Talk:Liberty Republic

May 2013 - Content dispute

There appears to be a low level edit war going on here, could all users refrain from removing reliably referenced material and from accusations of vandalism or bias? Please discuss your issues with the current content here first, before editing. Snappy (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi (talk), those same two accounts have returned and begun reverts without adding a single source. I have reverted back again. One of them is clearly an account run by somebody from the organisation itself. --CommieMark (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have left messages at their talk pages, urging them to discuss the issues here first. I hope they listen, otherwise it will be reported to WP:ANI. Snappy (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Issues

As I see it, the content dispute centres around the following issues, (please add, if I have missed any point):

• Ben Gilroy, is he the party leader of Direct Democracy Ireland?
• Is the party connected with the Freemen on the land movement?
• Is the party right wing?
• Is the party linked to Direct Democracy? (Bit odd given its name, but one of the editors removed this from the infobox.)
• Is the party minor?
• Ben Gilroy's views on abortion, are they his own personal views or that of the DDI party?

We all need to discuss these issues calmly and politely. No name calling and with moderated language. Sources need to be checked and verified, personal opinion is not allowed. If we can't resolve these issues here, the good people at Administrators Noticeboard will be happy to intervene and decide the outcome. Snappy (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the Law Gazette reference as it doesn't even mention DD at all and so therefore cannot be used as a ref to affirm that there is a link to the Freeman of the land. Group. It is a perfectly adequate ref for the FotL article, but not here. I also intend to trim a bit of the uneccesarily POV adjectival language used in the same sentence.Atlas-maker (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

However, that reference does mention Ben Gilroy. Snappy (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the reference and have added another Irish Times references which disputes Gilroys denial. Gilroy has used similar tactics to the FOTL movement and a number of FOTL individuals and groups are supporters or have actively campaigned for the party. There are strong links between the two groups.

The party is certainly minor having no elected representatives. I cant see the party gaining any representatives any time soon, even after the local elections next year. The right wing description is certainly debatable. Leave it out for the moment. CivisHibernius (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not a member of DDi but I am an advocate of Direct democracy principles as have been used in Iceland, Switzerland, in many US States, in many commercial organizations, research groups and online debating forums for many years now. DDI is simply promoting the concept of Direct democracy in Ireland as apposed to representative democracy. Claims that DDi is linked to FOTL, Christain groups etc simply shows the ignorance in the concept by certain media and vested interests in Ireland. Even if these claims were true under a DD system the individual advocates personal opinions and beliefs (in this case Ben Gilroy and Co.) would be entirely benign/irrelevant, as should they be elected they would simply be conduits to voice and concerns of the electorate on any given issue. Any decision made that would go against the wishes of the majority would invoke the right to recall. The 'Mission Statement' on their website is concurrent with those of other DD movements in other parts of the world and I should add is totally devoid of FOTL type statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djivor (talk • contribs) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013 - content dispute

Once again here is edit warring going on here over the content of this article, could all users refrain from removing reliably referenced material and from accusations of vandalism or bias? Please discuss your issues with the current content here first, before editing. Also, could newer editors read Conflict of interest?

Issues

The current content dispute centres around the following issues, (please add, if I have missed any point):

• Is the party connected with the Freemen on the land movement?
• Is the party right wing?
• Is the party minor?
• Ben Gilroy's views on abortion, are they his own personal views or that of the DDI party?

As before, we all need to discuss these issues calmly and politely. Sources need to be checked and verified, personal opinion is not allowed. Snappy (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snappy.

The claim by the CPPC does not have a valid reference. I removed it and gave this reason, but you added it back in.

The party is not connected with the Freemen On The Land movement or the Christian Solidarity Party. The references cited for these claims are opinion pieces, the are not fact-based, therefore I don't think this content should be allowed. And the cited article by the Irish Times doesn't seem to dispute this at all. The reference in the article is to "Giolla Rua", a search of this term on the Freemen On The Land's website does not match anything. The most that can be claimed on the basis of the cited articles is that DDI has been accused of having ties to the Freeman On The Land movement.

Whether or not the party is "right wing" or "minor" are matters of opinion and definition. The fact is that they are an Irish political party, so this is what the content should express. Johnro76 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am going to edit to reflect the above.

Thanks, Johnro76 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

One further point before I edit: the ideology section lists "Freeman[sic] on the Land" and the cite/reference is to a SIPTU bulletin, which I don't believe can easily be claimed to be a source of fact.

Thank you, Johnro76 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Response

New editors should be aware that their continued removal of reliably referenced material will see them banned. New users who are openly members of DDI should read Conflict of interest The FOTL & CSP links have been highlighted by a large number of publications including Phoenix Magazine, Irish Times, An Phoblacht, Liberty, Law Society Gazette and others. The BNP allege they are not fascist yet on their page the content box includes this as an ideology they subscribe to due to numerous references which show this link. The description of the party as "minor" was also reached previously by editors as it has no elected reps at local, national or EU level.--CommieMark (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Response

• FACT - Direct Democracy Ireland are NOT of freeman origin - yet that ALLEGATION is allowed to stay on the Wikipedia site and in its summary box where the ALLEGATION is referenced as supposed proof. Ray Whitehead (THEE founder) was NEVER a Freeman. Direct Democracy is used in Switzerland and they completely deny that Direct Democracy as a process is of Freeman origin. Those In Ireland are following the same thinking and ideology. We ask for verified PROOF that DDI is Freeman before saying so - Allegations (as referenced) are NOT proof.

• FACT - "An Comhdháil Phobail / The Peoples Convention (CPPC) has claimed that the DDI Mission Statement is "fraudulent and plagiarised" - Only partial truth allowed on Wikipedia site. They have in fact totally withdrawn that claim when challenged and what’s more, have taken that claim down off their site when it was challenged - but the allegation still is still allowed on Wikipedia site as a way to throw false dirt. There was till today a webpage link reference to a claim on Wikipedia but if you clicked on it - the claim is not there!

• FACT - It was ALLEGED - NOT PROVEN - on RTE Primetime show that DDI was supposedly of the Christian Solidarity Party. Yet these claims also (again, with no evidence whatsoever produced on Primetime) are now being used by others as supposedly utter proof - which don't exist, never did and still anon' editors to Wikipedia are unable to produce! They can only produce others claims - no evidence whatsoever - allegations should be taken as allegations - not as verified proof - even if the allegations are reproduced media then referenced here by anon' posters.

There simply is no links to the CSP and Freeman stuff in the mandate, constitution and rules of Direct Democracy Ireland besides what An Phoblacht or other newspapers might try repeatedly trying to lie and state as ALLEGATIONS as they try defeat DDI as the fastest growing Irish political party in Ireland. This should be allowed stated - or a statement allowed that the ALLEGATIONS as referenced are disputed. There is a lot of references to allegations (and thats fair enough for what they are) but these such be taken as such - not accepted and passed as proof.

• FACT - The FULL truth is still not allowed on Wikipedia - for example, following the election, Gilroy was referred to the Department of Public Prosecutions and the Gardaí after he failed to furnish the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) with a detailed breakdown of his expenses and donations during the by-election campaign. This matter was quickly dropped by the Gardi, political opposition and the Irish media when it was discovered that Mr Gilroy was in fact arrested for not bothering to claim expenses off the state at the time - which he was legally entitled to. Those that oppose DDI didn't and still don't want the public to be aware of that though - that Mr Gilroy didn't want to claim public money at a time when Ireland was and still is, in economic hardship - so he was arrested for NOT claiming money off the people (the state) !!!

• FACT - The FULL truth... The Christian Solidarity Party produced their own adverts (and they were absolute crap) telling people to support Mr Gilroy in something they also believed in. These adverts were created under their own steam, they didn't even bother to contact Ben Gilroy that they were doing it and were not brought into the public domain with DDI approval or consultation. The CSP simply didn't bother to contact DDI at any stage about what they thought or were doing or about who they supported. A single individual by the way - not a whole organisation - note that too! This is the FULL truth - not the current edited version on this page. There is NO reference/proof that DDI (or Ben Gilroy) was in contact with the CSP. We ask for a citation that this is the case if this ALLEGATION is true. We know it not to be.

Wikipedia fails to mention any of the FULL truth you will also see...

• FACT - Despite many repeated calls to produce convincing and provable evidence to back their opposition claims, not one elected Dail (Irish parliament) official or elected representative in Ireland so far has been willing to go on any record and back any anonymous attempted allegations. This is very important and should be taken also into account.

Jeff Rudd (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that User:Jeff Rudd is still edit warring on the article, instead of discussing the issues here first and try to reach a consensus, which may not be the Direct Democracy way but its the Wikipedia way. Also since User:Jeff Rudd is a member of DII, he should stop editing this article as this is a breach of WP:COI. Here's another FACT for you, in this weeks edition of The Phoenix Magazine (6 Sep - not available online), there is an article which mentions Ben Gilroy and his connection to Freeman on the land, and his current activities in this area. Snappy (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing of articles is not forbidden under WP:COI, just strongly discouraged, so I think the word "breach" is not accurate. Accusations against Ben Gilroy do not equal accusations against DDI. And neither equal fact. Isn't fact also the wikipedia way? Thanks, Johnro76 (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Breach/strongly discouraged, so after 12 edits on wikipedia you are wikilawyering. COI states: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." This is exactly what you and Jeff Rudd are doing. Snappy (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnro76 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I will quote CommieMark's response again in order to reply: New users who are openly members of DDI should read Conflict of interest

I have read it and I believe I am complying. Johnro76 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The FOTL & CSP links have been highlighted by a large number of publications including Phoenix Magazine, Irish Times, An Phoblacht, Liberty, Law Society Gazette and others. The BNP allege they are not fascist yet on their page the content box includes this as an ideology they subscribe to due to numerous references which show this link.

The BNP/fascist link is supported (in its references) by scholarly work and research (Copsey, Wood, Finlay) not solely opinion pieces. The beginning of the Freeman on the Land wiki page states: ""Freemen on the land" are people who claim that all statute law is contractual...", by this definition DDI would have to claim that all statue law is contractual in order to be considered as holding to this ideology. The link between the BNP and fascism is very carefully and clearly laid out in the works referenced, works that themselves contain many references - most importantly to statements made by BNP representatives themselves (since this is how one establishes that a group holds to an ideology). Unverified claims by journalists that DDI is linked to FOTL do not amount to fact. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be about fact? Verifiable fact? Thank you. Johnro76 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The description of the party as "minor" was also reached previously by editors as it has no elected reps at local, national or EU level.--CommieMark (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can see the history of the page, and the talk page. The fact that this word was added in the past doesn't make it accurate or valuable to include. Nor does the fact that it was agreed upon by two editors. Its use here also does not have any citation. Can you cite where the link between "minor" and "having no elected reps" comes from? There are other parties with no elected representatives whose wikipedia pages do not describe them as minor. I can cite them if need be. The word "minor" adds very little factual data to this wiki entry and it is an ambiguous term, since one of the definitions is "unimportant" and this is open to interpretation. The word "new" (which was used to replace "minor" in an earlier edit) seems to contain at least as much information, without the emotional connotations. I maintain that the difference between the sentences "DDI is a new political party" and "DDI is a minor political party" is just slur and nothing more. Thank you, Johnro76 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you have a bee in your bonnet about the word "minor", I have re-worded the intro to remove the word minor. Snappy (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Was it not that I made a compelling case? "...you have a been in your bonnet..." is ad hominem, I doubt this is the wikipedia way. Thanks, Johnro76 (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section where Jeff Rudd has a go at Wikipedia editors, this is talk page stuff, it does not go in the article. I have also removed the section on CPPC alleged that the DDI Mission Statement was "fraudulent and plagiarised" noting that much of it was copied verbatim from one of their publications entitled. I read the article when it was online, and CPPC made a cimpelling case that DDI did a cut and paste job and then changed a few words, but as the article no longer issues and there are no reliable sources for it currently, it has been removed. Though if someone finds a RS, it could be re-added. Snappy (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Again I must point out that there simply is no links whatsoever to the Christian Socialist Party and Freeman stuff in the DDI mandate, constitution and rules of Direct Democracy Ireland. One person person MIGHT be of that thinking partly - however we are a democratic organisation and have NO mandate, ideology, etc to Freemanship, no proof, ONLY ALLEGATIONS coming from questionable sources referenced (allegations - not proof), there simply is not a connection by our many thousands (see the numbers on our facebook alone) of members and fans being connected to the freeman stuff. Nothing. One person is not a majority nor is it proof of majority thinking. I formally request that the Ideology box section be edited to reflect this. We do NOT follow an Ideology of Freemanship. Its the complete opposite to our actual constitution if anyone actually reads it for example.

I am (a) also on record as stating our political position ON PUBLIC RECORD - this should be at least referenced and (b) I have directly notified Mr J Wales of the inability so far of anon' others willing to correct lies that are out there still. Jeff Rudd (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Accusing of editors of lies is not assuming good faith, one of Wikipedia's tenets. Contacting Mr J Wales may take some time, I hear he is a busy man, however there are many other Wikipedia dispute resolution processes that you can attempt instead. Snappy (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing.

Assuming that ALLEGATIONS are in fact proof - is not good faith either! Its cannot be stated simply enough - there is NO PROOF ANYWHERE that there is ANY Freeman ideology in: (a) the constitution of DDI (b) the mandate of the Organisation (C) the official rules legally adopted by democratic vote by everyone in the organisation - except for one person who MIGHT (and they even have NOT been proved either! Just more ALLEGATIONS!) think of some of those notions. As he is one person with one vote, the other 4,000 people that like DDI and have created a democratic structure which has voted to adopt said rules, mandate and constitution, are not voting with him to adopt Freeman ideology. They NEVER did and still do not. It is NOT anywhere in our mandate, our constitution or in our rules. It simply don't exist. Why continue to post on this site ALLEGATIONS that are not or ever been proved - and allow the ALLEGATIONS to be posted as confirmed PROOF? Fine, mention the ALLEGATIONS - but please not have your site state that its verified and true - it has NOT been proven (and frankly, cannot be). Direct Democracy Ireland is NOT an Freeman Ideology based organisation. Ask your editors to provide proof to this - they have provided references to ALLEGATIONS - ones made by other anon' people previous - some (yes we know the exact names of these people) who are posting crap around the internet then referencing their own allegations as supposed roof - which it is not. I REPEAT: Ask your editors to provide proof to where DDI is undeniably Freeman ideology - they simply cannot. They will just post links to allegations - ones they have made themselves anon'. I ask that the page be edited to reflect that there is NO PROOF that DDI is of Freeman ideology. Ask the one editor all the time posting this to show where on news media sites, DDI sites, DDI postings around the web world state ANYTHING that proves we are of Freeman based ideology. Ask him to show where EXACTLY the Freeman ideology exists in structure, rules and direction it exists. You will be kept waiting for proof. ALLEGATIONS are NOT proof! You will be kept waiting for verifiable proof - you will get the same old allegations - just no proof whatsoever - because it don't exist and never did. All one has to do is examine Freeman ideology and then look at the www.directdemocracy.ie website - the two are worlds apart and do not match up in content in ANY way. Its that simple to see the difference. Plain as day and night. My organisation will continue to talk to Mr Wales about this and continue to highlight the lies that are being still allowed to be wrongly broadcast through this site - further bringing it into disrepute and ruining it reputation - and that's a shame to those that work hard on this site alone to keep it true! Jeff Rudd (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Its ironic that I now stand accused of conflict of interests when one anon' CommieMark is breaking the COI rules. . The rule he is breaking is namely: Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. . The anon' editor is an element/supporter of Sinn Fein, by his own words on a COI page on Wiki: a front for an Irish terror organisation known as the IRA - He is constantly altering the data about other political parties that are peacefully opposing his own - that includes Direct Democracy Ireland. All anyone has to do is look that the serious number of edits he does for a number of websites including very regular, his political parties newspaper "An Phoblacht" and other related sites that try to publish information related to other atrocities. These people are know to us as they are known to the Irish Gardi (police) and other countries police as well as investigation departments as home in Ireland, England and elsewhere. He even uses a well known expression on his personal Wiki page "Tiocfaidh Ár Lá" that is TOTALLY connected and used ONLY by the Sinn Fein and IRA organisation. (1) Google it as an image as well as text format. See: sinnfeinbookshop dot com/tiocfaidh-ar-la/ See: img854.imageshack dot us/img854/2468/v7cy.jpg . (2) This is without question. It can be simply goggled and the facts are there in the hundreds to view. User Commiemark is in conflict of interests as laid used without question, under your current guidelines. Again: namely: "Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." . (3) All his edits and submissions should be taken in the light that by his own words he's a rival/competitor. He states this himself "I do have an interest in left-wing politics and Irish republicanism" (See the COI page related to this matter) This much is very clear - all one has to do is check the items he's been editing. His own specialised "tiocfaidh-ar-la" statement on his own Wiki personal page which is DIRECTLY related to a political competitor to Direct Democracy Ireland. There is no if's or but's about this - its very clear, can be easily checked - thus he's repeatedly editing a pages of his political competitor. IF I stand accused of COI - then so does he and for some time it looks like he has gotten away with it. ALL his edits should be taken in this light - and the question should be asked (a) "Why is he doing this?" abd (b) Why is he doing this with so much repeated vigor, so regular?" ...Why? Because its politically motivated - as he has stated himself and its now on record: "I do have an interest in left-wing politics and Irish republicanism" - Irish republicanism" = Sinn Fein, a rival political party and other elements of similar nature. some peaceful - sadly some very not so peaceful. . I state all this knowing that I am putting my life at very risk via other people/supporters out in the real world - and should anything happen to me now or in the future, I wish Wikipedia to notify the Irish Gardi and Interpol as to the events that has occurred here and what might be connected to my sudden death or any injury that might fall upon me. I have already been threatened by phone call prior to this and this matter is being brought to the attention of our Irish police (Gardi) force. I have now made a public similar statement on my own personal website, that my health and welfare might be at risk. I have now notified a number of people to the events surrounding this page and topic should anything happen to myself. . Again I request that in the box on the right of the DDI Wiki page, where it states our ideology, we are NOT of Freeman origin. This alone is still stated here - as a moderator has already pointed out, it is unsubstantiated and not proven - yet there it still is! I ask for that ideology slur to be removed at the very least. Its insulting to the many, many good people in our nations organisation. Jeff Rudd (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh my my... where to start? This attack on User:CommieMark is disgraceful, please withdraw your comments and apologise to him. The history of Sinn Fein and the IRA is well known and this isn't the place to re-hash them, I would just point out that Sinn Fein, of which I'm NOT a supporter, is a political party with approximately 318 elected representatives on the island of Ireland, comparing to 0 for DDI. They are also at around 20% in the current opinion polls, quite a bit more than DDI.

I don't know what to make of the paranoid, raving stuff. You are going to call the Guards and Interpol, threats to your life because of events on this talk page. C'mon this is ludicrous stuff. Please stop editing here, you know why (COI). I have posted a message at WT:IE in the hope that more rational discussion will take place. Snappy (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is very disturbing. [1]. Guess its ANI time. Snappy (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just reading everything so far. I think it's rather hilarious, personally. CivisHibernius (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of reaching a compromise, I have removed "Freeman on the land" from the infobox. As far as I can see "Freeman on the land" is not an official a part of the DDI ideology, though certainly many members including the leader Ben Gilroy are closely linked with the movement. I haven't changed any of the text in the article, as there should be more discussion on this, from editors who don't have a conflict of interest. Snappy (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Snappy Okay, that seems a fair compromise. I agree the body text linking the party and their leader to FOTL & CSP should stay as they are certainly very relevant. Also, Jeff, I do not have a COI in this article. I have said I have an interest in left-wing and Irish republican politics. Most people who edit topics generally do so on topics they are interested in. Please stop being so silly.--CommieMark (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing.

CommieMark is in CLEAR breach of the COI rules. In regards to "Competition" and "Bias" There is no if's or but's about this. Also because CommieMark is biased given his Republican ideology (he admits himself he has this), the FULL truths of items on the page are (not surprisingly) left out! 1. Ben Gilroy was arrested for not submitting his election expenses - correct - but the case was dropped by the law and the media when it was discovered this latter related to him not claiming money off the state that he was actually entitled to. 2. The radio clip that was played to Ben Gilroy on LMFM raidio was from from a previous auction TWO years ago - not as stated from the one most recent. Because of the bad way in which LMFM tried to put it across to listeners that the clip was actually from the recent one, there are a number of official complaints with the Broadcasting authority of Ireland on this matter. For example: Complaint Ref No. 64/13 - this matter is being resolved as I type and the owner of the station has acknowledge that the show as aired, had problems. ...All this is cleverly not mentioned - why? Because someone that is breaking the Wikipedia rules, who is competition with our organisation and has a political bias, wishes not to mention any of this mainly due to it reflecting a different light on matters than he would rather be seen - for obvious reason. Jeff Rudd (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jeff Rudd I have never said I am a republican.Please stop making things up. Even if I was, that does not constitute a COI. On the issue of the election expenses, please provide a valid link substantiating your claim. If you cannot then it cannot be added.

2: In regards to the auction, what you are alleging is blatantly untrue and clear contradicted by the actual facts reported by the Irish Independent, Irish Times, LMFM and Direct Democracy Ireland themselves!! Your complaint is not mentioned because there is no public record of this, unless you can provide one. If so, by all means post it here and me or one of the other editors will add it. Until then your allegations are just that, allegations. --CommieMark (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a baiting IDHT reply from Jeff, if I was wrong please feel free to revert. Also at this stage I think its getting near the time we shune this guy, at least until he removes the article from his webpage. Murry1975 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• And I have collapsed the personal attacks and completely unfounded accusations that Jeff Rudd seems unwilling to withdraw. Jeff, you simply cannot continue to use Wikipedia as your personal soapbox and a platform with which to attack other editors. If you want to rephrase your suggested edits without the personal attacks, ad hominem silliness and hysteria then please follow some basic talk page guidelines to do so:

• Start a new section by adding a sub-heading with two equals symbols before and after ( == Like this == )
• Use the {{request edit}} template.
• Outline what you would like amended, how and why (with reliable source citations to verify your claims rather than your own personal opinions).

I should point out that I have already suggested (at ANI) that you be blocked to prevent further personal attacks here, there, at WP:COIN and on your own user page and to force you to edit here with civility and in the interests of Wikipedia, rather than your own political ideology. Stalwart111 02:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Irish Left Review

Hi talk, just on the removal of the ILR reference. I realise they have republished from a blog but ILR is a quarterly publication which prints articles from left-wing activists (including from their personal blogs) and is considered to be of a fairly high standard. On the person involved, while clearly a leftist I don't believe that warrants discounting his analysis of DDI as right-wing populist. (Cedar Lounge Revolution and Irish Election Literature would be two other high-standard blogs often referenced by mainstream news sources) Cheers --CommieMark (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It maybe of high standard, but it's not a neutral source, which is my main concern. It's from a group who have self-identified on one spectrum, commenting on another group. Would you add a reference from DDI (or any right wing group) to the PBPA (or SP) article? I hope we can get other editors views (not you Jeff!), and reach on consensus on whether this ref is appropriate. Snappy (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing Populism?

I propose we remove the inclusion of "right-wing populism" under ideology. Despite very tenuous association with the right, DDI haven't actually committed any real right-wing action or talk. So at this stage it's all just speculation. They claim themselves to have neither a right nor a left wing stance (since in direct democracy the views of a politician would be incidental to those of the constituents). They very well may turn out to be the right-wing in sheep's clothing, but they haven't done anything to give them that description yet to my knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.120.34 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry now, but I am completely new to this. All I would like to know is whom originally wrote this article, and whom is responsible for it's alteration. Just so everybody knows, I am a member of DDI and I find most of the articles here offensive and designed to do one thing, discredit DDI. Now one would have to ask, Who would do such a thing? The mind boggles. Why? The mind boggles. As someone who has only got into politics, it's been a steep learning curve. Rather than be honest, it seems the opposite is the trend. If the authors of this piece had any honesty and integrity they would write a balanced piece. Unfortunatly they have not. And shame on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrymccarthy (talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Members of DDI and those with a personal or political connection to the topic are advised against editing the article. If you have credible alternative sources, or believe something not to be factual then please post your queries etc.. here. No one person is responsible for any article. It is a collective effort. Please read [2]--CommieMark (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Still on going removing of cited material, these editors alos break format and edit errors in, the COI edits are purely disruptive. Wikipedia isnt censored, but any edit that should be made should be cited, not the style of we are this and we are that. Murry1975 (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/candidates/martin-byrne/ Last COI editor. Murry1975 (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the removal of "right-wing populism" in ideology, the parties leanings in any direction is only accusation and speculation, left wing parties call DDI right wing, and right wing parties call DDI left wing, even the sources given are only speculation, one of which in fact is no longer there, not to mention it was an RTE piece that was heavily edited with the goal of making it look like DDI was extreme right wingers and freemen (which might be partially why it was removed, due to the amount of criticism it received for its biased "attack"). DDI has always from the very start made it very clear that it was neither right, left or centrist, the very meaning of Direct Democracy disallows the party to have any heavy leanings because it is mandated by the people, not the party. So having "right-wing populism" in its ideology is simply a lie with no bearing other than oppositions speculations/accusations and some internet warriors blogs... I should add that I won't be making the edit myself as I am a DDI member, in fact I'm a member of it's executive committee, so as one of the people helping to run the entire party I can confirm here and now that it IS NOT right, left or centrist. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecablt1 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Request edit on 17 July 2014

i am requesting that under idealogy that it be change to Centre as direct democracy when reinstated in back in the constitution will negate whether a party is left wing or right wing under article 47 of the 1922 constituiton direct democracy was in force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

And the English translation will follow shortly. In the meantime you removed cited material that you dont agree with. 1922? DDI wasnt around then! Talk about using someone else's history. Murry1975 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The requested change cannot be implemented because it is not properly sourced. Edit requests need to be complemented with a link to a reliable source that verifies claims. I'm closing this COI edit request. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute

Railsparks - apart from your Request for Adminship and a couple of articles on Dáil constituencies, you don't appear to have edited any pages apart from this one. Do you need to declare a conflict of interest? The reference you are using - "(political position changed from right wing to centre [3])" to support changing DDI's political position from right-wing to centre isn't a valid one, as it's quoting a primary source. You would need to find a secondary source to support that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

so is it ok to use material based on allegations rather than fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No facts are the main thing, can you show where allegations are used instead of fact? Murry1975 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Railsparks could you answer my question. Murry1975 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

user murry1975 and if you read that article it says and i quote "neither left or right but about balance" and balance is in the middle or also know as centre.Railsparks (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes and that is a quote from the party, which is a primary source, and can not be used, and isnt in the article. Railsparks where are these allegaions that are being used? Murry1975 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed all wordpress references, as per discussion and thefact they aint an RS. Murry1975 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

user murray1975An Phoblacht is a sinn fein paper which is allowed to be used as material for reference even though most of the story is absolute rubbish but when DDI give an ansewer its what the party said,but you allow this as reference even though the paper is biased towards DDI.Railsparks (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) user murry1975with regard to using blogs as citable material you said it cannot be used but under reference No.9 on the ddi page connor farrells page which is a blog is allowed to be usedRailsparks (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

An phoblacht is used to reference an ad in a magazine,

"The Christian Solidarity Party also took out advertisements in support of DDI. CSP candidates also included the website of Direct Democracy Ireland on their election literature"

I have found pictures of these, but only on a wordpress, Jane Murphy was the candidate. Murry1975 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And that very cite shows the CSP ad... And I think I have found your misunderstanding. A blog is someone posting on the internet, an opinion piece is someone who writes for a news outlet giving thier own opinion. An opinion piece in a well research newspaper can be used. A blog space or wordpress or similar can not. Murry1975 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

user murry1975 so now its ok to use a blog as citetable material,connor farrells page is a wordpress [4] Railsparks (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No as I have said, its not. Murry1975 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

user murry1975yes it is try reading that word after conorfell.com "WORDPRESS" do i have to spell it out for you.Railsparks (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As as I said no it is not ok to use, I was replying to your comment. Also be civil, your rude attitude is not going to help you.

It is odd that you never removed that one when you removed sources, always the others. Murry1975 (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC

user murry1975 so connorr farells page says wordpress but it isnt wordpress in your eyes and a blog is not a blogRailsparks (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Read it again, I was agreeing with you on that point. But I also asked why you removed others and not that one? Murry1975 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Right wing populism

I am now asking for the removal of "right-wing populism" in ideology, the parties leanings in any direction is only accusation and speculation, left wing parties call DDI right wing, and right wing parties call DDI left wing, even the sources given are only speculation, one of which in fact is no longer there, not to mention it was an RTE piece that was heavily edited with the goal of making it look like DDI was extreme right wingers and freemen (which might be partially why it was removed, due to the amount of criticism it received for its biased "attack"). DDI has always from the very start made it very clear that it was neither right, left or centrist, the very meaning of Direct Democracy disallows the party to have any heavy leanings because it is mandated by the people, not the party. So having "right-wing populism" in its ideology is simply a lie with no bearing other than oppositions speculations/accusations and some internet warriors blogs.Railsparks (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you're saying that DDI "always from the very start made it very clear that it was neither right, left or centrist." And you're changing the article to say it's left wing. And you're complaining that other editors are saying it's right wing. And you're holding all three of these positions simultaneously. I asked you above if you have an involvement with the party or a conflict of interest. Could you anwer, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is this editor, User:Railsparks, not blocked? Constant edit-warring and a massive COI. Snappy (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi batsun things change it is only in the last couple of weeks that DDI has come together with 3 other groups forming a left wing pact i have cited this several times and added a link from the irish times if the irish times is not a creditable source then please remove all other links to the irish times on the DDI reference list,also i would like to point out that there is a reference from a political party newspaper and used as a reliable source i didnt realise that a newspaper from a political party was a reliable source if that is the case then a blog is a reliable source,i have other issue that have been highlighted but nothing done if you look at previous posts on the talk page i would like to discuss without any interference from other admins who have constantly reverted pages to what they want one them has just asked you why i havnt been blocked.Railsparks (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

He's asking why you haven't been blocked because you're breaking Wikipedia policies on editing. I'll ask for a third time, Railsparks. Do you have a conflict of interest you need to declare? Are you a member of or closely associated with DDI? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

hi no i dont have a COI, but clearly 3 admins who work on the DDI page have and i thought that the admins were supposed to have a NPOV as i have stated before that most of the references that have been used are pure speculation,i didnt realise that heresay and conjecture were a reliable sourse you wouldnt even get a conviction in court if you were to use that,so i am asking now will the page be updated on fact and not opinion based articles.Railsparks (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I am still unclear on how you reconcile your three positions: 1) You maintain that DDI "always from the very start made it very clear that it was neither right, left or centrist."; 2) You complain when editors change political affiliation to "right-wing" or "right-wing populism"; 3) You want to change the article to say it's "left wing". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither myself, Bastun or Murry1975 are Wikipedia admins. Snappy (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

snappy DDI have signed up to the right2change platform which is to promote left wing parties and i have cited the irish times several times where it it says they have signed up but still no change is allowed on the DDI page i was asked before if i had citable material which i have used but has not been allowed to do so.[5]

Right2change

DDI has signed up to the right2change platform but when the you click the link on the DDI page it brings up right2change wiki but no reference to DDI why is this.[6]

Please provide some reliable references. Snappy (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No references have been provided. DDI have signed to to a populist group, that does not provide any evidence as to the the position of the group. Snappy (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

while we are on about reliable sources half the references on the DDI wiki page are hearsay i didnt realise that a party political paper such as An phoblacht was a reliable source,and also what references on the DDI wiki page are used to say that DDI right wing,Do you have a reliable sources that proves DDI is right wing?Railsparks (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. There appear to be three editors, in which case a third opinion is not applicable. If there are only two editors involved, what is the question? Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

there is a content dispute,references used are not factual only opinion.Railsparks (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the questioned reference? Are there two editors involved in the dispute, or three? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi robert,under political position on DDI it says Right Wing though there is no evidence or creditable source supporting such/Two Editors17:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:3O does not apply here. Bastun, Murry1975 and Snappy (me) are on one side, Railsparks is the sole editor on the other side. Since there are more than two editors involved, third opinion is not valid here. Snappy (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be removing the third opinion request. The editors may take this content dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard or use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

sorry but its been Murry1975 and Snappy nearly all the the time batsun only came in to fix broken links,the third opinion still standsRailsparks (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The third opinion request has been taken down. You may repost it, but it will probably be taken down again. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You would be better off at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Bastun didn't only come in to fix the broken links, and even if he had, it'd still be a consensus of two editors over one, still making a request for a third opinion irrelevant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland :ideology

I am calling for the removal of right wing under the heading of Political Position on the Direct Democracy Ireland page,there is not one reference on the page that says Direct democracy is Right Wing.Railsparks (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, there is not one reference. There are three. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

care the to list the three unreliable sources thenRailsparks (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

They (the three reliable sources) are right there on the article page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not one of them mentions right wingRailsparks (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Two of them refer to DDI as "populist"; one of them refers to it as "right-wing". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

please list the ones that are populist and which are Right-wing?Railsparks (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do your own work. The references are right there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

there is not one mention in those references of right wing.Railsparks (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

which reference refers to DDI as right wing,you obvious wont answer the question as you know well enough that it is not thereRailsparks (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference #3. Reference #13 too, for that matter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

#3 and 13# are the same articles just copied and pasted from one to another,and the right-wing refers to a political party outside of ireland and with no connection with DDI whatsoeverRailsparks (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

They're clearly not the same article, they're two completely different publications that refer to DDI's policies as right-wing. You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. There is a clear consensus for retention of the infobox as it stands, so please stop flogging this dead horse. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

They're totally different articles, with different authors. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

so a newspaper by a political party is a reliable source,second the articles do not directly say DDI is right wing that is not a reliable heresay and opinion which is not fact.95.83.253.130 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Conten Dispute

Gob Lofa Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! yet again supposed references to DDI being right-wing are unproven not one of the articles say that DDI are Right-wing but more so speculation,if people were to be jailed under speculation half the country would be jailed.Railsparks (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 edits

Railsparks, stop changing "right-wing populism" to "populism" using an edit summary of "typo fixed". You're fooling nobody. I've restored the referenced text. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:51, 14 November 2016 UTC

there is still no substantial or solid evidence that proves that DDI is right wing any of the reference used are just heresay,so if DDI is to share a tweet from a left wing party and say i have i have admiration from that man would that make the party left wingRailsparks (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Unless you're one of the prominent members mentioned in the article (which would breach WP:COI)? I would suggest reading WP:V and WP:RS. Village magazine, RTÉ and the Irish Times are reliable sources. Twitter isn't. In the meantime, please don't remove referenced content and say you're fixing a type, when you aren't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Direct Democracy Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117210525/http://www.rte.ie:80/news/2012/0116/quinns.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0116/quinns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Direct Democracy Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://directdemocracyireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Raymond-Whitehead.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://directdemocracyireland.ie/allsops-michael-reade-and-the-shameful-abuse-of-lmfm-for-political-gain/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.conorfarrell.com/wordpress/politics-2/the-hidden-face-of-ddi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818231957/http://www.alive.ie/uploads/6/5/1/1/6511516/alive_april_13.pdf to http://www.alive.ie/uploads/6/5/1/1/6511516/alive_april_13.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Railsparks edits June 2017

Railsparks, you are removing referenced content; stop. The current version has consensus. You appear to edit almost exclusively on this article and I suspect a WP:COI due to that and your attempt to minimise or remove anything that could be perceived as negative about DDI. The references you have removed back the assertion that a protest happened. The later text and references cover the remarks from Gilroy perceived to be racist by the interviewer and others. Stop whitewashing, and get consensus for any changes you're proposing. Right now, you have none. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC) (Edit to add: You may also want to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Bastunthe protest did happen and the papers never said that gilroy or DDI shouted racist abuse which is used a refence as the party right wing,on the political position DDI have repeatedly said they are "left nor right" but about balance which would make them centre grouping but you choose to use the right wing argumentRailsparks (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note the template to refer to a user is {{u|Examplename}}, not whatever you did, that managed to transclude my user page here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You've now removed "Withdrawal from the Eurozone" which was referenced to "https://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/could-leaving-the-euro-return-ireland-to-a-more-stable-economic-growth/ Direct Democracy Ireland (official website)", with an edit summary of "DDI have not advocated leaving the eurozone please read the article". The article states "For you consideration here we pose three reasons why Ireland (that is, the PEOPLE of Ireland) should consider leaving the euro-zone". Pretty black and white... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! and it says in the article for your consideration it does not say leave,i didnt realise that reference from one own website was allowed to be used as citable material,so ddi were to do an article that are left nor right wing but about balance ie a centre party would that then be considered as citable materialRailsparks (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that if I answered "yes", an article saying just that would appear on the DDI website within a day? Are you sure you don't need to declare a WP:COI. The article says "for your consideration" and then proceeds presents arguments for leaving the eurozone, and presents none for staying. It's clearly advocating a position. There is a clear difference between advocating a policy position and claiming an ideology - for the latter, we rely on secondary sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! its already mentioned in ref#8 irishtimes that the party is niether left nor right but about balance there is also a 1 or 2 other sources saying the samething and ddi already have it up on their website so it wouldnt just pop up as you say if you said yes to my question but choose to ignore it http://www.ourcampaigns.com/PartyDetail.html?PartyID=5680Railsparks (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the bit where the "neither left nor right" is a direct quote from Ben Gilroy. That's still primary. Bastun 13:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! he acutally said The party is not “left or right but about balance”, party member Ben Gilroy said Railsparks (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!and the withrawl from eurozone on ddi website is primary aswell and this is third party http://www.ourcampaigns.com/PartyDetail.html?PartyID=5680 Railsparks (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR, particularly WP:PSTS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A mirror of a WP page is not a RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Political Ideology?

This party is labelled as right wing, but with some cursory glances at their stances and manifesto they seem pretty firmly left-wing.

ddi not happy with wikipedia

https://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/direct-democracy-ireland-wikipedia-page/ 139.0.28.18 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits of October 31

I've reverted to the last good version by Spleodrach. An Phoblacht isn't a great reference, admittedly, but it is still a reliable source for what it's used to back. And frankly, Helper201, if you can read this and come to the conclusion that it can't be used to cite DDI as right wing, you may need to check your editing privileges... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

first of all the village isnt a reliable source. second of all can you point to where ddi is explicitly called right-wing?41.75.76.75 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, on what basis, exactly, do you get to decide what is and isn't a reliable source?! The Village absolutely is one. See previous talk page, sections, though - the DDI website is a primary source and therefore can't be used to cite the party's own idelogy. Second of all, the article is very clear that DDI is right wing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

if it is very clear then please give the paragraph or sentence where ddi is explitly called right wing. so ddi cant be used as a reliable source but the magazine of the sinn fein party can? are you for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.75.76.75 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Read prior discussions. Read WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Incidentally I notice the article page has now been protected from editing by anon IPs/socks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bastun, heavily biased sources - especially those that are by or strongly connected to a specific political party - should be avoided, especially since in this case it is referring to a rival party. As to your point regarding the other article, this comes under Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. No matter how much implication a source gives, it should not be used as evidence unless it directly states a point as such. Implication ultimately leads to differing perspectives and ambiguity and therefore should not be used as evidence. Helper201 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, academic source added instead. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Bastun, in relation to the "academic" source you have used in relation to "right-Wing" from "parlgov" that website hasnt been updated in years and all the information is out of date i know request that this source is used as it states that DDI are left wing grouping.Railsparks (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Frequency of updates is irrelevant and in any case you're wrong, as the site is updated when needed - including many updates this year. All of the information isn't "out of date", clearly, as it correctly lists DDI as a right-wing party. Your COI is showing... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bastun it does ddi as a left wing party here.Railsparks (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Adrian's blog is, still, a blog, and therefore not a reliable source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Railsparks - before contributing again, can you please go and read the policy on reliable sources, and WP:PRIMARY, as you've been requested to do by multiple editors at multiple times. Either you've just not bothered to read the policy, or you're just not getting it - possibly deliberately. Thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Direct Democracy Ireland → Liberty Republic – It has rebranded, and the Electoral Commission has proposed to change its registration. It doesn’t have the prominence of Renua, so the same issues don’t arise in terms of that rebranding. However, my caution is that the registration won’t take effect for these elections, so candidates will still appear on the ballot as DDI. I’d be inclined to call them Liberty Republic, but with an explanatory footnote, but worth a discussion before implementing any change to the article title. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. As it stands, the article doesn't mention "Liberty Republic" at all. And there are no references (in the article) which refer to the subject by this name. Ideally, before the article would be renamed, these WP:EASTEREGG and WP:VER issues would be addressed. Also, given that the Electoral Commission press release seems to date from today (12 Apr 2024), it is not clear that the (new or soon to be?) WP:OFFICIALNAME has become the WP:COMMONNAME. At the very least, some text (perhaps based on this or that release, covering the name/change, should be included. Wikipedia should follow any changes. And the sources. Not (effectively) be ahead of them. Guliolopez (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've made the edits that I think should cover it. With a microparty, that might be all we'll get to establish it as being a common name, I think. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Support. Now that the text mentions the new name (addressing WP:EASTEREGG) and the non-primary & reliable refs support the change (addressing WP:VER), I'm happy to support the change. (For a more well-known subject, more time [longer than a day or so] and more refs [actual usage] would likely be needed. To support/confirm/establish that the OFFICIALNAME had become the COMMONNAME. But, as the subject here is not especially well-known, I agree that it's perhaps not as critical for this subject...). Happy to support move. Guliolopez (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support – Pretty sure you don't need a move request Braganza (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Such a minor party so doubt it will be noticed. In this case we should follow the Electoral Commission name. Spleodrach (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - To confirm Iveagh Gardens, and in relation to this EDSUMM, none of us mere-mortals can move the article/title. Per the message on the related move page and the protection log, only admins can move this page. It's not just you. You (or some one of us) will need to open a technical move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. If you want to open the request, I'm happy to support. Guliolopez (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, that hadn't occurred to me! It was something of a coincidence, and makes more sense! You'd think by now I'd have cottoned on to factors like that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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