Talk:Fine Gael/Archive 2

Centrist and Centre-right

Why were reliable and npov sources removed from this article? Snappy (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, how on earth can a party be centrist and also, centre-right. Its either one or the other. A political position reflects the collection of ideologies which might dictate in the party. Note: Perception is perfectly summed up by Reuters, who without fail, mention the fact that Fine Gael is centre right every time it is covered by their site. Can a mod get this fixed. I would't be happy with the way the page currently looks, both in the fact box, and also in the intro.--104066481 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But The Party my its collection of ideologies has it Pro choice, Pro-Europe and if not always

Different reliable sources describe FG as such. I don't see why Reuters is deemed to be the only acceptable source, is it because this is what party HQ says? Also FG describes itself as "a pity of the progressive centre", if its in the centre, is it not centrist? Snappy (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you have to say. The general trend since 2007 has been for the party to be seen as being centre-right. Looking at the empirical evidence, which I believe we should, FG's policy platform is the most to the 'right' of the Irish political parties. In their documents, the health policy "Faircare" is a universal health insurance plan, premised on reliance on private insurers. 'NewERA' is a stimilus package based on funds largely raised through privatisation of state companies. 'New Politics', their political reform document speaks of smaller government, and reducing the numbers in political office. The more recent document, 'Reinventing Government', is strongers on those areas and further to that, suggests a 30,000 reduction in the public service numbers. That puts it nearly twice that of FF. In economic policy concerning the deficit, FG's proposal is to cut spending and where possible keep taxation low. Its all essentially a small government argument. To me anyway, that all suggests a very clear tagline of centre-right. Incidentally, FG HQ I imagine would write a very different article if they got their hands on it, and would likely take all reference to political position out, as I imagine they want to spread their net widely. Luckily, they aren't. Please consider these arguments. I am not looking for a very old argument based on what FG deems itself to be (written around 2002), but rather a political position tag which reflects the party as it is today. Remember, politicians like Varadkar, Creighton, Noonan, Coveney, Bruton and others who populate the front bench are all seen to be explicitly centre-right. They have identified themselves to be thus.--104066481 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you said above, but that's YOUR analysis of Fine Gael's position. Going through FG policies and reaching the conclusion that they are centre-right is Original Research. I've added in multiple, independent, reliable, npov sources for centrist and centre-right. You are saying only Reuters is allowable because it agrees with your opinion. Maybe you should trust the reader more. Leave sources for both positions in the article, add in their policy positions as you outlined, with reliable sources. Let the reader draw their own conclusions about what kind of a party they are. Snappy (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Snappy that the above is a fair assertion. I would accept that international news agencies have a clearly accepted that the party is centre right. There is considerably more in the way of live and reputable links on the page claiming centre right positioning, rather than centrist. Furthermore, I think we ought to have a common way of reviewing these things. If the likes of reuters and the Euronews are asserting a common opinion, I would guess that it is reputable and authentic. The point made above about personalities, I think, largely finds its basis in the evidence of articles, and shouldn't really be seen as simply ' YOUR analysis'--87.33.59.137 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

johnymac 17 Feb 2011 It's probably useful to keep Irish notation and European notation separate. The Centrist moniker likely refers to the overall alignment within greater European politics, rather than local Irish politics.

References

Just did a quick check of references and the links. There is a need to start removing and finding live links for references that have either gone dead, or now need a subscription to find out what the article relates to. Eg. Ref 7 and 8 both now require subscriptions to the Phoenix and Sunday Business Post respectively to provide evidence for the claims made in the article. --87.33.59.137 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no real need to replace subscription links they should just be marked with {{subscription}} and dead links should be marked with {{dead link}} until a replacement reference can be found. Keith D (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Political position

Fine Gael are now 100% to the left of Fianna Fail. Fine Gael are more Pro-Europan, Pro-Choice and have a Large Social Democratic Wing in the party and work closely with the Labour Party i am not disputing Fine Gael has also a Large Christian Democratic wing also but these cancel themselves out and leaves what most International Commentators would say Centrist Party only Ireland and its Political immaturity where people and parties dont know whether there left-Wing or Right-Wing would disagee.

On the other hand Fianna Fail are less Pro-Europe but in any means not Euro-Sceptic , Pro-Life and have Conservative Catholic views towards the economy the main issue where i would agree Fianna Fail is to the left of Fine Gael is on Social Welfare. Even though many members when asked if Fianna Fail would not to exist any more alot them say they would be happy with the Labour Party although this is found out to be rubbish as many of them quizzed about there policies and beliefs would align more closely with the Conservative Party in the Uk than Labour.

I believe the above to be 100% true and tell me where i am wrong i would be happy to discuss it with you but i am not going to spend all my time looking for sources. You can if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.107.135 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources for your claims, otherwise it will be treated as your opinion and will be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Snappy (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay sick of these lies some sources for you http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0702/460124-abortion-legislation/ http://www.politics.ie/forum/elections/206778-should-fine-gael-labour-merge-social-democratic-party.html http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/a-protestant-taoiseach-would-not-do-the-things-kenny-has-29343809.html

How does this help? The first is an RTE News report, the second is a forum (not allowed), the third is on opinion piece by a well known right wing journalist (not very neutral). Snappy (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well if right wing Journalists are not supporting Fine Gael according to wikipedia a centre right party more right wing than Fianna Fail lol does that not say anything . The RTE Report shows Fine Gael mainly supported the implementation of abortion into Ireland and Fianna Fail mainly did not . What sources please tell me that i am looking for to change your bizarre view or out of date view of Irish Politics

I don't understand your ranting above. So what text do you want to insert into the article? Snappy (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Fine Gael is a now a Social Democratic Party (Centre-Centre Left)Probably could be classed as the LIB DEMS of Ireland now 2. Pro Choice - the TDS That voted against implementation of Abortion have been thrown out and wont be selected again for the Fine Gael Party 3. Fianna Fail are more Right wing than them now except on Social Welfare because of the Party's long established links with the Catholic Church

Fine Gael is a now a Social Democratic Party (Centre-Centre Left) - this is pure Original Research that has no place in the article. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Pro choice, Pro- Europe has uses the Labour Party mainly as first choice to coalition government what does that say . They are a left, Leaning liberal Party on the european spectrum although a member of the EPP. I am not trying any agenda speaking the truth

Agree with User:Lokalkosmopolit, total OR, no place for this kind of thing in the article. Snappy (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you at least then get rid of the Social Conservatism part on ideaology as they clearly are Pro-choice as introducing Abortion into Ireland .

They are doing no such thing. This bill is to legislate for the X case, no more. It simply brings legal clarification to the current situation. That is clearly NOT pro-choice. Snappy (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

They didn't have to the 4 mambers of Fine Gael who voted against it have already been thrown out of the Parliamentary party snd willbe de-selected at the next election . 1) Does the Legislation of the x case allow abortion in to Ireland ? YES 2 )Did Fine Gael legislate for it ? YES 3) So therefore Fine Gael led Government with no free vote introduced abortion into Ireland ? YES 4) Does a government who legislates for abortion with no free vote considered pro Choice ? YES 5) So therefore Fine Gael are a Pro-Choice Party

Do i have to argue the use of the English Language now !!!!

Please stop blogging. This can be seen as talk page abuse. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums or soapboxes. Again, please stop trying to insert your opinion and your original research into this article. Snappy (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So the Truth which i shown you using simple English is just me blogging and my opinion ok please tell me the point of Wikipedia when you are distorting the truth to people ?

Please read (or re-read): Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources. Feel free to use punctuation as well. Snappy (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

English pronunciation for this word

I've started a conversation for this at Talk:Tánaiste. --101.160.13.231 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Social conservatism

Describing Fine Gael as socially conservative, such as the info-box of this article does, is outdated by years. Fine Gael are now pro-choice and are campaigning for "gay marriage", which isn't exactly the definition of socially conservative. Tomh903 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this should be removed from the info-box. (Or at the very least added to Fianna Fáil's info-box for consistency, because as some in the talk page have previously indicated it could be argued that they are currently more socially conservative than Fine Gael) [1] [2] [3] Ranníocóir (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Numbers changed

One of their TDs, Sean Conlan, resigned from the party today. http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/fine-gael-td-sean-conlan-resigns-from-party-707197.html I've updated their TD numbers in the data box (or whatever it is called) to reflect that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Put abortion in separate heading

To avoid rows over which heading abortion should be under (pro-life and pro-choice sides in Ireland constantly row over something as basic as under what heading does it belong to, Health Justice or Social Affairs, I have put it under its own separate sub-heading. So no-one can accuse the article of POV by where the topic is covered.

I also added in additional information about FG's stance on the 1983 and 2002 amendments, and a link to its current stance on the 8th Amendment. Hopefully it is NPOV. (If something annoys both sides it usually means it is NPOV!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

politicals position

i sudjest that political postion needs to be change from centre-right to extreme right wing after enda kennys racist joke.[4] Railsparks (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please deny recognition to this editor. Snappy (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Snappy so that is not a credible source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First-party source

@Checco: Please read WP:BIASEDApollo The Logician (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician:. How does WP:BIASED apply?! Please read WP:PRIMARY, which does. In any case, not only is there already an existing source for what's being referenced, making the primary source redundant - but the primary source doesn't back what your using it to claim. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you self revert and follow WP:BRD and WP:CON. So in your own words "cop on"Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bastun: a (redundant) first-party source is not worth adding to support an ideology in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED bias sources are considered reliable if they are describing their own opinions.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest you actually read WP:CON yourself - your several recent blocks show you're not really au fait with the policies you should be... How the hell does "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" even apply when there's a better secondary source already there; and the primary source doesn't actually back what you're using it to cite?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

How does any of that have any relevance to a first party source not being able to be used? And ad hominems and Tu quoques are not very good arguments And further how doesnt it say it? Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The infobox's "ideology" camp is not about "describing their own opinions", indeed. It is about ideologies supported by third-party sources. It is just common sense. Moreover, as User:Bastun rightly pointed out, that source was also redundant. --Checco (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

As already proven by referencing wiki policy it is "about" both.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You haven't "proven" anything, you've made assertions. What is in the primary source that you want to include that isn't in the better secondary source? Why is it necessary to include a primary when a secondary exists? How does "Our party, in the past, used to be called 'The United Ireland Party' [but isn't anymore]" a reference for the party's current ideology? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and as for your "consensus" argument - there was no consensus except in your own head. See the "Ideology" section, two sections above. You added this in, as recently as February. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Proposed as a principle ‘unity by consent’ in North-South relations – something now standard across parties but condemned at the time by all other parties."Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please show me where there is a consensus not to include the source? I dont see any.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of the source, as it is clearly a first-party source, and the quote itself is taken out of context.--Autospark (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Look harder. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how you complaining about addding unsourced material shows any kind of consensus on what we are talking about?.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's already been explained above why including a first-party source isn't warranted per policy; three editors oppose the its inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You referenced the ideology section. Can you even keep track of your own thoughts?Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Er, what was that you were saying yesterday about ad hominem? Briefly, you were claiming "long-established consensus" for including the first-party source. Actually it only goes back as far as February and was challenged even then. Can we park this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

West British Party

I am surprised it is not mentioned within the article that one of the main cliches or criticisms of Fine Gael is the perception that they are an unpatriotic or West British party. Whether this is a fair assessment or not, I think it is a wide-spread enough theme that it should be addressed within the article.

For instance, former leader John Bruton has even attacked the Easter Rising as "unjustified"; a rising which the Irish state itself and its governing institutions supposedly claims its legitimacy from! In most European countries it is the left who are usually accused of being unpatriotic, but in Ireland's case it is the more right-wing party; that is notable. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

arent sinn fein and minor republican parties the only ones who say that? i guess it could be included but it is not lead worthy. also i am pretty sure bruton is alone in that kind of revisionism just look at thisApollo The Logician (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Irish pronunciation?

It just doesn't make sense not to provide the Irish pronunciation of an Irish word, when all other non-English words like spaghetti, nirvana, Bolshevik have an indication of their native pronunciation. It's almost as if Irish people are so ashamed of not knowing Irish that they want to censor the Irish pronunciation of Irish words out of existence.--84.238.136.52 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

There's a comment in the Ideology section when you go to edit it: "Please don't change the ideology section without discussing it on the talk page first." Good idea. Apollo The Logician, can you explain why you're adding an unsourced "United Ireland" to the ideology section, with no source, when previously you had removed "Centrism" from it, with the edit summary "No source"? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't see that, it should be moved further down and put in the ideology section, not above it. I don't remember ever removing centrism from the article. I didn't think it was necessary per WP:SKYISBLUE. I will do it now.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You removed it from the infobox, here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine Gael likely can no longer be classified as a Christian democrtic party, as it has largerly embraced anti-clericalism and a more ardent path of secularism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAMYSHINSKAYA Aleksandra Anastasevna (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Christian democracy

I question whether Fine Gael can still be considered a Christian-democratic party. Christian democracy should entail some form of social conservatism (as mentioned on the article about the ideology), but it seems like Fine Gael can't be considered socially conservative: its leader is homosexual and it supported the referendum on abortion. At the very least, they are less socially conservative than Fianna Fáil, whose parliamentary delegation was much more divided on the referendum. If anything, FF is the Christian-democratic party in Ireland, not FG.

I do also remember reading in a book that Ireland cannot be considered to have a Christian-democratic party (implying that neither FG nor FF is Christian-democratic) because Christianity already influences (influenced?) politics enough to prevent the creation of one. However, I don't remember what book that is. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Why does that make any difference? Equal marriage and civil partnerships have been legalised by centre-right governments, or coalition governments with-right components which have included Christian democratic parties, in several nations. In my own country, Britain, it was even the Conservative party whose government finally legalised equal marriage, and no-one would ever think of describing the British Conservative party of being anything other than "socially conservative". As specifically for Fine Gael, the party is described as Christian-democratic in a wide variety of literature, or at least having a Christian-democratic current. We should include that description in the article, at very least in the Ideology section, even if that involves references tp sources that dispute that description (or feel that is more appropriate as a description for the party in the historical sense).--Autospark (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't equal marriage legalized under David Cameron, who could be argued to belong to the more liberal-conservative, not socially conservative, part of the party? Yes, I agree that we shouldn't just remove it because it is/was (not sure which) described as such in a wide variety of literature. Perhaps it'd be necessary to put in a note explaining that some people dispute this characterization of the party. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but the note should not be in the Infobox, rather in the Ideology section. We should recognise that – whether we agree with it or not – much of the literature describes FG as a Christian-democratic party. (We should of course place Christian democracy after liberal conservatism in the Infobox.)--Autospark (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Ezhao02 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

Napothemagicdragon, if you have a citation from a reliable source for your change, by all means discuss it; but don't change material that's already well referenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed "liberalism" from infobox. Fine Gael is a party also described as right-wing, and the liberalism pursued by Fine Gael is more like liberal conservatism or conservative liberalism.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I support removing just "Liberalism" from the info box, as they are a more conservative political party, plus we only have 1 source to point to liberalism while 3 to point to liberal conservatism, and Christian democracy. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Nationalism vs Reunification

@The Banner: I am not interested in war with you so, let’s settle this here. Every ideology or information needs a reliable source, if you don’t leave a source backing information your edit will be 100% reverted because it is unsourced. Using this method [5] is not how edits work, if, there is a repeat use of sources for more than one thing, the ref name template like here [6] is used. It is not disruptive at all, it is how every Wikipedia editor does it. Putting a comma next to an ideology is absolutely unnecessary because Irish nationalism and Irish reunification are two different ideologies. - Centrist1 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier, you are completely missing the point. You want a source for every word, while a source per sentence or line is sufficient.

And you do not have to explain to me how Wikipedia works. You have just 658 edits with 5 weeks experience, slightly less than my 81217 edits since 2006. Ow, and I see already two edit wars. The Banner talk 17:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This sort of arrogant behavior is not tolerated anywhere especially Wikipedia. It’s a shame how a person with as you say, 81217 edits since 2006 has still not understood Wikipedia’s Policies and Guidelines and by the way not two edit wars, Ritchie and I have already came to a peaceful conclusion about how the edit goes, something that you are unable to do, unfortunately. Ow, someone doesn’t know their facts. - Centrist1 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Centrist1 I do support adding "United Ireland" to the ideology section, refer to the 'United Ireland' topic I just created for my reasoning. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Conservatism

In Fine Gael's Wikipedia page, it states that one of the ideas of the party is "Cultural Conservatism". I am wondering if we should add that then to the ideology section . B. M. L. Peters (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about adding it to the infobox? If so, I'd say that we shouldn't in the interest of keeping the infobox concise. The infobox is intended to be a basic summary of the article content; it doesn't need to have every single detail. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cultural conservatism" should not be in the Infobox as term is quite broad, and because there are two well-sourced ideologies listed (liberal conservatism and Christian democracy) where that is already implied..--Autospark (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Centre to centre-right

I think we should only write 'center right' in the Fine Gael document infobox. This is because it is Ireland's main conservative party. I understand Fine Gael is a little more on the right than Fianna Fáil.--삭은사과 (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes. I don't like the trend on en.wiki of describing all centre-right/conservative parties as "centre to centre-right". Centre/centrist is merely a self-description by the party, and isn't backed up by strong sources like those used to reference centre-right.--Autospark (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I fixed the infobox a little bit. It leaves only commonly accepted ideologies and positions.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I have reverted your edit. I agree that the shade of "right" depends on the government in power, so sometimes they are more right than other periods. But in the mean time you gave also removed liberalism, without the slightest evidence of that. And that is clearly POV. The Banner talk 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should delete 'Centre' even if we leave 'liberalism' in the infobox. The party is located on the right-hand side of Fianna Fáil, usually overwhelmingly 'center-right.' Many media outlets also often describe Fine Gael as a center-right party, not a centrist one.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Liberalism is fine in the infobox. "Centre" shouldn't be. (The source used for "liberalism" actually says "centre-right liberal", incidentally, if you have a look at it.)--Autospark (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

From what I've read, it seems like Fine Gael is more to the right on economic issues but also more socially liberal than Fianna Fáil. Both parties are usually considered very similar in terms of ideology. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. How I would describe it, FF is a conservative party, and FG is a liberal-conservative party. Both are definitely on the centre-right. (Incidentally, I’ve changed my mind about the infobox – I prefer to only list liberal conservatism and Christian democracy as ideologies in the Infobox.)—Autospark (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Then I suggest that both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael describe only 'Centre-right'. In the Irish political environment, they are not parties located in the 'Centre'.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Fianna Fáil may be classified as moderate, but Fine Gael is clearly a center-right party. Because Fine Gael is also described as right-wing.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I believe we should reinstate "Centre", simply because it was previously sourced, Irish politics if difficult, but Fine Gael is responsible for Same-sex marriage, abortion, and divorce legalisation in Ireland, while Fianna Fáil is socially more rightist, they only supported the same-sex marriage amendment, not the abortion or divorce amendment. Economically they are more "free market" while Fianna Fáil is more interventionist, hope that clarified, mine is an unbiased POV based on each parties voting history and manifestos. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue is that FG doesn't have many sources calling it centrist. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

United Ireland

It is my understanding that historically CmG the main ancestor party to this political party along with the Blueshirts believed in Irish Reunification, also the parties full name is "Fine Gael – The United Ireland Party", I believe according to these facts we should add "United Ireland" to the ideology section, it is also not as "radical" as Irish Republicanism or Irish Nationalism according to there Wikipedia definitions. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

United Ireland is an aspiration, not an ideology. FDW777 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It is one of there aspirations, regardless, if a political party in Ireland believes in Republicanism, or Nationalism, or Reunification, it is labeled. In the case of Fine Gael, the least radical form of a United Ireland "Irish Reunification" tag should be labeled and sourced. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

United Ireland is not an ideology, therefore it will not be going in the ideology field in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning for "United Ireland" although I must clarify, I understood "United Ireland" to be the label, that was east radical, in relation to reunification. Therefore "Irish Reunification" should be added and sourced. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please check out these sources ladies and gentleman.

1. https://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-audit-4993911-Feb2020/
2. https://time.com/5779707/irish-reunification-likelihood/
3. https://www.irishnews.com/news/republicofirelandnews/2020/04/15/news/united-ireland-among-aims-in-fianna-fail-and-fine-gael-coalition-document-1903618/
4. https://www.finegael.ie/the-party/history-of-fine-gael/

If these sources determine that Fine Gael is wanting of reunification, now, or in the future, should it be noted in the article, and info box? B. M. L. Peters (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

My browser didn't find a single instance of the word "ideology" or derivatives in any of the links, is there something I am missing? FDW777 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a long term aspiration, henceforth part of its ideology. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem providing references that say it's an ideology, not an aspiration. FDW777 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Centre-left

I believe we should change the position section from "Centre-right" to "Centre-left to centre right" mainly because of there recent coalitions with the Labour party and Social Democratic party, and there pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, and pro divorce stance on social issues, Leo Varadkar is the first Taoiseach in the history of Ireland who is of Indian Descent and is gay, I believe this would make the party more left socially at least than Fianna Fail, so I support changing a portion of the political position, I think the general consensus in Irish political is that Fianna Fail is more right wing socially, but more left wing economically, some scholars even question if Fianna Fail can rightly be considered a Liberal political party, even though it is party of ALDE, Renew Europe, and Liberal International.B. M. L. Peters (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that FG is more left-wing socially than FF socially. However, many other center-right parties in Europe can be considered socially liberal (like the liberal-conservative parties in teh Nordic countries, for example). Thus, I don't think this justifies a change of the political position to "centre-left- to centre-right". Additionally, we would need to find reliable sources calling FG centre-left before making such a change. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Political position is not simply divided into social values, but where it is located in the political environment of the country is most important. That's why Fine Gael is a simple "Centre-Right" party, if somewhat liberal in society, and even if Chile's Christian Democratic Party is socially conservative, it is classified as "Centre to Centre-Left." The FG's political position should be described only by the "Centre-right".--삭은사과 (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There is zero factual basis to describe Fine Gael as "centre-left" – one may as well describe the British Conservative party as "centre-left" for its previous coalition with the Liberal Democrats and legalising of equal marriage while in power! Yes, FG has governed in coalition with the Labour Party several times (but never the Social Democratic Party [sic]), but there has no baring on its place in the political spectrum – many (if not most) significant centre-right political parties across Europe have governed in coalition or in pacts with centre-left parties at some point in their history.--Autospark (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the left–right political spectrum doesn't seem very useful in relation to Ireland (at least for FF and FG). Ezhao02 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's perfectly suited to FG and FF, whose elected membership is disproportionately made up of landlords and business owners, and the relations of same. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree strongly with Bastun – left/right politics is as relevant to and in the Republic of Ireland as it is anywhere else. It just happens to be a country where the two main parties were/are parties of the centre-right. (I say "were" purely because that era may be over with the rise of Sinn Fein in the most recent national election, and with a FG/FF coalition government being formed for the first time ever.)--Autospark (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Conservatism and variants

@Anthony20morris: (who also edits as 37.228.192.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) could you please seek consensus for your removal of information from this article? You have been edit warring for months, and it is disruptive. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Historical dubiousity

There's some really historically dubious narratives within the article that are really just Fine Gael propaganda trying to pass off as history. Not only is the information incorrect but the citations provided are not grounds for the cited content.

In the Law and Order section it reads - "As the descendant of the pro-Treaty factions in the Irish Civil War, Fine Gael has a strong affinity with Michael Collins and his legacy. He remains a symbol for the party, and the anniversary of his death is commemorated each year in August". The idea that Fine Gael has a strong affinity with a man who was only ever in one single political party (Old Sinn Fein) and died 11 years before its formation is itself historically erroneous but the citation provided is not even grounds for its inclusion.

The source is a Hogan Stand article (a sports website containing a reproduced local paper Mayo News article so hardly a valid historical source) which appears to not even connect Fine Gael with Collins in any explicit way. If one presses Ctrl + F on their keyboard one can see that the phrase "Fine Gael" is mentioned three times in the whole article. The first is "It is that time of year again when various members of the Fine Gael political party look back on Beal na mBlath in West Cork and to the memory of General Michael Collins". This sources the "and the anniversary of his death is commemorated each year in August" part of the Law and Order section.

The final second and third mention occur later down - "Professor John Kelly, once described as ‘blather at Beal na mBlath', because the late outspoken Fine Gael Minister who was first to suggest that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael should have done a merger years ago resented the narrow party political monopoly which Cumann na nGaedhael and the Blueshirts once retained over honouring Collins". The claim that a former FG Minister resented "the narrow party political monopoly which Cumann na nGaedhael and the Blueshirts once retained over honouring Collins" is the only thing here that could even flimsily be construed as supporting the above inclusion in the Law and Order section and Collins is not even mentioned in connection with Fine Gael! Furthermore one random Fine Gael former Minister mentioning that two organizations (which are not even Fine Gael) once had a political monopoly over commemoration is not tantamount to there being any "strong affinity" between any organization and Collins.

Further up at the article introduction the sentence "Its origins lie in the struggle for Irish independence and the pro-Treaty side in the Irish Civil War and Michael Collins, in particular, is often identified as the founder of the movement" is included. An Irish Times article is provided as the citation and states that "It [Fine Gael] is linked to 1916 through Michael Collins". Putting aside the fact that some random Irish Times article is not exactly an exemplary source for history, this is not grounds to say Collins is a founder of the movement. Even if Fine Gael can lay claim to Collins as the article alleges, stating that there is a link is not the same as saying he is the founder of the movement. Those are two very different things.

Considering the citational inadequacy and general historical inaccuracy of this content I think it should be removed.PailSimon (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The adequate sourcing aside - and the Mayo News and the Irish Times are both reliable sources, standing as citations for what is claimed - your argument would appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Pro-treaty SF -> CnaG -> FG is a clear lineage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you just going to ignore the part where I demonstrated how the content of the sources themselves don't say what they are sourced as saying? How exactly is the opinion of a Fine Gael Minister (Mayo News) a reliable source? Please show some good faith here PailSimon (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, indeed! Are you really claiming that FG don't have a strong affinity for Collins?! (What he might think of FG, alas, we will never know.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You haven't actually addressed anything I've said. Why are you asking me whether I personally think there's a strong affinity? It doesn't matter what my personal opinion is and this isn't some intellectual debate between you and me, rather about what the sources say. The fact of the matter is that the sources do not state what they are sourced as saying. The content you want to include isn't supported by the present sources. Either new sources should be provided or the content should be remedied by either deletion or alteration to reflect what the sources actually say. This is really poor show on your part. PailSimon (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually address the sky is blue demands, but if you insist: "Although Collins died before the establishment of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in 1923, which in turn evolved into Fine Gael in 1933, the founders of Cumann na nGaedheal very clearly viewed the “Big Fella” as both their inspiration and their lost leader.", here; "For Fine Gael in particular, Béal na mBláth is a special place and Michael Collins has always been a major source of inspiration. In good times and in bad times, we have been loyal to his memory and loyal to his ideals", here; Varadkar's opinion should carry some weight, you'd think. Feel free to add any of those if you feel additional citations are needed. Personally, I don't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not whether Collins was seen as an inspiration to Fine Gael or whether he is linked. The issue at hand is whether or not the citations support the current information in the article. Why don't you explain why it is you believe a Mayo News article which states the opinion of a Fine Gael Minister is a reliable source for the article in its current state? PailSimon (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Well considering Bastun has not been forthcoming with a justification, would there be any objection if the paragraph in question was rewritten using the sources Bastun has provided above? PailSimon (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As previously stated, the existing citations support the content. Feel free to add the additional citations if you disagree. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so why don't you explain to us all how Mayo News supports the content? You've habitually refused to do so. Instead of repeating ad nauseum that it supports the content why don't you actually explain how it does? I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with this.PailSimon (talk)

"Ad nauseum"?! "Us"? Who is this "us" you speak of? Get a grip, Mr 24 edits. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And still you refuse to answer the question, proving the ad nauseum remark. Trying to have constructive or normal conversation with you is like trying to draw blood from a stone. If you dont start being cooperative or constructive then I will be forced to try other avenues.PailSimon (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Conservative

It should have Conservative as an ideology, Fine Gael has always been a Conservative party, still a lot of members are Conservatives, with some being Anti-Abortion, it should be changed to have Conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwfcfacup (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion does not count. Please provide independent, verifiable, reliable, third party sources. Spleodrach (talk)

New Membership figures

Here is a new source pointed to a membership figure of 25,000 for Fine Gael https://www.laoistoday.ie/2020/03/11/sinn-fein/

The membership figure of 25,000 is stated on their website as well. [30/12/2020] https://www.finegael.ie/get-involved/join-fine-gael/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.209.54 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)