Talk:Fianna Fáil

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

Ireland Top‑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 articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi Bastun, I don't agree you should have restored this text. It feels clunky and pointed, and it's not in the article's History section. Stara Marusya (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have to agree; upon reflection it is quite clunky for a lead section. If I wasn't Irish, I don't know that I'd even understand what the sentence meant. A more simplistic alternative might be

The party was founded as an Irish republican party on 16 May 1926 by Éamon de Valera and his supporters after they split from Sinn Féin. De Valera and his followers were determined to take seats in the Oireachtas while Sinn Féin's policy was to refuse to recognise it. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Bastun wants to make the case for its retention, I'll change it back. Stara Marusya (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ideology parametre looks rather bloated. Due to this, I propose reducing them to a few. Here is the option:

• Irish republicanism
• Populism
• Big tent

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism is all that’s needed IMO. It’s a conservative party over-all (despite the ALDE affiliation), and Irish republicanism could literally apply to all the republic’s political parties.— Autospark (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservatism" (possibly "Liberal conservatism"?) is necessary. I would have "Christian democracy" and "populism" too, while I am strongly against "big tent", which is no ideology, and "Irish republicanism", on which I agree with User:Autospark. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism and Christian democracy, or conservatism, populism, Christian democracy would be a fine solution.— Autospark (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irish republicanism could literally apply to all the republic’s political parties

No, it could not: That would be both a fundamental misunderstanding of both Irish Republicanism and Irish politics in general. While typically all parties in the Republic of Ireland favour of Irish reunification, Irish Republicanism encapsulates a far greater range of policies, values and goals than Irish reunification on it's own.

As of 2023, the parties in the Dáil that are identified as Republican are Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, and Aontú. Fine Gael is traditionally considered "Anti-Republican". Neither the Green Party, Labour, the Social Democrats, People before Profit nor Solidarity would be considered Republican. Hand-waving away the Irish Republican label from "Fianna Fáil - the Republican party" without citing any sources is rather feckless.

I would suggest that those proposing to alter the ideology section of the article should cite modern sources to ground their proposals. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Fianna Fail, "Former ideology" would be more accurate seeing as they currently lack any values beyond holding on to power. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve had this before, but there is no rule declaring a “time limit” for references used to describe ideology. FF is a broadly conservative party, as the bulk of existing referenced sources indicate.— Autospark (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually trying to hand out an olive branch there by mentioning modern sources, as modern sources would be more flexible in describing Fianna Fáil's ideology, but certain all historic sources are going to describe Fianna Fáil as Irish Republican. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; that wasn’t meant to be or sound confrontational. The issue is that FF has been described from terms spanning national-conservative^[1] to conservative-liberal,^[2] and other than being broadly on the centre-right, it’s arguably a tricky party to nail down the ideology concisely. And if we’re considering modern sources, how recent is modern enough? There’s several variables at play here.— Autospark (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, those are sources which are looking at political parties in Europe at a macro level and trying to link them under broad labels, whereas I know that sources looking at Fianna Fáil at a micro level and discussing it's specific ideology will discuss Irish Republicanism, particularly Irish sources.

Personally, I don't mind if people want to cut Pro-Europeanism from the list as has been done, or refine Conservative to Conservative-Liberal (provided they can adequately source that), but at this moment in time I don't believe Irish Republicanism can be cut from from the ideology section of the infobox, particularly as Irish republicanism is discussed at length in the body of the article, and also the fact that Fianna Fáil is part of the Irish Republicanism sidebar, also included in the body of the article. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As the above shows, its a complicated question, and therefore not suitable for an infobox. Just blank that parameter. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, a good compromise would be to keep the "Irish republicanism" box, while having in the infobox only the current ideologies. As I wrote above, I am for "conservatism", "Christian democracy" and "populism", all or any of the three, while I oppose any other ideology that would be out of context. --Checco (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not, per various views above! Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I definitely support inclusion of "Conservatism" and "Christian democracy" in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, "conservatism" and "Christian democracy" should stay, given the discussion above. I would also include "populism" that explains a lot about the party's ideology and attitudes, but I could give up on it. Surely, "Irish republicanism" is redundant. --Checco (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support:

• Irish republicanism
• Christian democracy
• Conservativism

I also think 4 ideologies is far from "bloated" and would be fine with retaining it how it currently is. Helper201 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to point out my opposition to "big tent" in the ideology camp, as it is not an ideology. --Checco (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing conservatism to conservative liberalism, the party seems to push economic liberalism while maintaining a more culturally conservative stance compared to Fine Gael, which pushes more economically liberal and culturally liberal ideas. Also it can simplify the confusion on how a "conservative" party is a member of ALDE and Renew Europe. Liberal European groups. 2603:7000:3B40:B500:A100:49BD:8D4D:839F (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the political orientation should be limited to 'centre' or 'centre-right' as almost all contemporary reliable sources call the party this, and per WP:FALSEBALANCE, I would support deemphasizing or removing the one source calling it 'right-wing'.

Also, sources saying the party is 'conservative' or 'national conservative' are from 2010 or older, and per WP:AGEMATTERS, I think mentions of the party being 'conservative' should not be put in the lead, and should be limited to historical discussion.

Centre:

• NPR (2024) [1]
• The Guardian (2020) [2]
• Politico (2020) [3]
• BBC (2020) [4]
• France24 (2020) [5]
• VOA (2020) [6]
• The Telegraph (2018) [7]
• EUObserver (2017) [8]
• Self-described (2017) [9]
• UCD professor Thomas Däubler (2021) [10] (said Fine Gael was to the right of Fianna Fail in 2016)
• Parties and Elections in Europe [11] (not 100% sure if this is reliable but seems so [12])

Centre-right:

• Routledge Handbook of European Elections (2015) [13] (page 247)
• Irish Political Studies article (2021) [14]
• Reuters (2020) [15]
• New Public Managers in Europe (2016) [16]
• Irish Political Studies article (2016) [17] Note: In Ireland, both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael can be categorised as centre-right parties, although the former has a more populist outlook, favours more economic interventionism and some of its leaders have sometimes referred to the party's fuzzy ideology as 'left of centre'.
• Plus some sources in article from 2011/earlier

Right-wing:

• Political Ideology in Ireland: From the Enlightenment to the Present (2020) [18]

Ideology:

• Every source in the article calling FF "conservative" is from 2010 or earlier:
  • [19] (2010)
  • [20] (2006)
  • [21] (1999)
  • [22] (1996)
  • [23] (1987)
  • [24] (2005) (national-conservative)
• The [25] more recent sources in the above thread say it has a conservative section, it's traditionally considered conservative, more conservative than Ireland at large, but none I saw said the party was actually conservative now.
• More recent sources have called it Christian democratic [26][27] or liberal-conservative. (van Haute/Close 2019, quoted in article)
• Jack Sheehan of the Irish Times (2023): [28] Unlike Fine Gael, which functions as a standard European Christian Democratic or Liberal-Conservative party, Fianna Fáil has never been comfortable with the label of right-wing, or with having a discernible ideology at all ... For a decade now, a socially conservative, supposedly republican party has been led by a centrist social liberal with a more cautious position on Irish unification than even Leo Varadkar.
• Party leader op-ed in 2023: [29] Fianna Fáil is a progressive republican party which rejects the failed and destructive idea that you must conform to the traditional left/right ideology.

JSwift49 19:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... They're conservative. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bastun, FF is clearly a conservative party, and anyone who follows Irish politics would attest that. I reject any claims that the sources are "outdated" on that issue. We also should ignore the self-description "progressive republican party", which really doesn't reflect the party (it's not progressive, i.e centre-left). We aren't here to regurgitate how any political party describes themselves.-- Autospark (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we need sources to support that. They support FF having a more conservative faction and historically being considered conservative, I’m fine with including that, but typically describe FF as centrist now (not conservative). Even the article Bastun linked says the leader of the party opposes that faction’s stance, so it’s not representative.

Are there any recent sources that say the party as a whole, specifically under Micheál Martin, is conservative? Political parties can change quickly and per WP:AGEMATTERS we shouldn’t rely on sources from 2010 or older. JSwift49 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When more than half of the parliamentary party call for a 'no' vote on something like Repeal the Eighth, despite the party leader saying the party was in favour, and this was only six years ago - we are in WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bastun. This a conservative party, it does not matter that they self-describe as "centrist" (would we describe the British Conservatives as "moderate centre ground" as they prefer that description?). Remember that it has been noted that FF and FG are sometimes considered to be in the "wrong" European groups, with FF a party that could quite happily and unremarkably fit into the EPP.--Autospark (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t self description – “centrist” is how at least 10 recent, reliable sources describe the party. Since political orientation is a complex topic I think it requires secondary sources and we shouldn’t label a party “conservative” based on a position some members supported. JSwift49 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that we should take self-descriptions by political parties (and their members, grandees and supporters in the media) as literal?-- Autospark (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again - it's not "some" members, it was a majority of the parliamentary party! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should be able to find recent, reliable secondary sources that describe the party as 'conservative'. Addressing the recent three sources added: two aren't helpful because they either describe it as conservative as of 2006 [30] or refer to the first half of the the 20th century.[31] The third, a study published in 2018 that categorizes FF as conservative [32], is better but seems to be a study covering 2008–2010 The current work is a comparative study of 18 West European countries with data from 2008–2010. Since FF was more conservative during that time, I'd be hesitant to give this categorization too much weight.

Adhering to reliable news sources from multiple countries is exactly what we should be doing here. JSwift49 13:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun Looking at the previous discussions/RfC [33][34] and the other editors who have changed the ideology recently e.g. [35][36][37][38][39] there does not seem to have ever been a consensus overall for reducing the lead/infobox to 'conservative'. Also, keeping the lead as 'conservative and Christian democratic' while not mentioning 'centrist' or other nuances is not in line with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

Re. [40] my thinking is until the RfC concludes and more uninvolved editors weigh in, we should keep the lead/infobox as 'centre to centre-right' (which we agree is an accurate description), or at the very least mention both 'centrist' and 'conservative' per the body. JSwift49 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't remove the stuff you called an RfC about during that RfC. You wait until it concludes. I don't know what's hard to understand about that. While I'm here, can I also request that you use edit summaries for all of your edits? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can’t emphasise this enough, please don’t remove or add content prematurely and attempt to pre-empt any consensus.— Autospark (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that by adding back “conservative” we were doing exactly that: preempting consensus. The last RfC had no consensus and the last discussion before I weighed in had no consensus. JSwift49 10:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not. The consensus version has been "conservativism" (why are you not using straight MOS:QUOTES, btw?), or "conservative liberalism", for literally months. The last RfC was nearly five years ago, and had no consensus for inclusion or exclusion. Again - your RfC was premature, but now you've started it, wait for it to conclude. While I'm at it - use edit summaries, and I would also strongly suggest not making three substantial changes separated by several paragraphs in the one edit. You are making it difficult to work collaboratively. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no consensus for inclusion, it shouldn't have been included per WP:ONUS. Previous discussions, and regular recent editor reversions, don't read as a consensus to me; that's why I started this RfC so this can be sorted out.

I have been using edit summaries generally; not perfect at it, though usually I only omit if the edit is minor or obvious (per WP:FIES). JSwift49 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? "Closed as 'no consensus'"?! How did you arrive at that conclusion, @User:Compassionate727?

• Centrist: Jswift.
• Conservative: Autospark, Helper201, Bastun, Spleodrach, Checco
• Omit description: HapHaxion
• Acknowledge/include all: JamesMLane
• Centre-right: Johnbod.

So of the nine people who expressed an opinion, five, a majority, said a description of 'conservative' should apply in the lead, as opposed to the one person who answered the question asked with "centrist" and your decision is a) "no consensus" and b) therefore "conservative" should be removed? That's a bizarre reading. I would suggest you revert, and re-open the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bastun, there was a clear and obvious consensus arrived upon, namely describing the party as conservative. We certainly did not collectively decide to describe the party solely as "centrist".--Autospark (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DETCON, consensus is determined by the strength of arguments that accord with Wikipedia's policies, not by editors' opinions. As far as that goes: the lead should reflect the body, and the body should reflect the sourcing. The evidence presented showed that historically, the party was consistently described as conservative, and today, is commonly described variously as "conservative," "centre-right," "centrist," etc. The body seems to already reflect this to some extent, and the lead should as well. That means not saying merely that it's conservative, and not saying merely that it's centrist. Whether that means describing it as "centre-right," "conservative and [or "or"] centrist," or something else, or just writing a sentence or two explaining the disagreement, is something for you editors of this page to decide, whether by normal editing or by discussion. I removed the existing description of it as solely conservative in accord with this; my expectation is that it will soon be returned alongside something else that appropriate contextualizes all of this for the reader. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five people supporting 'conservative' and four (now five) people not supporting 'conservative' is not a consensus... And that's not including the other editors who removed the term when it was added, or who opposed it in previous discussions. JSwift49 23:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous. The overwhelming weight of references in the Ideology section (and we are writing articles here, not mere Infoboxes and ledes) by quantity are for conservative and conservative-adjacent ideologies. Yes, the party self-describes as centrist (or similar descriptions), but we are here to write encyclopaedic articles, not act as marketing men for political parties, or actively canvassing for them. This is clearly and unquestionably a conservative, right-leaning party, as anyone who follows Irish politics can attest. We should not place WP:UNDUE on the descriptions of the party as centrist. (Also, FWIW, I strongly support removing the misleading tautology "centre to centre-right" from the lede.)-- Autospark (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Autospark and other users above. There is a clear consensus over "conservatism" and "centre-right". However, as I argued above, the dichotomy between "centrist" and "conservative" was quite deceptive as a party can be both things at once. I propose that we could have two separate discussions, one on ideology and one on position. By the way, I am OK with the current ideologies mentioned in the infobox: "conservatism" for sure, "Irish republicanism" even if a little bit redundant and "Christian democracy" which might not be perfectly accurate though, while I think that "centre-right" should only be mentioned both in the lead and the infobox—let's not forget that "centre-right" also includes "centre", thus "centre to centre-right" looks quite redundant to me.

However, "Ideological classifications of the party vary; the party is commonly referred to as conservative, though it has also been described as Christian democratic, liberal or ideologically ambiguous" is also looks a fine explanation to me, what about "populism" though? --Checco (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Autospark I think you should familiarize yourself more with WP:UNDUE. You attempted to give “right wing” the same weight as “centre” and “centre right”, despite only one source calling it right wing, and virtually every other source calling it centre or centre right (two also called it “centre left”, why did you not include that as well?) [43]

As for the ideology, as Compassionate727 correctly pointed out, there is no consensus for summarizing it as conservative only, and the body/sources don’t support that. The lead as is accurately shows that it is commonly described as conservative but there is some variance/ambiguity. I’m ok with the ideologies in the infobox as long as they are described with appropriate nuance in the article.

Sources call FF both centrist and centre right; Centrism and Centre-right politics have their own pages; and Wiki articles commonly call parties “centre to centre right”. For example: [44][45][46] So I think these are terms that should both be used. JSwift49 02:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, “centre to centre-right” is tautological. Centre-right already implies containing centrist elements (and yes, FF is probably as moderate as centre-right parties go by modern European standards). Anyway, I agree with Checco that populism should be re-added to the ideological description in some form, as the party is known for its shifting stances on certain policy issues.— Autospark (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that “centre to centre-right” is tautological. Broadly speaking, people describe the political spectrum on an approximate 7 point scale: With Far-left being 1 and far-right being 7. So it goes 1 Far-Left 2 Left Wing 3 Centre-left 4 Centre 5 centre-right 6 Right-wing 7 Far-Right.

It also the case that the infoboxes for numerous major political parties on Wikipedia use the exact description "centre to centre-right"; Renaissance (French political party), Christian Democratic Appeal, New Social Contract, Centre Party (Sweden), Democratic Party For the People, Brazilian Democratic Movement. It's a normal description rather than the outlandish description you're implying. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care! Using example of badly-written en.wiki articles (or badly-written elements of articles) is no valid argument. There are too many articles about political parties on en.wiki with poor research, taking sources completely out of context, using WP:SYNTH, written by people who have no understanding of comparative politics and so on. So the argument "some articles are bad, so let's spoil another to match it" doesn't wash. We should be intent on improving the quality of articles on en.wiki. Also, the political spectrum exists as a concept wholly outside of en.wiki. It is not a creation of en.wiki, and your rigid "seven point scale" is not something that exists in scholarly research in that form, so I have to write that off as WP:OR.-- Autospark (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a degree in Politics & International Relations, I'm quite aware where the concept of the political spectrum comes from. I never suggested it was an en.wiki creation, which you've bolded for some reason.

Referring to the political spectrum as, broadly, a 7 point scale reflects single axis models.

Websites such as https://politpro.eu use that exact 7 point model, and their use of "center" is distinct from that of "centre-left" and "centre-"right". See https://politpro.eu/en/norway/parties where Senterpartiet (the Centre Party) is labelled "Center" compared to the Conservative Party's "Center-Right". The description "center to centre-right" reflects political parties that oscillates between the two positions. Likewise, this BBC article[47] uses "centre" to describe Fianna Fáil as opposed to "centre-right", which it uses to describe Fine Gael.

This Deutsche Welle article [48] refers to Martin as leading an unprecedented coalition government between arch-rivals Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, both on the center to center-right of the political spectrum, plus the smaller Green Party.

This Le Monde [49] article uses the term "center to center-right" to refer to Democratic Movement (France).

These are examples of reliable, secondary sources using the term "center" as distinct from "centre-right", and these are examples of reliable, secondary sources using the term "center to centre-right".

You should be able to have disagreements with other users without immediately ridiculing their positions, or accusing them of WP:OR when speaking broadly. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Autospark that "centre to centre-right" is tautological and, let me add it, redundant (if you think, it means "centre-centre-right": nonsense!) and that articles and infoboxes should be improved, instead of importing bad practices from other articles and infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the Politics series
Party politics
Political spectrum Left-wing Far-left Centre-left Centre Centre-left Radical centre Centre-right Right-wing Centre-right Far-right
Major Ideologies Agrarianism Anarchism Christian democracy Communism Conservatism Environmentalism Fascism Feminism Green politics Hindutva Islamism Liberalism Libertarianism Monarchism Nationalism Populism Progressivism Classical radicalism Republicanism Social democracy Socialism Syncretism Third Way
Types Bloc party Elite party Cartel party Competitive Catch-all party Entrepreneurial party Ethnic party Major party / Minor party Mass party Ruling party Opposition party Parliamentary opposition Party of power Official party status Single-issue party Transnational / International
Leaders and organization Backbencher Caucus Caucus chair Frontbencher Lead candidate Leader of the Opposition Majority leader Minority leader Political faction Parliamentary leader Party chair Party leader Party spokesperson Secretary Shadow cabinet Whip
Internal elections Primary election Leadership election Open list Party convention/conference Leadership convention
Party discipline Conscience vote Crossing the floor Party discipline Party line Party-line vote Party switching
Party systems One-party Dominant-party Two-party Multi-party Non-partisan
Coalitions between parties Parliamentary group Divided government Coalition government Confidence and supply Consensus government Grand coalition Hung parliament Majority government Minority government National unity government Rotation government
Lists of political parties Ruling parties by country Political parties by region Banned political parties
Politics portal
v t e

if you think, it means "centre-centre-right": nonsense!)

No, it means "Sometimes Center, Sometimes Centre-right" ie sometimes advocating Centrist polices, sometimes advocating Centre-right policies, just as "Left-wing to Far-Left" would mean a party which sometimes advocates milder left-wing policies, while advocating more extreme far-left policies at other times. Some political parties have a narrow range of policies, while others swing much broader. That is what "X to Y" covers.

As you can see from the template to the right of my comment, Wikipedia has both a sidebar and articles which endorse both the 7 point scale I previously mentioned, and the idea of "Centre" being distinct from Centre-left and Centre-right.

You and User:AutoSpark may disagree with that, but it would seem to me you would need to argue that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics rather than here.

We are getting off-topic, as this thread should be used to discuss what terms should be specifically used to describe Fianna Fáil, rather than to discuss the validity of "Centre" as a part of the political spectrum. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "sometimes centre, sometimes centre-right", what about removing "to" and having "centre, centre-right"? The problem is that we would end up with parties classified as "right-wing, centre-right, centre and centre-left" or even more! The template you copied here is quite problematic (why should have "centre-left" and "centre-right" twice)? This said, the fact "centre-right" is both part of "centre" and "right-wing" is precisely my argument for not having such a redundant wording like "centre to centre-right"! Your arguments and the template are indirectly supportive of the position held by User:Autospark and I. The only thing I surely agree with you is that there should be a joint discussion somewhere, possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Anyway, the RfC was on "centrist vs. conservative" and the party is both centrist and conservative, a centrist or moderate (but also populist) conservative party. To be more precise, FF is a conservative [ideology] party sitting in the centre [position] of the political spectrum. There should be an easy compromise here. --Checco (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with the consensus-seeking conclusion summed up by Checco.-- Autospark (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]