from Tóibín and hence primary (and unreliable — see Seamie Morris in table). I see these:—
Republic councillors in Aontú
Num Name Prev party Council Date Ref Notes
1 Ger Keohane Ind<SF Cork 2018-11-21 thejournal
2 Ide Cussen SF Kildare 2018-11-21 thejournal
x Seamie Morris Ind<SF Tipperary 2018-11-27 Tóibín tweet pace Tóibín's tweet 2019-01-24 only "considering" http://tippfm.com/news/politics/morris-considering-joining-peadar-toibins-party/]
3 Gerry Ginty Ind Mayo 2018-11-27 Tóibín tweet
4 Sarah O’Reilly FF Cavan 2018-12-07 echolive
5 Oliver O'Brien Ind<SF Wicklow 2018-12-09 Tóibín tweet
6 Brendan Thornhill Ind Wicklow 2012-12-12 Tóibín tweet (our 8th elected rep" -- including himself and ... Morris?
7 David Doran Ind<SF Tipperary 2019-01-25 irishexaminer
8 Úna D'Arcy SF Westmeath 2019-01-29 Tóibín tweet
jnestorius(talk) 13:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
D'Arcy wound up not joining in the end. Irishpolitical (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A split from Sinn Fein or not

The infobox used to say that Aontú are a split from Sinn Fein, but Spleodrach removed that. I restored, Spleodrach re-removed. Thus, discussion needed.

The party started when Peadar Tóibín left SF, and some of its members so far have come from SF, but others have come from elsewhere. 2 Rep. councillors also came from SF, 4 were independents but had previously been SF, 2 were just independents, and one was from Fianna Fail. In Northern Ireland, one councillor came from SF, one from the SDLP. So, the majority of the party's elected members were from SF originally (although only 4 came directly). Looks like a split from SF to me, but Spleodrach feels this broader range of origins means the infobox shouldn't say that. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If a member leaves (or is removed from) a party, sets up a rival one shortly thereafter, and attracts membership from the original party, I would call it a split, and I think its use is justified here. What do RS say, though? The UK Independent calls it a "breakaway party". Oddly, the Indo's article of 28 Jan talks about Tóibín's "acrimonious departure", while a Pressreader version of the same story uses the phrase "acrimonious split" (and I'm unable to link to the pressreader page because of an amazingly bad interface). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Lots of reporting doesn't use any "split" language. However, if some does and the reasoning is not illogical, then that seems reason to describe it as a split.
I note that I have argued against calling the new Brexit Party a split from UKIP. Although all of the Brexit Party's elected representatives used to be in UKIP, in that case there was, to my mind, a clear gap between them leaving UKIP and then later the Brexit Party starting. This discussion is making me want to re-think that discussion... Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is a split. A split in SF happened in 1970 between the Officials and the Provisionals. This is 1 TD and a handful of councillors, if pushed one could say breakaway group at best, but definitely not a split. It's more like the PDs, the founders were FF (O'Malley and Harney) but they also got many members from FG and independents. The PDs are not described as a split from FF. Split to me implies a party split in two, so it should not apply here. However if it means breakaway group then it would apply. Please clarify its meaning! Spleodrach (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The infobox doesn't have any way of differentiating between a 50/50 split and a fragment coming off. The field is generally used broadly, to include breakaway groups. So I read it as "a split from".
However, usage isn't that consistent. For example, The Independent Group is described as a split from Labour and the Tories. Veritas are described as a split from UKIP. The Pro-Euro Conservative Party are a split from the Conservatives. Those all imply that Aontu should be a split from SF. However, An Independence from Europe isn't described as a split from UKIP and the Progressive Democrats aren't described as a split either. I'll ask on Template talk:Infobox political party. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If we consider Renua to have been a split from Fine Gael then we should consider Aontú to be a split from Sinn Féin. Just because the two are ideologically divergent on some issues doesn't make it not a split. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I got no input at Template talk:Infobox political party. The weight of opinion here is in favour of describing Aontú as a split from Sinn Féin. I will make that edit now. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


Anti-abortion v. pro-life

There's some edit-warring going on as to whether to use the term "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" about Aontú in the infobox. I note that Wikipedia articles generally prefer the term anti-abortion. The article linked to uses "anti-abortion". The reliable source cited for this point used "anti-abortion". This, it seems to me, is plenty of reason to use "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life". Bondegezou (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Bondegezou. Bbx118 and others who continue to make changes in this regard (in particular where relying on primary sources to support a change of wording), are encouraged to engage here. Rather than to engage in warring. Guliolopez (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
If a person who was born male identified as female and an editor continually referred to them as male that would be considered not just bad manners but a violation of standards and even a violence against that person. If those that self identify as "pro-life" are, against their wishes, referred to as "anti-abortion" it is considered fair. This is not fair since abortion activists who prefer to be called 'pro choice' are referred to as such even though for the greater part they are not libertarian and in fact opposed to choice in many aspects of life. By all means call them 'pro-choice' because we all know from the context what is meant. Denying people who oppose abortion and prefer to be called 'pro-life' (and we understand what is meant by the context) their right to use their preferred tag is not a decision made for the sake of accuracy it's a political decision by Wikipedia editors and is but one reason why Wikipedia still has credibility issues Barumba (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need to continue the debate, yet again, as to why many anti-abortion activists don't campaign for free/reduced-cost access to healthcare, childcare, education, housing, a living wage, contraception and non-abstinence-based sex education (all of which are known to reduce the incidence of abortion), while many pro-choice activists do do so? Or rehash the semantic argument that almost everyone, with the exception of serial killers, is "pro life", including pro-choice activists, and that the opposite of "pro life" isn't "pro choice", it's "anti life"? I think not. The consensus reached on WP is the correct one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent editing work and national conservatism

I have made some edits so that all the ideologies listed in the infobox are cited to help avoid editing warring, for verification and clarity.

I would like to hear other editors thoughts on whether to also add national conservatism, per this source - https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/former-sinn-fein-mans-aontu-party-to-contest-northern-ireland-general-election-seats-38472046.html It states 'Peadar Toibin, leader of the conservative nationalist party Aontu ... '. I am asking here because technically I think this may violate WP:SYNTH, as it doesn't specifically call the party national conservative. However, I may be being pedantic based on the wording. Helper201 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  • You aren't being pedantic. The article is referring to social conservatism as in their opposition to abortion but also nationalist as in they are pro-United Ireland which matters in a northern context. Irishpolitical (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Declanworld - see above discussions. The party are socially conservative and are described as such. Stop removing the word from the article. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You've described Aontú as 'socially conservative', deign to omit the word 'socially' and then you complain about the deletion of the word 'conservative'. Stop misleading the party's position - Aontú are not economically conservative. Declanworld (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"The party has been described as conservative[22] and socially conservative." They literally formed to be an anti-abortion party - they're socially conservative. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Bastun, I'm not saying I agree with Declanworld's actions, but to be fair conservatism does have a supporting citation, while social conservatism does not. While anti-abortion is often regarded as a socially conservative position to many vs pro-choice, one policy position does not define a party's whole outlook and justify a label based purely on one policy area. Social conservatism should really have a citation that specifically supports this claim before we go around labeling the party as such. I have no problem with the label of conservative being in the article and infobox, as that is supported by a source. Helper201 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that there are plenty of sources calling Aontú "conservative" because of the anti-abortion stance rather than their economic stance, instead of the more accurate socially conservative. I'll try to find additional sources over the weekend. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

General election 2019

Bastun, I don't understand your objection to saying that Aontu are standing 7 candidates in the UK general election. We have a paragraph each on NI and Republic local elections. Each of those gives the number of candidates and their performance. With the general election not yet held, we obviously don't have results, but we know how many candidates they've stood (from a reliable secondary source). To state that is to match those prior paragraphs. I have seen many other articles on parties say how many candidates they are standing in an election. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Bastun, you also argued this was WP:CRYSTAL, but the nominations are in and approved. The party is standing these candidates: there's no crystal-balling here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Because we don't do this on Irish political party articles, that I've seen. You'll not see it on the SF, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Alliance or Green Party articles. The relevant election articles could take the information, and in keeping with NPOV, should specify the figures for all the parties. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
There is more to say about the big, established parties. We take it as read that they are standing in every major election. Aontú is new (and their article much shorter): it's more notable within their own story that they're standing in their first general election. Thus this kind of thing is commoner on articles for small, new parties.
And if we're going to have a line about how the party does in the general election, as I presume we will here -- and on the articles for SF, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Alliance and Green Party -- then it seems logical to me to say something during the election. I'd also be happy for the articles for SF, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Alliance and Green Party to have a line about their 2019 general election plans. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Like this one? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I am unclear what point you are making...? Aontú, and other parties, are mentioned on the article about the election. That makes sense to me (and I hope that article can grow with a lot more content generally added). I also think that the party's UK general election plans should be mentioned on this article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example of a minor political party and how their 2019 actions are covered: Women's_Equality_Party#2019. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ideology

The party was established primarily as an anti-choice party - essentially an anti-choice alternative to SF. That's documented. It's entirely appropriate to include it in the ideology section. Being anti-choice is, by definition, socially conservative. Don't edit war, anon-IP 80.111. You've been reverted. B.R.D., etc. But then, you know this. Could we save everyone's time and skip to the bit where you're blocked for block evasion, ATL? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid your own personal views are not gospel. Wikipedia is based on sources not the personal opinions of editors. So can you provide a source? 80.111.232.116 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The Party was formed after some of the main people were denied freedom of conscience on the abortion issue within Sinn Féin. That does not equate to being "established primarily as an anti-choice party", rather a kickback against the authoritarian, dictatorial nature or that party. It's quite possible you could believe in freedom of conscience for others and be still pro-choice.vIrishHugo (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

CaneFluteMan, how is "anti-abortion" (which is used in the ideology section of other Irish parties) not in the source given? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Bastun pushing his WP:OR again instead of following the sources. They should just be called a pro-life party. Social conservatism =/= pro-life (necessarily), what are the party's other positions on social issues? we don't know yet. Irishpolitical (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, anti-abortion is sourced. It's exactly why the party was set up. Whatever about social conservatism, there is no reason whatsoever to exclude anti-abortion from the ideology. (Also, leave the attacks aside, you should know better.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No attacks,a chara. Just an observation. I'm content with anti-abortion given it's sourced. As for social conservative, leave that out. A source defining their economic policy would be ideal here also. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Bastun pushing his OR" is an attack, IP, given that there is no OR added by me. So apologise and leave it out. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Toibin's comments on gender neutral bathrooms along with the anti-abortion stance point to this party being socially conservative. https://www.thesun.ie/news/3575607/ex-sinn-fein-td-peadar-toibin-says-irish-people-want-to-hear-more-about-housing-than-gender-fluid-toilets-ahead-of-launching-his-new-pro-life-party/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by YFGChristianDems (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be original synthesis. It's not for us to draw conclusions from disparate sources. Huon (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

given the recent statements regarding immigration, it might be time to put it in the right-wing/centre-right category Theclownfromit (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's policy on original research, it is not for us editors to make deductions like that. We report what reliable sources say about the party. If you have any examples of reliable sources calling the party centre-right or right-wing, that would be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of ideology why doesn’t the article mention that the party is left wing TTID (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of ideology why doesn’t the article mention that the party is left wing TTID (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Political position

There are a few sources referring to the party as 'left-wing'; such as:

There are probably other sources too. Since being pro-life isn't inherently right-wing, I think we should add the left-wing position of the party. However the party is less explicitly socialist than Sinn Féin, therefore I think we should let the position read as: "Left-wing to centre-left". Irishpolitical (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Find better sources. The Irish Times op-ed article mentions precisely once "Tóibín hopes that there is a place for a nationalist, left-wing, anti-abortion party" and couldn't in any way be used to justify a political position of "Left-wing to centre-left."
The New Statesman article, despite what you entered in the reference metadata, was written by Mehdi Hasan, not Peadar Tobín. It doesn't mention him or Aontú once. That's blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Faking a reference like that is WP:TE.
(As I went to double-check that you had actually mis-attributed Hasan's article to Tobín, I see you've reverted without giving me the chance to actually post. I'll put that down to enthusiasm. I'll be re-reverting. We are now at the "discuss" stage of WP:BRD. Get consensus, don't edit war.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have added another source referring to the party as left-leaning - i.e. centre-left. Also I reject the assertion I am "faking a reference". I got the author name incorrect, apologies for that - honest mistake, but in this case you should just edit the source if you pick up on a mistake rather than revert all.
I reverted to draw your attention to this talk page. As well, "Jeebus what?!" isn't a particularly good rationale for reverting a source. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Which was followed by "See talk." I'd assume that would clue you in that something might be added to talk in the next while. You waited 3 minutes before reverting. I don't understand how a New Statesman article with prominent author attribution could be misattributed to someone not mentioned on the page at all. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Bastun, it's easy enough to cut and paste details of a citation wrongly. WP:AGF.
I think two of those references are sufficient to say something in the infobox. The first one stresses anti-abortion, Irish reunification and "economic justice". The second doesn't mention Aontu and can be ignored. The third has a neat summary as "a left-leaning All-Ireland republican party but with strong pro-life views." Most of that is already in the infobox, but the bit missing is around "economic justice" and "left-leaning": how do we represent that? Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"See talk" implies there's something in the talk. I checked the Talk presuming my edit was contrary to the consensus agreed to on Talk. But it wasn't. Therefore I find your revert impractical, as we should discuss it rather than you just revert everything then try and drown any change in rules and regulations to prevent page improvement. I was basing it off this tweet, I should've linked the tweet rather than the article https://twitter.com/Toibin1/status/1118245606768685057.
Regarding Bondegezou's point, I would suggest going to my original edit of "left-wing to centre-left". There are sources which suggest this party is either left or leans left. These are sufficient, with common sense and cop on, to add in the left-leaning nature of the Party. Centre-left is probably the most accurate political position for them. Irishpolitical (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Tóibín tweeting something is a bit too WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTHy to be basing a decision on.
I agree we have support for something like "left-wing to centre-left", but I am a bit wary about the jump from "left-leaning" and supporting "economic justice" to us inserting the specific wording of "left-wing to centre-left". Some additional citations would be useful, of course. Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the reference to 'left-leaning' and the IT reference for a new 'nationalist, left-wing' party (led by Tóibín) are sufficient to include 'centre-left' in the infobox of this article. And yes, 'economic justice' is a shibboleth of the left (incl. centre-left). Irishpolitical (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It should be noted that galwaydaily link got added to the list after disussion had already commenced. If they're left to centre-left, I've no doubt there'll be no problem finding multiple high-quality RS to say that, before the local elections, without having to rely on an op-ed, OR, or SYNTH. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a relatively small party, so there isn't a huge amount written about them. Hopefully more RS will turn up. The question is whether the current references are sufficient to say something like "centre left" for now. I am ambivalent as to the answer to that question. We have two RS that point to them being left-y, but I am a bit uncertain whether we can, while respecting WP:RS and WP:SYNTH, summarise that as "centre left" or not. If you, Bastun, feel it's insufficient (and no-one else joins the conversation), I'm happy to go along with that. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If another editor could weigh in it would be ideal. Asking for yet more sources to make a fairly non-contentious point (which is supported by existing sources) seems overly picky and disruptive to the article's progress. There are sources which state the party is left-leaning. We can easily infer from these sources that the party is somewhere between left-wing and centre-left. Leaving an infobox position is not useful for readers. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Irishpolitical, may I remind you of WP:AGF? Clearly this is a contentious point, because we are contending it. If you've got more sources that would help the rest of us feel more secure about "left-wing" or "centre-left", that would be appreciated. Bondegezou (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

More sources have been added to support the fact that Aontú are a left leaning party. Too many people including the authors of this article have jumped to the conclusion they are right-wing and/or conservative without looking at their policies or listening to anything Tóibín has said. All of those elected under the Aontú banner (Codd, Reilly, Tobin & McCloskey) campaigned on left or centre-left platforms of health, housing and economic justice. McCloskey in particular describes herself as a 'feminist'. The party originated in the human rights group 'Cherish all the Children Equally' who self describe as "progressive pro-life Republicans". IrishHugo (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This would be a lot easier if you'd confine your argument to one talk page section - this one was last updated in April! Replying to your point above in the next section below. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Aontú Article - "social conservative" reverts

Hi please desist from adding social conservative to the Aontú article in place of centre-left.

If you read their policies they are clearly a left of centre. For example the advocate: free healthcare, under a single public health system; banning zero hour contracts; ban on 'bogus self-employment’; minimum wage set to the living wage; work, education or training a right for all, worker and non-worker alike regardless of socio economic background, location, age or gender; right to minimum income during retirement, pro-immigration and free movement; right to a home.

These are all clearly progressive left of centre policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishHugo (talk • contribs)

The above was added to my talk page (rather than the proper place for article discussion, i.e., here) by IrishHugo. Moved here so everyone can see it and respond if they wish. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And the retort to IrishHugo's point is, of course, that any party that opposes access to abortion is - by definition - socially conservative. That doesn't mean they don't necessarily have centre-left economic policies, too - they're not mutually exclusive. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest several people involved in these edits need to remind themselves of WP:EDITWAR and to come here to discuss. (Thanks, Bastun for bringing discussion here.)
Ideally, we would like reliable secondary sources that say Aontú are "centre-left" or "socially conservative" in those words. We should avoid trying to deduce their position from their policies, for that way lies WP:SYNTH.
So, what do RS actually say? Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The Times piece, "Tóibín can burst our parties' liberal bubble", that was used as a citation for "centre-left" does not support that at all. If anything, it paints Aontú as being opposed to social democracy:

"His [Tóibín's] performance reflected his broader point about our political marketplace. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, he argued, are two large centrist husks without any core beliefs. Just surviving and getting elected seems to be the main goal for many. Politicians' guiding principles tend not to be a set of beliefs or an ideology but a hope that the liberal media and quangos will think well of them. Social democracy is the dominant ethos. Few politicians are prepared to take risks and make sacrifices for their beliefs, as Tóibín has done."

It also characterises the party as being opposed to liberalism:

"Finally, being an all-Ireland party could help Aontú's prospects in this post-Brexit world, especially as many northern Sinn Féin voters are uneasy with the party's liberal direction."

So, it's an interesting piece. It doesn't really say what Aontú are, but is does imply they are not liberal, or centrist, or social democrat. IrishHugo's use of it as a citation for "centre-left" is not sustainable and very odd. Do we have any better citations? Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I additionally note that IrishHugo is an WP:SPA skirting close to violating WP:3RR, so I am happy to take a note to WP:ANI if there's any more unhelpful behaviour. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at RS, I see lots of "anti-abortion" (or "pro-life") and lots of "republican", which we already have under Ideology. In terms of political position, this piece describes the party as of the "right" and "conservative". This goes with "conservative" and social conservatism. This one talks of "conservative Catholic party Aontú". That seems to me to support "social conservatism" and possibly "right-wing". Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have referred IrishHugo for 3RR violation: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:IrishHugo_reported_by_User:Bondegezou_(Result:_). Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I take issue with that IrishCentral source's reliability. IrishCentral is an Irish-American blog edited by Niall O'Dowd (brother of Fergus O'Dowd). The specific article "Is Conservative Ireland making a comeback?" is essentially an opinion piece. There are sources describing the party as being "pro-life" "left-wing" party. I have in the past espoused calling them centre-left, as that is probably closest to their genuine position - but that's for another day, my point here is that the IrishCentral article is not a reliable source in this context. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear - here, you're arguing we shouldn't use an Irish-American blog as a source for an Irish political party. But over there, you're saying we should use an American blog as a source for an Irish political party...? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
We agree on "anti-abortion"/"pro-life" (the Wikipedia community has previously decided the former of these two synonyms is to be used).
I've discussed 4 citations that support a conservative position, 2 from IrishCentral, but 2 from other places. I suggest leaving the IrishCentral citations in until we reach a consensus otherwise, but we still have the other citations notwithstanding.
If there are sources describing the party as "left-wing" or "centre-left", please do share them here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Not because it's American per se, but because it's incredibly partisan. I am against using the IC source which described them as "conservative". Regards to the source discussion on the NP talk page, I am for using the source in question in parts & with explanation in the article regarding it being American & conservative. There is no contradiction. Irishpolitical (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The ideology section of this article is a disgrace to be honest, it is incredibly biased and extremely misleading. From what I can see it is based mainly on the opinion and selective referencing of Bastun, who betrays his own bias here by describing them as "anti-choice". The simple fact is that apart from their anti-abortion/pro-life position, everything else about them clearly put them on the left ideologically, probably more like a traditional social democratic party. They should not be described as "social conservative" when they are obviously left wing and progressive in every other way. IrishHugo (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

1) Sign your posts using four tildes, please, IrishHugo. 2) Strange your single-purpose account should show up after a block and a gap of over three weeks, the day after another SPA got blocked... are you also editing as HectorX1233? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Stick to the discussion at hand, Bastun, and less of the speculation. Your interpretation of Aontú is clearly biased and unreliable. IrishHugo (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you stick to one section of the talk page to discuss the one issue, maybe? As to speculation, guess we'll find out... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop being a dick and focus on overcoming your bias which as grossly distorted this article. IrishHugo (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Leave out the personal attacks. Your own bias is perfectly clear. My additions all have reliable sources that actually back the content they're used to support. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Above, you state "More sources have been added to support the fact that Aontú are a left leaning party." "Left-leaning" is in one source. I'm fine with including it. "Left-leaning", that is - not "left wing", which is what you used the reference for. Unsubstantiated attack ignored. "All of those elected under the Aontú banner (Codd, Reilly, Tobin & McCloskey) campaigned on left or centre-left platforms of health, housing and economic justice." - and opposition to abortion, which is social conservatism. We already have sources for that, though. "McCloskey in particular describes herself as a 'feminist'." And? Many anti-abortion activists describe themselves as feminists. So do many pro-choice activists, and members of all political parties. "The party originated in the human rights group 'Cherish all the Children Equally' who self describe as "progressive pro-life Republicans"." No, they originated with Tobín leaving SF, and even if that weren't the case, we go with what the sources say, not self-description. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thought I'd try and weigh in here. I'm not in favour of adding a political position of any kind unless it is clearly supported by a reliable source (and is not a comment or opinion piece). From what I have seen the party does seem broadly centre-left. The issue of abortion is clearly significant for the party, hence it being the reason it split from Sinn Fein. Being opposed to allowing women the choice of abortion is generally regarded as a socially conservative position in politics. However, one policy position is not enough to encompass the party's position as a whole, either socially or economically. It is debatable whether we should in include the party being referenced as socially conservative in the main text, since this comes from a comment piece, which is not a reliable source to support a factual statement. However, conservatism, which is cited in the infobox, does have a clear supporting citation from a reliable source. I think the discussion on here seems to be moving too close to editors opinions, rather than just sticking to what reliable sources explicitly state. I don't see how the party is conservative outside the abortion issue but accept that if a reliable source states it then it likely has the right to be included. Helper201 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Syncretic

Folks, Syncretic was added to the Political position, as the party has been described as both conservative and left leaning, and not as clear cut as socially conservative and economically liberal. To that end, the apparent correct terminology in this circumstance is Syncretic. However, this was removed as OR (Which might be right, or might be a case of "SYNTH is not a rigid rule"). Considering its' evidently apparent that the Political position for Aontú doesn't fit neatly into one classical descriptor, and if we are forbidden from expressing this using the "Syncretic" reference - what is the preferred option - one which incorporates their conservationism, liberalism and socialism ? Berrocca addict (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I added the OR tag and the unreferenced tag. You are not "forbidden" from using the term "Syncretic, but it must be reliably referenced and it must not be original research. Currently, it has no reference and it is the opinion of some editor(s), so it is OR. Spleodrach (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, I added this a bit hastily without thinking it through, as I saw there was edit warring around the party's position and this seemed the logical conclusion to me based off of its ideologies and how it is described in the history section. I thought this would hopefully end the editing/controversy as I thought that if it was simply removed people would add different positions back again and edit war over it. I accept it is not drawn from any specific source and I will not argue against it being removed if that's what people wish. We could add <(needs an ! here to hide the message)-- Please do NOT add a political position here unless you also provide a reliable source that supports your position claim. --> to the edit page that won't show on the actual page and will warn editors before adding any uncited claims. Helper201 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, Berrocca addict, may I respectively ask you to please stop adding 'leftist' to the ideology section. 'Leftism' is not a political ideology. The left is a position on the political spectrum, not an ideology in of itself. Helper201 (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The encyclopedia Brittanica describes it as an Ideology [1]. Please stop removing it. Berrocca addict (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Information on wikipedia cannot be sourced using encyclopedias. Furtherore, Left-wing is solely a position and not some defined ideology of any kind. If you continue to re-add this information like this and without reaching concensus you will be reported and likelly blocked! Discuss your changes further here and stop using encyclopedias as sources! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Sourced additions added were reverted without any regard to this talk page. You cannot claim consensus in the absence of engagement. There are quite a few sources, utilize them in the info box if you can see a better option, or just let the verifiable sourced material remain Berrocca addict (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Clearly there is no consensus to add Left as an ideology, as 3 editors (Helper201, Vif12vf, and Spleodrach) have reverted these changes. Berrocca addict, will you stop adding this as in addition to being wrong, there is no consensus for it. Also, as has been pointed out, you cannot use EB as a source. Spleodrach (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Anti-abortion

I removed 'anti-abortion' from the ideology section of the infobox because it is 1. Not an ideology and 2. Already covered by 'social conservatism' thus making it redundant.

Mr. Guliolopez has decided to revert it because "the stance on abortion is (in effect) the raison d'être for the party, it is worthy of inclusion in the infobox". I think it is worth nothing that the section in which 'anti-abortion' is included is called the ideology section and not the "List of random things considered noteworthy" section so using it as such would go against its expressed purpose.31.187.2.207 (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi 31.187.2.207. On the points you raise:
RE: "Anti-abortion is not an ideology". Yes. It is. "Anti-abortion" is included on the list of political ideologies article linked from the relevant infobox parameter. It is considered an ideology for the purposes involved. Abortion is, fundamentally, an ideological issue. A claim otherwise is a nonsense.
RE: "Anti-abortion is an ideological subset of social conservatism thus making it redundant to include". Yes. It is a sub-set. No. It is not redundant to include. "Anti-abortion" is included (often alongside "social conservatism") in the infoboxes of many other political parties. Often for clarity and precision purposes. And often for those parties whose political principles are based on that ideological position. Or those who have campaigned on that ideological issue. Like Human Dignity Alliance (IE) or Party of the Brazilian Woman (BR) or People of Family (IT) or others.
RE: "It is redundant to include specific ideological subsets alongside the superset". No. It is not redundant. Paleolibertarianism is a subset of libertarianism. And yet it is deemed relevant to include both in the infobox on KORWiN (PL). And the Libertarian Party (US). Etc.
RE: "An anti-abortion stance is just some random thing considered noteworthy". No. It is not. Nor was I stating that it was. An ideological position on abortion was fundamental to the party's founding. Its founders felt the issue so ideologically important as to leave the parties they were with, and form a new one. And to suggest that members of other parties (otherwise less-aligned on other ideological issues) might join them due to a shared outlook on that one ideological point.
Claiming that an anti-abortion position is not an ideological one (and/or not an ideological position worth mentioning in the infobox) does not stack up with the refs, general convention, the application of that convention, or any logic that I am familiar with. Guliolopez (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean your whole argument seems to be "Here's some random examples of Wikipedia being wrong so Wikipedia might as well be wrong here as well". I see no reason to call any stance on abortion an ideology and wikipedia isn't a reliable source as my teachers use to tell me.31.187.0.52 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. "Any stance on abortion isn't an ideological stance". Abortion is, fundamentally, an ideological issue. If a stance on abortion isn't ideological, then what is it? Is Aontú's stance on abortion based on economical considerations? Environmental considerations? Religious considerations? No. Abortion is an ideological issue. Claiming otherwise (or that this is somehow an academic or "Wikipedia only" thing) is a nonsense. Not engaging any more. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
If being anti-abortion is an ideology then where is the demarcation line exactly? Is every political belief an ideology? Of course not.
Abortion is as a result of ideological considerations, just as any political belief is. In this case its as a result of the ideology of social conservatism. If abortion is an ideology then I suppose virtually every political position is.
Its disappointing that you're "not engaging anymore" but I suppose that's as a result of emotional immaturity on your part.31.187.0.52 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

A citation for the information that Aontú submitted its SIPO accounts.

https://aontu.ie/aontu-statements-of-accounts-have-been-delivered-to-sipo-and-were-delayed-in-part-due-to-covid 51.37.115.125 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done, but with a secondary source. IP, statements by the subject itself is not considered a reliable source. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aontú/Archive_1&oldid=1082448976"