Talk:Fianna Fáil/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Liberalism

Fianna Fáil is a member of ALDE Party and Liberal International, but it is hardly liberal. The only two sources provided are quite weak, in my view. What about removing "Liberalism" from the infobox or, at least, moving it down, below "Conservatism" and, possibly, "Populism"? --Checco (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No objection here. SunCrow (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do you say the party is 'hardly liberal'? Also what makes either of these sources 'quite weak' in your view? This seems to be simply your point of view. Both citations are very recent (both from this year) and neither is from an unreliable source. Helper201 (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@User:SunCrow: Thanks for supporting my point!

@User:Helper201: The first source is more about ALDE Party's "political family" than liberal ideology per se; I am not even sure that the book is academic. The second source is definitely not academic and "liberal" there is just a short description in a journalistic article. --Checco (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@User:Checco, I can't comment either way on the first source, since I do not have access to it. Regarding the second source, a citation does not need to be academic to be used as a reliable supporting citation. A reliable news website is a perfectly acceptable source for a citation and it supports the claim that is made. Helper201 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

We should remove the reference from Euronews – we shouldn't treat news websites as definitive sources for information on party ideologies, particularly one that most likely described FF based upon their European affiliation.--Autospark (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there are no Wikipedia rules against using reliable news websites as sources for citations. So I don't see the problem with using Euronews. How Euronews came about this conclusion is not identified by the source, to assume is original reserch. I don't see why it is unreasonable that the party is to some extent liberal, otherwise why be part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Liberal International and Renew Europe and not conservative groups? Helper201 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Many journalistic sources don't exactly have academic standards when it comes to political science and taxonomy. Also, 1.) FF was in the conservative UEN group for many years 2.) ELDR/ALDE party and group are hardly heterogenous, having had non-liberal parties such as Italy of Values, Earth Party and Lega Nord among their respective ranks over the years (as well as the various Nordic agrarian parties, some of whom could easily be argued to be non-liberal).--Autospark (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The UEN group has not existed for over 10 years. We work off of where the party is now, not where it was in the past. Fianna Fáil was also under different leadership when it was part of the UEN group. I seem to recall an article headline which stated that Micheál Martin is attempting to move the party in a more liberal direction, but so far I can't find it but I will continue looking. Micheál Martin himself did vote to repeal the Eight Amendment seen here - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brave-or-a-betrayal-fianna-f%C3%A1il-members-split-on-martin-s-abortion-stance-1.3361678 . I still don't see why if the party were not currently liberal it would be part of three liberal groups and not conservative ones or none. Also the Earth Party is cited as been green liberal and Lega Nord was historically a party with a liberal ideology. FF does also have multiple citations claiming that it is centrist. In European politics centrist parties typically tent to be liberal, at the very least to a certain extent. Helper201 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It is also stated in this article - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-f%C3%A1il-revival-makes-miche%C3%A1l-martin-a-great-survivor-of-irish-politics-1.2554837 - 'That faultline between the party’s conservative and liberal forces has also materialised in relation to the issue of repealing the Eighth Amendment'. This clearly shows the split in the party between both of the ideologies. I am willing to compromise and move conservatism above liberalism in the ideology listing, since it seems to have more agreement and more sources, but I don't think we should remove liberalism entirely from the ideology list. Helper201 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If I had to make a judgement based on the articles presented, and it’s position, I’d probably describe Fianna Fáil as a liberal conservative party, but that still fails to really grasp it. Fianna Fáil is incredibly difficult to pin down ideologically. There definitely is a liberal influence, but the party is also conservative to an extent. If I had to guess why it affiliates with ALDE, I’d guess it’s due to their pro-EU stance as ALDE is explicitly pro-EU, even if it is less conservative than the EPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AC92:6B00:4041:1418:5442:B6B8 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not Euronews, per se. As User:Autospark correctly noted, the source most likely most likely described the party based upon their European affiliation. That is a little bit controversial as all European parties are very diverse: just think of Fidesz's membership to the EPP or, to speak about ELDR/ALDE, of IdV, ANO, Nordic agrarian parties, etc. The repealing of the Eighth Amendment is definitely not a good litmus test, but just a temporary faultline. FF has never been and is not a centrist party, let alone a liberal one. We are not mandated to keep all ideologies having a supporting source. Our role as editors is finding consensus, which most of the times involves choosing between dozens of sources. While quite interesting, the fact that Martin is trying to move the party in a more liberal direction ("more liberal" does not mean "liberal", by the way) means little. Also Salvini is currently moderating his rethoric and talking more and more as a liberal, additionally Lega Nord is arguably still a liberal party, but that is not where sources and consensus reside right now. ––Checco (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

​​​​Has there been any consensus on whether "liberalism" should be removed from the infobox? I think that, at the very least, it should be moved below "conservatism" in the ideology section. "Conservatism" is sourced much more strongly and not disputed. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think so, no. (My continuing opinion; I would prefer liberalism to be removed from the Infobox entirely, and if it is retained, listed below conservatism.)—Autospark (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove liberalism but I'm alright with moving it below conservativism. Helper201 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I just moved "liberalism" below "conservatism" and "Christian democracy" since it seems like no one objects to that. However, I think that we should look further into the Close source. (Note: this book consists of different chapters written by different people.) Most relevant to our discussion here is this quote from page 366: "However, the liberal identity of the Irish Fianna Fáil is highly questionable". This can also be seen in the title of the chapter dealing specifically with the party: "Fianna Fáil: In the Liberals but not of the Liberals". At the same time, other chapters of the Close book seems to describe Fianna Fáil as conservative-liberal (page 339) or as oscillating between conservative and social liberalism (page 344). I think that these conflicts show that scholarly sources also dispute how the party should be characterized. Perhaps we could try putting a note explaining this dispute. Ezhao02 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice job. I would remove "liberalism" altogether: for anyone knowing something about FF, it seems a joke! The party is first and foremost conservative, then some of its policies are undoubtely Christian-democratic—and there are sources for these ideologies. What is really missing from the infobox is "populism", which is probably the most distinctive character of FF. I would have just "conservatism" and "populism", in case we could leave "Christian democracy"; on the other side, I would remove "liberalism" (misplaced), "Irish nationalism" (redundant) and "pro-Europeanism" (redundant, not even an ideology). --Checco (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. I didn't even realize populism wasn't listed! Ezhao02 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure! I believe "populism" was there until some time ago. There might have been sources too... --Checco (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Helper201 (and everyone else), what do you think would be the best way to resolve the issue about the liberal nature of Fianna Fáil, considering that there doesn't seem to be a scholarly consensus on whether it is liberal or not? A few possibilities:

• Status quo: Maintain "liberalism" but list it under "conservatism".
• Remove "liberalism" entirely.
• Maintain "liberalism" but have a note in the infobox explaining the scholarly dispute (like the way United Russia's political position is listed).
• List "conservative liberalism" instead of "liberalism", citing Close. Add a note explaining the scholarly dispute (or not).

Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with the status quo of having liberalism under conservativism. I would completely disagree with removing liberalism entirely. I'm open to possibly using option 3 but would like to see what this looks like and others thoughts on the matter. As for option 4, if we can find a source that calls the party conservative liberal or liberal conservative, then great, we should probably use it. However, to just join up what is currently cited separately as conservatism and liberalism and using that to assume conservative liberalism or liberal conservativism clearly breaks WP:SYNTHESIS. Helper201 (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course. For option 4, I was saying that we can cite page 339 of the Close source. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Checco's take, as in we should just leave conservatism and populism (in that order) in the Infobox. The source linked to by Ezhao02 is interesting and useful, but should be referenced in the Ideology section rather than the Infobox, in my opinion. FF's European and international affiliations are 'red herrings' more than anything else – of course there are (by European standards) liberals in FF, being a broad centre-right party, but it's not objectively a liberal party in itself.--Autospark (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I would personally also prefer that liberalism be removed from the infobox and the scholarly dispute mentioned in the Ideology section, but if liberalism is maintained in the infobox, I believe that there has to be some form of a note explaining the different takes on the issue. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a note as a possible compromise. Could you all check it out? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In the book "Liberal Parties in Europe" (2019), there is a whole chapter on Fianna Fáil's relationship with the liberals, titled "In the Liberals but not of the Liberals" (pp. 184–204). In short, the authors argue that FF is a partner of the liberal party family, but it is not a liberal party itself. The main reason to join ELDR/ALDE was that they wanted to sit with a pro-EU group, not that they identified as a liberal party (p. 192). While I find User:Ezhao02's attempt at a compromise solution laudable, I would prefer to remove liberalism from the infobox altogether. Like in many political parties' infoboxes, the references seem to be cherrypicked, found by simply googling for "Fianna Fáil+liberal" rather than by studying and extracting relevant scholarly literature on the actual subject. The Euronews article should definitely be removed, it is not even an article on FF, but about Fine Gael and the Green Party, only mentioning FF in passing. This is not an apt source at all, given that there is detailed expert literature on the very question of FF's relationship with the liberals! --RJFF (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, RJFF. Helper201, it seems like you're the only editor here who opposes removing "Liberalism" from the infobox. As such, could we consider this a consensus to remove it? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ezhao02, I'm potentially open to removing liberalism from the infobox, only under the condition that a detailed and cited description of the party's relationship with liberalism given by RJFF is included in the ideology section, including why they sit with ALDE, Liberal International and Renew Europe. However, I do find the explanation questionable, as there are non-liberal and conservative groups in the EU that are also pro-EU. For example, the European People's Party and the European People's Party group are conservative and pro-EU, why would the party not identify with them if it is conservative and not liberal, or just not sit with any EU grouping? I find it highly questionable that the party would sit as part of not one, not two, but three liberal groupings (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Liberal International, and Renew Europe) if it was not to some extent liberal. Perhaps one could be justified, maybe even two, but three? One of which is international, so cannot be explained away by pro-EU or non-pro-EU allegiance (of which I think this seems a very weak argument for the reason I gave above of there being other pro-EU groups that are not liberal). Helper201 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Helper201, that's a very good question. The main reason is because of FF's opposition to Fine Gael. Fine Gael became a member of the EPP before FF joined. Obviously, FG and FF wouldn't be too happy about being in the same European political parties as each other, since they're big rivals. If you look at the note on this page about FF's European affiliation ("Member of the EPD group from 1973 to 1984, the EDA group from 1984 to 1995, the UfE group from 1995 to 1999, the UEN group from 1999 to 2009, and the ALDE group from 2009 to 2014."), you can see that FF joined many different European groups that would be considered conservative or nationalist before finally joining ALDE. In fact, FF's only MEP from 2014–2019, Brian Crowley, joined the European Conservatives and Reformists group instead of joining the ALDE group like the party was officially. (Admittedly, he lost the party whip for this action.) Also, if I remember correctly, FF is one of the less loyal parties in ALDE. (I believe the same reasoning applied in choosing an international affiliation.) Ezhao02 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ezhao02, the party could still have chosen not to be part of any EU groups or join the Non-Inscrits. This also does not account for why the party is also part of Renew Europe, a liberal group, and Liberal International. None of the groups it is part of deviate from a liberal ideology. There is nothing obligating them to join these groups, they did so out of choice. Many political parties are not involved in any international group. To be a part of three liberal groups by choice but not be at least to some extent liberal would be highly odd. Presumably the decision to join these three liberal groups either came from the party's leadership and/or the party's membership. The party has not even been party of any conservative grouping in the last 11 years, and not under its current leader, Micheál Martin, who became the party's leader in 2011 (not that I'm arguing the party is in no way conservative). Helper201 (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It does justify their joining Renew Europe, since ALDE (the European political party) is part of the RE group. Indeed, the MEP I mentioned (Brian Crowley) served when FF was officially part of the ALDE group (predecessor to RE), even though he opted to join the ECR group instead. (As I mentioned above, he did lose the party whip for doing this, however.). I do agree that this doesn't justify why they joined Liberal International. I feel like they could've joined the International Democrat Union. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could answer this question. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We also have multiple citations calling the party centrist, which in European politics centrism almost always lines up with liberalism to a certain extent. Fine Gael is also cited in its infobox as having a liberal ideology. To say Fine Gael, a centre-right party, is liberal, but Fianna Fáil a centre to centre-right party that is part of multiple liberal groupings is not at all liberal also seems very odd. Helper201 (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The FF party isn't at all centrist. It's a centre-right, conservative party, much as it often self-describes as centrist (as is commonly the case with centre-right parties, in all honesty). In regards to Fine Gael, the sole source for "liberal" in its article actually says "centre-right liberal", which fits in with its centre-right profile (and IMO that particular reference) should not be in the Infobox). As for Fianna Fáil, there is nothing contradictory about it being a centre-right party while being attached to ALDE and RE. ALDE and RE have many clearly centre-right parties attached to it (Dutch VVD, Danish Venstre, German FDP, Spanish Ciudadanos, etc), and the ALDE group previously had the non-liberal Earth Party and Italy of Values as members. Also, the Nordic Agrarian parties are members of ALDE, RE and LI, while many arguably being non-liberal. (Aside: an old source mentions Fianna Fail being previously described as "agrarian" and another even describes FF as "national conservative". FF can be tricky to pin down.)--Autospark (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to repeat myself, but as long as "conservatism" and "populism" are listed and "liberalism" is removed, I will be happy.

I agree 100% with User:Autospark's, User:Ezhao02's and User:RJFF's opinions.

Cheers, --Checco (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I just took the liberty of removing "liberalism" myself and adding an explanation in the ideology section. Helper201, please let me know if the explanation I added is okay with you. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt, I don't think this explanation is adequate. It does not explain the party's membership of Liberal International or Renew Europe. It also in my view is inadequate reasoning to justify removing a claim supported by two reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't really need to "explain" the party's European and international affiliations. Both LI and ALDE/RE are heterogenous, particularly ALDE/RE, and have member parties which aren't strictly Liberal parties (the Nordic agrarian parties, for example). ELDR/ALDE/RE (etc) has never been as ideologically concordant in its membership as the PES or EPP have been...--Autospark (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Infobox

Liblras, can you stop adding information on the European Committee of the Regions to the infobox? It won't display. And that section of the infobox is for seats won at elections, not appointments to committees. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Liblras, I've removed the references you added used to cite the sentences on the CotR. Some were just external links that are nothing to do with the statements they're supposed to support. Some go to web pages that can't be found. And the others don't back the statement that FF have 2 members and 2 alternates. I've marked the sentence with a 'citation needed' tag. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)