Talk:Workers' Party (Ireland)

message: Why does this page have a link to the Irish Workers' Party, a completely unrelated party?
Also, seriously, is this the best history of the WP and SF/TWP that can be written? 
- Removed link to the Irish Worker's Party, an unrelated defunct party.
:If this article is moved then surely it should be moved to The Workers' Party of Ireland as that is the proper name of the party.--padraig3uk 15:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''
:Support--Damac 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support----Soman 12:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The party's own website uses the style "The Workers' Party" --  [s']; so too do its banners --  [s']; or do they? --  [s].
In Irish, "The Workers' Party" [s'] is, of course, Páirtí na nOibríthe. The only evidence I can find of Páirtí na nOibrí (which would mean "The Worker's Party" ['s]) is the logo currently accompanying this Wikipedia article (where exactly did it come from?).
Are the signwriters in charge of how this party styles itself? -- Picapica (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the change to the grammatically-correct and sourced (as above) Workers' Party of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workers Party / Workers' Party / Worker's Party 

message: Following the discussion here, I've now merged Official Sinn Féin into this article (see diff and original version). It would be really helpful if someone more knowledgeable on the subject could review the changes and make sure there are no obvious mistakes. Both articles suffer from a lack of sources, and there were a few inconsistencies as well. If I messed something up, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Official Sinn Féin]] 

message: See Talk:Sinn_F%C3%A9in#Proposal_to_re-orient_SF_articles. Mooretwin (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments requested on Sinn Féin articles

message: I've heavily reconstructed the Origins section from the mish-mash of confused timelines and organisations. [We have to pretend that SF and 'IRA' are independent but alligned].
In the course of that, there were a couple of sentences about Kerry which were really quite detailed in the scheme of things and (IMO) were causing the article to get bogged down.  So I've summarised it and deleted it.  Here it is of anyone really wants it.
This was despite the Marxist-led leaderships' disbandment of traditionalist branches and district committees, such as the 1966 disbandment of the entire North Kerry Comhairle Ceantair of Sinn Féin, embracing 13 Cumainn and 250 members and including three local councillors and expulsion of leading figures such as Miss May Daly (sister of  Charlie Daly, executed at Drumboe, Donegal, in 1923), John Joe Rice, Sinn Féin TD, 1957-61 and John Joe Sheehy, veteran Republican and Kerry footballer. Many others were simlilarly ousted from the organisation. The underlying issue was the uncompromising stand of North Kerry in refusing recognition to Westminster, Leinster House and Stormont. South Kerry overwhelmingly supported the leadership, strongly influenced by individuals like Paddy O'Callaghan who remained loyal to the Goulding leadership.
I've also deleted monotonous repitition of "the Marxist leadership" every sentence.  I've added a summary of the political analysis that is described in detail later, as I think it is important to see what the big debate was about. --Red King (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with all of your changes. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial restructure - and the Kerry dispute 

message: Although "Worker's Party" (withn the apostrophe) is gramatically correct, it is not what they call themselves.  I've moved it to "Workers Party" (without the apostrophe). --Red King (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure the current main page of their website  shows 5 names with apostrophe after the s ("Workers' Party") and 1 without for confusion! Their facebook page  is all apostrophes. Snappy (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Worker's Party" would not be correct, unless they purport to be a party only of one worker (and could they then be a party at all?" Mooretwin (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are using "Workers' Party" (apostrophe after the s) which is grammatically correct. According to Apostrophe article, When the noun is a normal plural, with an added s, no extra s is added in the possessive; so pens' caps (where there is more than one pen). So it appears that the party is using its name correctly. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, yeah, I know. Red King said "Worker's Party" is grammatically correct: that's why I said it would not be correct. Mooretwin (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The party uses the correct form Workers' Party in all official communications.  The Facebook page is contributed to by numerous individuals who may or may not use the correct form. Coolavokig (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the article should be moved back to Workers' Party of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one objects (with a valid reason), I will move it to Workers' Party of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved, per this discussion. Snappy (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text: For future reference, the party is registered on Ireland's Register of Political Parties as "THE WORKERS' PARTY". AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved article to correct name 

message: That was a good edit by Snappy if it remains here do we place it on FF an FG also? BigDunc 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The History of Sinn Fein article can be improved to detail all the various splits and parties that split off at different times, then each political party article can reference the appropriate section. Also, from a practical point of view, if you have duplicates all over the place, they will end up getting out off synch. Snappy (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, its just the application of common sense. --Domer48'fenian' 10:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Snappy's edit says the party was formed in 1982 - which contradicts what he proposed earlier - putting 1970 in, given that it was only a name change in 1982. Mooretwin (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the edit was by an IP. What edit by Snappy is the subject of this discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That IP was me when I was not logged in. It's not my edit that says the party was formed in 1982, that was already there, I added the footnote, which matches the text of the article. The 'Good Edit' refers to the removal of the pre 1970 history section. Snappy (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that makes sense. Further on there are two sentences that I think need revision (italics added): "the leadership of both Sinn Féin and the IRA sought to shift their emphasis away from the traditional republican goal of a 32 County Irish Republic redeemed ... by military action and concentrate more on socialism and civil rights related activities. In doing so they gradually abandoned the military focus that had previously characterised republicanism." Hohenloh  +   04:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if the "good edit" refers to the removal of the pre-1970 history, BigDunc must be calling for the pre-1970 history to be removed from the FF and FG articles. Mooretwin (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Snappy content for the foundation to say 1982, when 1982 was only a name change? Why does Snappy think the foundation of the Official side of the 1970 split should be treated differently to that of the Provisional side, especially given that it was the latter who split from the former? Mooretwin (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1982 name change (and 1977 one) are mentioned in the footnote. Provide a reference that states the Workers' Party was founded in 1905. Snappy (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: SF was founded in 1905. There are plenty of references. The Workers' Party is the continuation of SF (or one of two following the 1970 split, depending on your interpretation). I'm surprised that you don't know this. Mooretwin (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know when SF was founded. Your argument that the WP was founded in 1905 borders on OR. You appear to have no refs to support your claim that the WP was founded in 1905 (along with SF, CnaG, FF and FG apparently). You are making a claim that the party founded in 1905 was in some way shape or form related to the ones that emerged in 1970, when you should know was all they had in common was a name. Snappy (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So you accept that the current SF party was not founded in 1905? Would you support, therefore, the removal of the pre-1970 history from that article? Regarding the WP, it was the continuation of the pre-1970 SF and therefore its origins before 1970 must be duly recognised at least in the same way as the current SF party's origins are recognised in the SF article. I realise that the question of the 1905 foundation is potentially different (as it could be argued that the pre-1970 SF was not founded in 1905, but in 1922) - I'm open to arguments about that. Mooretwin (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A party called Sinn Fein was founded in 1905, trying ascribe the same foundation date to every subsequent offshoot / split in the following 70 years is a futile exercise. By your logic, Cumman na nGaedhael, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Workers' Party and Democratic Left should all have 1905 as their original foundation date, as they all can trace their origins to the 1905 Sinn Fein. Snappy (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keep asking for sources, no sources no discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 20:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Snappy, I'll ask you to confirm again: you accept that the current SF party was not founded in 1905? If so, you'll agree that the pre-1970 history needs to be removed from that article, just as you removed it from this article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike being constantly the question: "do you accept" etc, this isn't a courtroom, and stop trying to ram your point of view down my throat. As Domer has said: "no sources no discussion". Snappy (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that you are unwilling to make absolutely clear your view, but the logic is clear enough: you do not believe that the current SF party (nor any other offshoot from the original) was formed in 1905 and therefore pre-1970 history should not be included in its article, just as you object to the early history at this article. I agree with you,and proposed this at the current SF party article, but editors there would not agree to it. Domer48 wanted the early history to be included in all SF-offshoot parties. For consistency, we either have to go for early history at none of the articles, or a brief early history at all of them. As for sources, after the shenanigans at the SF article, where sources were ignored or dismissed, it's rather ironic for Domer48 to be raising sources as an issue. But sources can be provided for OSF/WP's continuity with the pre-1970 SF, if you think they'd be helpful. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No more feeding this discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Edit 

message: I've flagged a number of areas which need references. I'll add some that I can source and address the text which can not be sourced. --Domer48'fenian' 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This tag was removed here citing WP:LEAD however the the text is not cited in the article at all. Tag needs to be replaced of references added to either the Lead or the Article. The reference which was added at the bottom of the section contains no supporting text for this paragraph, it needs to be addressed, as an issue of WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 14:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again we have another removal of a Tag and the issue of WP:OR still unaddressed. "They have had much greater electoral success than Official Sinn Féin/Workers Party in Northern Ireland. However, the Provisionals' electoral performance in the Republic was poor until the IRA ceasefires of 1994 and 1997 and they have as yet failed to reach the seven seats won in Dáil Éireann by the Workers' Party in 1989," is completly unsupported by the source!--Domer48'fenian' 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part is indeed cited in the text here (currently reference 17). As for the second, Sinn Fein have to date won no more than five seats in the Dail, which is less than the seven which the Workers party won in 1989 and as seven is indisputably more than five, this is covered by Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations. Valenciano (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an obvious difference between "calculations" and commentary its called WP:OR, and the first part is not being cited to the reference mentioned. So it needs to be addressed.--Domer48'fenian' 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part, can you clarify exactly which part you want cited? The tag you added asks for a cite that the party took its current name in 1982 which is already cited in the section I've noted. The second part, as I said this can be easily done. I've no objection to a change of wording so can you suggest an alternative wording here? Valenciano (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been addressed see discussion below. The references which are simply election results cannot be used to support the text! Could this text be referenced or the tag replaced. The text is not supported by the main body of the article per WP:LEAD. So the options are, reword, retag, or reference.--Domer48'fenian' 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said I'm not clear which text you want referenced - your previous tag asked for a cite that workers party adopted its current name in 1982. This is cited in the name section, relevant sentence: "In 1982, both the northern and southern sections of the party became simply "The Workers' Party"." referenced to Ireland Today:Anatomy of a Changing State by Gemma Hussey, (1993) pgs. 172-3,194 . If it's another part of the lead, then yes we can hunt out refs or reword but first you need to specify it. By the way if you're starting to rewrite I'd appreciate if you'd leave the Electoral performance republic of ireland section and I'll have a go at referencing that over the next two or three days. Valenciano (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References are needed on the article 

message: I have removed the following text from this section as it has nothing to do with the WP, the subject of the article:
:"The other party to emerge from the 1970 split, is the party that is now commonly referred to simply as Sinn Féin. They have had much greater electoral success than Official Sinn Féin/Workers Party in Northern Ireland. However, the Provisionals' electoral performance in the Republic was poor until the IRA ceasefires of 1994 and 1997 and they have as yet failed to reach the seven seats won in Dáil Éireann by the Workers' Party in 1989.Dail election results since 1918"  --BwB (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text from NI election section

message: I'm sorry that I missed this discussion. One note, for future reference, is that the party calls itself by many names on its website, which seems to be the only source for the incorrect article title at present. We have "the Workers' Party of Ireland", "the Workers' Party" and "The Workers' Party" on the front page. On other pages, we have "the Workers Party" and "The Workers Party". I would suggest that the website is therefore not a good source for choosing a name, because we don't have evidence that the presence of one particular name in the banner heading is due to deliberate choice, as opposed to the haphazard use of different names that permeates the website.
We should look instead to the Register of Political Parties, in which the name is listed as "THE WORKERS' PARTY". In common use, "The" is not capitalised. I would support a future move of this page to "Workers' Party (Ireland)" or "The Workers' Party (Ireland)".
For comparison, within the Register, The Labour Party is the closest parallel to The Workers' Party, being different by only one word. Its article title is Labour Party (Ireland). In contrast, the "Communist Party of Ireland" is listed as such in the Register, including the words "of Ireland".
AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Mooretwin (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name and move

message: The links for " the violent beginning"  and "The Troubles" both link to the article for "The Troubles", it seems redundant, I think it would make a lot more sense if it linked to something like 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Northern_Ireland_riots
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bogside  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   "the violent beginning of what were to become The Troubles" 

message: This phrase in the "Political development" section seems too unobjective for a wikipedia article to me, could it be changed to something a little more neutral like "terminology" or "language" or "terms". Personally I like the use of the word jargon to describe some parts of Marxism but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a blog!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The policy document used Marxist jargon" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Workers' Party of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090509094352/http://www.workerspartyireland.net:80/locals09.html to http://www.workerspartyireland.net/locals09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: please stop disrupting the infobox in violation of WP:V and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the latter I have repeatedly informed you about already. FDW777 (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: can the image showing the demonstration under the 21st century be replaced please? i don't want it showing a picture of me. 80.233.51.135 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem removing/changing picture. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and you don't have to be a registered user to make changes into the article. The article has 3 images from 2017-2018, all uploaded by the safe user, so it's not clear for the rest of us which image you are referring to. Moreover, do note that removing an image from Wikipedia article does not delete the file from Wikimedia Commons repository. To have an image deleted from Commons is a separate process, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests . -- Soman (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't know who you are. You might be one of the people in the picture (I don't know who any of them are), or you could be trolling. It's a 6-year-old picture of a public protest - what's the issue? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bastun i am in the picture holding the banner. i removed the image using an edit. it was put back in. i would like the photo removed please. 80.233.53.227 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @80.233.53.227 you can contact me at ownoh@duck.com 80.233.53.227 (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  image used 

message: :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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Workers' Party of Ireland →  – The name of this political party in Ireland has been debated over several years on Talk:Workers' Party of Ireland. Unfortunately, discussions in 2006 and 2011 seemed to involve users perhaps not directly familiar with Irish politics and seemed to decide on the current name primarily to avoid disambiguation. During it's period of prominence in the 1970s and 1980s, the party was simply known primary as the Worker's Party. The website Irish Election Literature, which acts as a archive of Irish political posters, banners and other election material, shows us that the party never referred to itself in public as anything other than simply "The Workers' Party", as we can see if we click this link . 
The party functionally became defunct in the early 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union and has only survived afterwards as a fringe micro-party, and it is only in the post-1990 period we see very occasional usage of the term "Worker's Party of Ireland". Worryingly, I think incidents of the surviving party using the "of Ireland" variant may be a case of circular sourcing, where they're trying to match to the name being used on Wikipedia. 
Regardless, the name of the party during it's period of relevance was simply "the Worker's Party", but even election material from 2011 shows that was still the primary name. Users who cited the party's website should have done boarder research into the name of the party and avoided the previous moves made. 
Users should note that as they browse the article itself, the party is referred almost exclusively as simply "the Worker's Party" and all images used show that name in usage. 
 As a regular editor of Irish political party articles, your view/vote would be helpful. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Though in the current Register of Political Parties, their official name is The Workers' Party. Spleodrach (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 January 2023 

message: Should there not be two separate pages to reflect split in group. The WPI and WPNI. The group Ted Tynan is a part of isnt able to stand candidates in the south but can in the North. And vice Versa with the group that stayed loyal the party during split 82.24.124.233 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They both claim to be the real WP, and they aren't relevant enough to warrant separate articles at all. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One has a councillor though and other doesnt. Theres smaller parties that both that have seperate wiki articles 82.24.124.233 (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split in the Party