Talk:Independent Ireland

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A very new editor is deleting Social conservatism from the ideology section of the inbox and substituting in "Fiscal conservatism", citing "their website" as evidence. There is nothing on the website about policy, except some statements on reducing public spending and duplication of services. The party, within the article, are cited as attending a European conservatives' meeting, and its leader is cited as being "against abortion - full stop" - in the same interview going on to say he didn't want to live in a country where abortion is permitted. I think it's fair to say that's enough to justify a inclusion of socially conservative position in the infobox? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

To me, it is abundantly clear that the party is socially conservative. While it may be playing down those aspects, because the Irish electorate has tended to reject social conservatism recently (at least until the most recent referendum), the ideologies of its TDs are well-known, and their open association with ECR which includes parties like Brothers of Italy, Vox and Sweden Democrats clearly places them in a socially conservative position, especially relative to other parties in Ireland. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've gotten comments regarding the representatives section that I attempted to add on this page. The main opposition is that they aren't on other Ireland political party pages.

However, similar sections in fact do exist on other pages. This includes the Social Democrats of Ireland page (as mentioned in my edit summary, see Social Democrats (Ireland)#Elected representatives and Social Democrats (Ireland)#Leadership). It is also present in similar fashion on the Labour Party of Ireland's page (see Leadership and Elected Representatives Section), Aontú's page (see Leadership and Elected Representatives Section), and Republican Sinn Féin's page (see Leadership section).

My question is, why can't this page also have a section similar to that when many other smaller parties do (including a lot of NI party pages as well, which I didn't include because it's part of the UK, but still worth pointing out)? If it's a problem with how I designed it or set it up, I'm willing to format it differently.

Tagging Spleodrach and Bastun as they originally brought up the complaints.

Flames675 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the convenience of others, the sections referred to above but not linked to are Labour_Party_(Ireland)#Leadership, Labour_Party_(Ireland)#Elected_representatives, Aontú#Representatives, Aontú#Leadership, and Republican_Sinn_Féin#Leadership.

There's no issue, as far as I'm concerned, with a 'Representatives' section, in prose format, listing the number of elected officials at European, national and local level. I would have issue with a tabular format listing, with portraits, of everyone elected for a particular party. It's unnecessary and just isn't done. If there are only a few, then including a photo/montage, as is done on the SocDems page would be fine, but note the image on that page just lists their names and has a short caption - it's not a space-hogging table.

The Aontú leader section only got added in April, by a surprisingly anon IP. The RSF section is prose, including an unobtrusive table. I admit I'm surprised to see leadership sections in the Labour and SocDem articles with tables that include images; I'd obviously missed them. I think they're unnecessary, and should be replaced with prose. In the case of Labour, the table is entirely redundant anyway, as it's included already in Leader of the Labour Party (Ireland). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Bastun. Spleodrach (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because there is only 3 TDs and 1 MEP, I assumed a table such as the one I set up wouldn't be intrusive as it's only 3 rows and 1 row. However, if you believe that a prose format is better I will attempt to do it that way.

Are you all still okay with the way I worded the Councilor part? I completely agree that a table like that would be too cumbersome and thus a paragraph establishing their electoral results, highlights, and 23 candidates won would suffice.

Flames675 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very verbose, I have trimmed it to an acceptable length. Also, Irish councillors where on earth are you from? It's an Irish party contesting elections only in the Republic of Ireland? Spleodrach (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my bad. Flames675 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given that the sole MEP and some faction within the party is demonstrably centrist, would it be more accurate than simply saying "right-wing" to include "centrism" as a faction? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That would be original research. We'd need a reliable source that explicitly states as such before it could be added. Helper201 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've removed centre-right from the infobox as the only place the party has been described as such is in talking about themselves, which is not a reliable source. All reliable sources I've seen have described them as right-wing, bar one Hot Press article that said "critics" had described them as far-right, so I think right-wing should be the ideology in the infobox. Leaving a comment here as I know infobox ideology discussions can be matters of contention, so open to discussion. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In a recent series of edits from a number of IPs (perhaps relating to the same editor) the term "far right" was added to the body and infobox. While the addition was removed (with a note that the source provided was perhaps not correct/sufficient), it was subsequently restored. With a further link added to seemingly support this addition. Personally I share some of the concerns raised by ser!. In that, in terms of the:

• Sky News source, it seems to be a throw-away generalisation. And, personally, I wonder if it's an over-simplification by the Sky News author.
• Electomania.es source, I do not see where it describes Independent Ireland as "far right"? And, if it does, whether this post represents a reliable source?

To my mind, while a number of sources describe the party as having populist and right-wing elements/policies/members, we would need to see more sources (describing the subject as a "far right" party), before applying the label proposed. Certainly the two sources offered do not seem sufficient. Certainly compared to the references used to support the inclusion of other parties in the Category:Far-right politics in Ireland category. Guliolopez (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree with you on both the points regarding the generalisation and the absence of evidence the second source is reliable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't describe them as a far-right party (right-wing populist, maybe), and it appears neither would Ruth Coppinger (hardly some squishy centrist): "I think everybody in this election has been worried about the far-right and I think we saw it reflected in the vote where they got nothing," Ms Coppinger said after her election. "They will have nobody return to the Dáil, which I do think is one positive." From this article. Saying this after Independent Ireland elected 4 TDs I think is indication enough that we shouldn't classify them as far-right. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi I propose to change the political position to right-wing to far-right with these sources.[1][2][3][4][5] 177.38.208.151 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not one of those sources is Irish or reliable. I will contest this change. Spleodrach (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

No need for a new talk page section - the existing section immediately above is on this very topic. I agree with Spleodrach, Guliolopez, Ser!, and MAINEiac4434 (and, indeed, Ruth Coppinger!) - a bit populist, a bit right-wing, but certainly not far-right. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not much to add beyond that I agree with the two users above me. There's nothing near the sources needed to make the change you suggest. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I note that, notwithstanding this discussion and the apparent lack of consensus for the change proposed, there are still IP editor/editors seeking to refer to the subject as "far right".

The most recent change was seemingly based on an assertion that "Four of the prestigious media of the world describes the party as far-right".

While I'm not sure whether I'd describe elDiario.es as one of the most "prestigious media of the world", none of the outlets linked (Sky News, politico.eu, elDiario.es, and La Vanguardia) seem to consistently refer to the subject in these terms.

For example, while the politico.eu source given appears to be a passing reference in a newsletter issued by one of politico.eu's "collaborative" projects (rather than an article of its main editorially-reviewed channels), other articles on politico.eu simply refer to the subject as "conservative". This politico.eu article for example refers to Independent Ireland as a "conservative farmer-focused [party]". And goes on to distinguish it from the "hard-right National Alliance". This politico.eu piece also describes the party as one of "rural conservatives". This is WP:CHERRYPICKING.

The stories.lavanguardia.com source also expressly states the list in which "Irlanda: Irlanda Independiente (Éire Neamhspleách)" is included contains "parties that, although they are not considered extreme right in their countries, are part of these [ Identity and Democracy and European Conservatives and Reformists ] groups [of the European Parliament]". (Hemos considerado partidos de extrema derecha a todas las formaciones que han obtenido representación parlamentaria en estos comicios y que forman parte del grupo Identidad y Democracia y el Grupo de los Conservadores y Reformistas Europeos. En algunos casos, también hemos incluido partidos que, aunque no se consideran de extrema derecha en sus países, sí forman parte de estos grupos). This is WP:SYNTH.

Is Independent Ireland to the right? Yes. 100% The sources support it and the article states as much. Are its policies and proponents representative of right-wing populism? Yes. Again, the sources support this and so the article states it. Are the party's immigration policies/stance comparable to others on the right? Even those further to the right? Yes. The body/sources support this. But "far right" or "hard right"? Comparable to other far right groups in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe? No. The sources do not support this.

If an editor needs to undertake selective cherry-picking (and SYNTH) to find even a handful of webpages that partially support the change they wish to make, then that should be an indicator of an issue. (And that multiple other editors have expressed a concern should also give an editor who is here to collaboratively improve the encyclopedia some pause...) Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I am Elaine Mullally. I am disclosing that I have a conflict of interest because this request concerns me personally. I am requesting that an independent editor review the inclusion of my name as a founder or co-founder of Independent Ireland. The following independent published sources support this: The Irish Times describes Elaine Mullally as a “co-founder”: https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2026/04/25/could-independent-ireland-grow-on-back-of-fuel-price-protests/ RTÉ Prime Time describes Elaine Mullally as “a founding member of Independent Ireland”: https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2025/1025/1540566-who-was-behind-the-spoil-the-vote-campaign/ Midlands 103 describes Elaine Mullally as one of the party’s founders: https://www.midlands103.com/news/midlands-news/mullooly-joining-renew-was-catalyst-for-independent-ireland-co-founder-to-leave/ Could an independent editor please review these sources and make the appropriate change? I will not make the change directly and will leave the final wording to independent Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Lulu2baby2026 (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for following the COI template, much appreciated. I will say that I'm not sure if we generally include non-elected people, or those who do not have their own page, as founders in general on political pages. See for example Your Party (UK), where there were a large number of founding members but it was the two figureheads that were included as founders. Closer to home, it's the same for the Social Democrats (Ireland), where only the three TDs are considered the founders. As I've already previously edited this I'm not gonna close the edit request and will instead leave it to another editor to determine, but I had to throw in my 2c on the precedent in the infoboxes. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not done for now: As user Ser stated, generally non-elected people are not included in articles, unless their inclusion demonstrably adds to the article. It's very possible your inclusion would make the article better, but as of now, your edit request does not explain why including you in the article would help a reader's understanding of the topic. feel free to open another COI edit request with more information if you so desire! - Otherwise (Talk?) 14:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Independent Ireland. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 639 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

I am Elaine Mullally and I am disclosing my conflict of interest because this request concerns me personally. I am new to Wikipedia, so I would be grateful for guidance if I have misunderstood any formatting or procedural requirement. I will not edit the article directly.

Thank you for the responses to my earlier request. This renewed request addresses the two concerns raised in that discussion.

Reliable sourcing

The original reason given for removing my name was that reliable references had not been provided. The following independent published sources have now been supplied:

• The Irish Times explicitly describes Elaine Mullally as a “co-founder” of Independent Ireland:

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2026/04/25/could-independent-ireland-grow-on-back-of-fuel-price-protests/

• Midlands 103 independently describes Elaine Mullally as “one of the party’s founders”:

https://www.midlands103.com/news/midlands-news/mullooly-joining-renew-was-catalyst-for-independent-ireland-co-founder-to-leave/

• RTÉ Prime Time describes Elaine Mullally as “a founding member of Independent Ireland”:

https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2025/1025/1540566-who-was-behind-the-spoil-the-vote-campaign/

The requested description therefore does not depend on my personal account. The Irish Times uses the precise term “co-founder”, and Midlands 103 independently identifies me as one of the founders.

Elected-office concern

A concern was subsequently raised about whether non-elected people are generally included as founders in political-party infoboxes.

I have been unable to find a Wikipedia policy or guideline stating that a political-party founder must have held elected public office. Template:Infobox political party expressly includes “founder” and “founders” fields without stating such a requirement.

There are also directly comparable Irish examples:

• The Green Party (Ireland) infobox lists Christopher Fettes as a founder. His recorded European Parliament and general-election candidacies were unsuccessful.

• The Labour Party (Ireland) infobox lists James Connolly as a founder. His attempt to obtain an elected seat on Dublin City Council was unsuccessful.

These examples are not offered as binding precedents. They demonstrate, however, that holding elected office is not a general prerequisite for inclusion in a political-party founders field.

Whether Elaine Mullally was elected is separate from the factual question of whether she co-founded Independent Ireland.

Why this helps readers

The article already identifies Elaine Mullally as the party’s chairperson and reports her subsequent resignation. Identifying her as a co-founder provides important context: the person who later left the party was not merely a later officeholder, but one of the people whom independent sources identify as having founded it.

Omitting this role gives readers an incomplete account of both the party’s establishment and the significance of her departure.

Requested changes

Please add the following sourced sentence to the History section:

“Elaine Mullally, who served as the party’s chairperson, was a co-founder of Independent Ireland.”

Please also amend the infobox founders field to read:

| founders =

The infobox should summarize the reliably sourced information contained in the article body. I therefore request that Elaine Mullally’s co-founder status be reflected in both places.

If the requested changes cannot be implemented, I would be grateful for a clear explanation identifying whether the concern relates to source reliability, whether the sources support the wording, due weight, or a specific Wikipedia policy governing the founders field.

Thank you. Lulu2baby2026 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply