RfC: Should the infobox ofSinn Féin listLeft-wing populism as one of its ideologies?

Should the infobox ofSinn Féin listLeft-wing populism as one of the ideologies of the party? relisted byCeltBrowne (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC), originally raised byCeltBrowne (talk)12:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, based on the following reliable sources, of which the majority are academic sources that outline in explicit terms how and why Sinn Féin can and should be considered populist :

Furthermore, I'll briefly note it is completely par for the course that the Infobox of a political party should note populism as an ideology, as demonstrated by articles such asRepublican Party (United States),People's Party – Movement for a Democratic Slovakia,United Socialist Party of Venezuela,Movement for Socialism (Bolivia),Pim Fortuyn List,Alliance for the Future of Austria,Danish People's Party,Vlaams Belang,Forza Italia,Lega Nord,Five Star Movement,Syriza,Fianna Fáil.CeltBrowne (talk)12:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No,(Summoned by bot)As far as I know there is no broad consensus on whether 'populism', especially 'left-wing populism', is an actual ideology. I don't see any evidence for this per StairySky above. I would argue that 'populism', of whatever flavour is a political style rather than an ideology - where ideology means a set of core - fairly immutable - beliefs, ideals and principles. The fact that it is included in some other parties is an OTHERSTUFF argument. Sinn Féin may or may not be widely seen as populist and is certainly left-of-centre economically, but what core beliefs or policies does 'populist' involve? What does 'populist' tell you about what the party believes or aspires to achieve?Pincrete (talk)06:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No. There exist sources that say Sinn Féin is populist. There exist sources that say that populism is an ideology – as well as plenty that say it is just a political style of action – but there have been no sources produced that say populism is one of Sinn Féin's ideologies. (If I'm wrong, and I missed the statement in one of the sources provided, please quote it here.)WP:SYNTH applies: if one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. Sinn Féin's ideology is nationalist, republican and socialist. It campaigns for a 32-county socialist republic, not for a "left-wing populist country". I have no trouble with the article body saying that Sinn Féin "has been classed as left-wing nationalist and left-wing populist", but as I said five years ago, the ideology field in the infobox is not meant as a laundry list of things that people say about the party. I fail to understand the craving to add it, and its multiple refs, to the infobox. Is it just to make it more like the awful Fianna Fáil infobox?Scolaire (talk)13:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No I believe I have already said why above.StairySky (talk)18:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Multiple reliable secondary sources describe the party as populist and/or promoting populist policies, so this can be included perWP:V andWP:RS. Saying it would be necessary to have populism described as an ideology? No, we wouldn't, that's absolutelyWP:SKYISBLUE territory, and there are multiple precedents for inclusion.Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!}10:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. As stated above, there are multiple reliable sources showing party literature/policy leans towardsLeft-wing populism.AlloDoon (talk)23:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No. We should avoid explainingobscurum per obscurius (the obscure by means of the more obscure). "Populism" is a controversial (and often disparaging) concept; when used in academic literature, it is often defined first by means of a stipulation ("by 'populism' we mean...") and these stipulations may vary quite significantly from author to author. "Populism" without a shared definition of populism is not very helpful. I find it quite indicative that CeltBrowne's sources use different concepts of populism:we define populism as Albertzale and McDonnell (2007) do, as an approach which ‘pits a virtuous and homogenous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others'[1]The utopian impulse of left populism conceptualizes “the people” as a site of internal differences and heterogeneity – difference is something to be affirmed [and challenges] the rather convenient depiction of populism as the name for a blanket, essentially unthinking, form of anti-establishment politics[2]Our contribution assumes a symbiotic relationship between ‘populism’ and several ‘host ideologies’ thus deviating from the purist view of simply focusing on anti-elitism.[3]. If that is the case, labelling Sinn Féin as left-wing populist is not very helpful for the reader and just leaves an unpleasant impression of bias.Gitz (talk) (contribs)17:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No. As per the reasoning of @Gitz6666 and some of those above. Particularly agree with @Scolaire re "I have no trouble with the article body saying that Sinn Féin "has been classed as left-wing nationalist and left-wing populist", but .... the ideology field in the infobox is not meant as a laundry list of things that people say about the party". There seems to be some but not total consensus on whether they are populist, and given they don't identify as such, I don't think it's worth being in the infoboxTomorrow and tomorrow (talk)09:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No -(Summoned by bot) I agree with [[User:Scolaire] andUser:Tomorrow and tomorrow about including it in the body where the description can be expanded upon, explained and qualified, but calling them populist in the infobox is inappropriate for something that others have disparagingly referred to them as, rather than something they clearly and openly identify with. -Aoidh (talk)17:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -(Summoned by bot) Based on the sources provided by CeltBrowne, it is fairly clear to me that a reference to the ideology of Féin as left-wing populist is accurate. I know you can't prove a negative, but based on the number of academic articles referring to them as such, it would be expected that there would be rebuttal papers if there was a lack of academic consensus. It has been mentioned above that populism is considered disparaging to some. While yes, that is true, almost every term describing a political ideology or method is considered disparaging by some...Communists use Capitalist as a disparagement, and vice versa. Some proudly refer to themselves as populist while others use it as an insult, thus it is difficult to ascribe de facto negative bias through use of the term, especially when it does appear to be a common enough descriptor in the sourcing. I will soften myyes though by stating that an argument can be made that it is unnecessary to refer to Sinn Féin as left-wing populist alongside left-wing nationalist (left-wing nationalism already encompasses a certain degree of populism).nf utvol (talk)18:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No (invited by the bot) The oversimplification in infoboxes and their inability to provided needed attribution / explanation when such is needed means they should only be used for clear-cut items. Otherwise, when in doubt, leave it out.North8000 (talk)21:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No -(Summoned by bot) The need for extended discussion of what left-wing populism is or is said to be is evidence that its use in an infobox is unhelpful.Robert McClenon (talk)16:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No The analysis of@Gitz6666 is persuasive.JArthur1984 (talk)19:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No – this is a bit of a complicated one as it's rightly pointed out that there's academic literature referring to the party as exhibiting populist characteristics. However, when read carefully the academic articles are nuanced and careful in their analysis. Populism is an intensely debated phenomenon within political science with no accepted definition. There are differing definitions based on whether it's being discussed as an ideology or political style, or as a radical/reformist stance. The literature referred to here includes a mixture of these discussions and definitions, so it's not clear that "left-wing populism" is a definingideology of the party as such, rather than being part of its style and a broader social phenomenon it has exploited in recent elections. Additionally, as Gitz and the sources point out, it's often used negatively, or to draw equivalence with extreme politics (far-left or far-right). Unlike the U.S. Republican Party, which is recognised as having broadly moved to a far-right position under Trump,some of the sources here are critical of comparisons of Sinn Féin to far-left populist parties in places such as Venezuela, saying that it's a poor comparison that should be "resisted". The infobox is a summary of accepted facts about the party. Unless a political party is widely accepted as running on a populist policy platform, and a type of populism as being an underpinning ideology, we should avoid listing it as an ideology in the infobox. However, it's appropriate to discuss literature about its populism in the article body, where there's space to properly convey the nuances of the academic debate.Jr8825 •Talk06:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete:but what core beliefs or policies does 'populist' involve? What does 'populist' tell you about what the party believes or aspires to achieve?From the sources I listed above:

• O'Malley/FitzGibbons argues that Sinn Féin's policy that theirTeachtaí Dála only take the average industry wage in Ireland, roughly €44,202 per year, instead of the €100,000 they are entitled to, is an example of Populism, as this aligns them with the "ordinary working people" and not the "political elite".
• Hayden and Phelan both argue that Sinn Féin's populism leads them to anti-neoliberal policy positions. Hayden writes:

Sinn Fein also showed the possibility of progressive populist politics at a time when traditional liberal politics has become centrist. The party campaigned for restoring and expanding the public health service, jobs and social programs for those left behind in the neoliberal “Celtic Tiger” economy.

So he's attributing support for public services and social programmes to their "progressive populism". The Phelan source, amongst other things, contains a quote from Sinn Féin ideologueEoin O'Broin which is also illuminating and follows a similar line to Hayden:

"Sinn Féin’s political project is truly populist”, Ó Broin suggests, “but a populism that is democratic, egalitarian and progressive”. “[We] seek to mobilise in support of a New Republic in which popular sovereignty is restored and political and economic power returned to where it rightly belongs, in the hands of the people”

So we see there a very clearly defined vision of what a populist Ireland would look like in O'Broin's mind.

• Quinlan/Tinney notes that Sinn Féin's 2016 election manifesto contained policies such as promises to take on "cronyism" employed by their political rivals, as well as the "the golden circles and vested interests" in wider Irish society and suggests these anti-corruption policies are typical of populist political pledges.
• Both Quinlan/Tinney and Reidy/Suiter use data to demonstrate that Sinn Féin voters exhibit a much higher preference for populist views such as Anti-politician sentiment, Anti-bureaucrat sentiment and an openness to a "Strong leader in power who bends the rules" than the voters for other Irish political parties
• Otjes & Louwerse, to summarise, argue populist parties will argue that their country is being ruined by a corrupt elite of politicians whose policies go against the will of the people, but that their party will reverse this. Otjes & Louwerse suggest that the difference between right-wing populists and left-wing populists is that right-wing populists will typically also suggest that these political elites are also colluding with foreigners/a cultural outgroup of some sort, while leftwing populists will veer away from xenophobia and instead focus more on aclass conflict narrative, that often suggests the corrupt politicians are colluding with business interests. Otjes & Louwerse give a number of international examples who do this, and name Sinn Féin as an example of the left-wing variant of their definition of populism.
• The Volker Best source is a really interesting one but it's hard to summarise and I recommend reading it to a get a full grasp on it, but basically they make the case that modern populists are a wave of democratic reformers that typically have policy goals such as Direct Democracy, Decentralisation, removal of political privileges, greater transparency in politics and greater national sovereignty in common. Best cites Sinn Féin as a left-wing populist party that he believes is part of this wave, and that certainly chimes with O'Broin's views.

So, as you can see, these sources are making the case that populism is not just a style of doing politics, but also a set of beliefs that produce certain policies and ideas of what the ideal democracy should look like.CeltBrowne (talk)07:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody above says that populism is an ideology + the mere fact that you can attach the word to right or left, to nationalism or internationalism, to socially liberal or socially conservative, etc. etc. etc beliefs tends to argue the opposite. The term is generic, a bit like like 'radical'. If SF - or any other party - believe in democratic reform, or any other of these 'populist' characteristics - it will be well sourced and can be said explicitly without being muddled by a vague and fairly meaningless 'blanket' label.Pincrete (talk)12:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete:@Scolaire:

In response to the assertation that the listed sources do not simultaneously state that Populism is an ideology and that Sinn Féin is populist:

From Bíró-Nagy, Győri, Kadlót (2015):

Most scholars of populism agree that its ideological basis stems from the juxtaposition of a corrupted elite against a voiceless people. While this is not the sole defining characteristic, the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that it plays a major role. In his widely-cited paper, the popular zeitgeist, one of the most important works of contemporary populism research, the Dutch researcher, Cas Mudde, sums up the phenomenon as follows “populism is an ideology which states that society splits up into two antagonistic groups- the rotten elite and the pure masses. Populists think that politics should represent the general will of the people”. Kriesi & Pappas believe that on the level of communication,populism as an ideology articulates itself in clear-cut discursive clichés, serving to define the enemies and strengthen the community of the friends

Also Bíró-Nagy, Győri, Kadlót (2015):

Populist policy is being represented in Ireland by Sinn Fein, with the biggest Irish Catholic left nationalist party receiving 17% of the votes last spring.

From Otjes & Louwerse 2013:

The key features of populism are clearly pointed out in the definition of populism put forward byMudde (2004, p. 543), which we adopt:‘populism is an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite”, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people’. Most scholars agree that populism has ‘a chameleonic quality’ (Taggart, 2000): it can be combined with different political positions and be used by politicians with different ideologies. Some describepopulism as an ideology with an ‘empty heart’ (Taggart, 2000), and stress its thin or partial nature (Stanley, 2008). The notion of populism as a thin ideology is borrowed from Michael Freeden (1996), who proposes that some ideologies are not comprehensive and can therefore be combined with other political ideologies.Many scholars subscribe to the idea that populism can be attached to other political ideas and positions (Albertazzi and McDonnell, 2008; Jagers and Walgrave, 2007; Lucardie and Voerman, 2012; Mudde, 2004; Stanley, 2008; Taggart, 2000). Populism concerns only the relationship between the people and the elite. Who belongs to the elite or the people depends on the orientation of the populist. Left-wing populism is characterised by an emphasis on socio-economic issues (March, 2007, p. 74). Left-wing populists often claim that the political elite only look after the interests of the business elite and neglect the interests of the common working man (Mudde, 2007). Examples include Die Linke in Germany,Sinn Féin in Ireland and the Socialist Party in the Netherlands (Hakhverdian and Koop, 2007, p. 408; March, 2011, p. 118).

O'Malley/FitzGibbon 2015:

In his most recent workMudde (2007) offers a ‘maximum definition’ which focuses onthree core ideological features. This approach is useful, as it is based on relatively stable ideology rather than party policy which will be time and country specific (Mair and Mudde 1998)....The third feature is Populism, which usually pits a ‘a virtuous and homogenous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’’ (Albertazzi and McDonnell 2007: 3). Populist parties tend to see themselves as outsiders to their country’s political system, and argue that they represent the opinion of the ‘man on the street’ as opposed to a liberal elite, which may be linked to an ‘outgroup’, and which dominates politics and policy making with what might be seen as significant failures in policy leading to societal breakdown and increasing corruption. This might lead to anti-statism and thus contradict some interpretations of authoritarianism. However, the idea that there is an exclusive ‘ingroup’ which is virtuous and should be protected runs throughthese coherent core ideological features...

...The Old New Populists in Town: Sinn Féin and Left-Wing Populism: If policy success meant that by the 2000s Fianna Fáil was merely dipping into the populist toolbox (McDonnell 2007: 210) with occasional forays into euroscepticism, had populism effectively left Irish politics? O'Malley (2008) and McDonnell (2007) have both argued that Sinn Féin largely took up the space that we might have expected a populist party to occupy. In fact O'Malley (2008) argues that it is a populist nationalist party, but that the nature of Irish nationalism makes it difficult for such a party to engage in anti-immigrant rhetoric. He shows that some of its supporters hold views consistent with this form of nationalism...

...But the recent electoral success of left-wing parties and actors in Ireland is in part due to their opposition to taxes and charges. The relabeling of several parties so as to deemphasize their ideology and emphasize their anti-elite bona fides is clear evidence of their use of populism. The continued implementation of the Troika’s ‘austerity’ policies by the Fine Gael/Labour government negotiated by the previous administration created the perception of an out-of-touch political elite who had developed an entrenched ‘corrupt’ relationship with a banking and EU elite to put their interests ahead of the Irish people’s. The implementation of new unjust and unfair property and water taxes was the embodiment of this corruption in the Irish political elite and was utilised as a populist issue for electoral success by Sinn Féin and other parties.

I'd like to additionally quote Jane Suiter's "Who is the populist Irish voter?" but to do so would mean posting an absolute wall of text. The source itself really has to be read. All I can say is that Suiter also subscribes to Mudde's definitions (as well as others) and then applies them to the Irish context and lists Sinn Féin as an example of such.

Another I can't directly quote because of the length is Volker Best, but to summarise, he defines Populist parties as favouring 8 policy features: Direct democracy, Democratisation of elections, (stripping the) Privileges of political elites, (fighting) Lobbyism and corruption, (dismantling the) Party state, (increasing) Transparency and control, Federalism and (supporting) National sovereignty. They consider Sinn Féin to exhibit all 8 features.

Mudde is cited in all the scholarly sources I've cited, and as quoted above, Mudde defines Populism as ("Thin") Ideology.CeltBrowne (talk)19:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So in that wall of blockquotes, can you extract a single quote that says "Sinn Féin has a populist ideology"? I see "populist policy" but not "populist ideology". Also, if it's a thin ideology, why does it need to go in the infobox?Scolaire (talk)21:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's extremely disingenuous to read what I have just quoted and pretend that the authors are not explicitly defining what Populism is (an ideology) and then giving Sinn Féin as a example of what they have just defined. For example the Otjes & Louwerse quote is explicitly "We adopt Mudde's definition that populism is an ideology....Examples include...Sinn Féin" if we condense it down. O'Malley's heading for the section is literally "Sinn Féin and Left-Wing Populism". Volker Best has a table of parties and lists Sinn Féin under the heading "Left-wing populism" after having extensively defining Populism and then giving 8 characteristics of populism. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the intention or meaning of these authors. Trying to suggest that the authors are simply stating that Sinn Féin has populist policies but are not that they are ideological populist runs completely against the content of the sources.

The Oxford dictionary defines Ideology as "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." Analysing a party's policies is a primary means by which to determine a party's ideology.

You accused me of SYNTH and directly asked me for quotes, which I took the time to provide to demonstrate there was no SYNTH, so if would be nice if you didn't then chastise me for using "walls of blockquotes". Please don't ask for quotes and act annoyed that you got them.CeltBrowne (talk)22:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scolaire's assessment and cannot see for the life of me how being populist can meaningfully/usefully be described as an ideology, also I've no idea what percentage of sources are describing SF beliefs thus - how 'thin' the description is. We would ordinarily record an orgs beliefs according to their most universally accepted and understandable description - does that apply to this description? SF is indisputably Irish Nationalist - it is somewhere left of centre, then we go down a list of beliefs getting more specific - if it is in favour of democratic reforms etc for example we would say so, what a vague blanket term adds isn't clear to me. I can't see how this description would help anyone to understand what SF's believes or seeks to implement.Pincrete (talk)08:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, originally I wrote what I felt was a very compressive reply to this, but by the end, I felt it was going to be dismissed for being too long. So instead I'm writing this shorter response.

Pincrete, Is it simply the case that your opinion is that Populism isn't an Ideology, and that can't change, or would additional sources supporting my claim possibly change your mind? I'm asking because I don't want to spend six hours researching and writing a response only to come back to "Well my opinion is that Populism isn't an Ideology so those sources don't change anything".

I need to know if there's an actual criteria I can meet here, or is it the case you're not willing to move from your position. Previously you asked about what policies and vision does populism create in Sinn Féin, and I thought listing some examples might demonstrate that. But that doesn't seem to have altered your view.

On Wikipedia, there articles are supposed to reflect what the sources state, not what our opinions are. I'm concerned, frankly, that those opposing this move are placing their views above what the sources state. This, in turn, creates a situation where, hypothetically, no amount of sources or quotes I posted from reliable sources would matter.CeltBrowne (talk)12:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne: I apologise for the "wall of blockquotes" comment. When I asked for a quote that said "populism is one of Sinn Féin's ideologies", I meant a quote that said it straight out, as opposed to "populist issues", "populist policies" or "populist party". Apparently I didn't make that clear. I don't consider that any of the quotes you gave, bar one, actually say that. The one exception is "We adopt Mudde's definition that populism is an ideology....Examples include...Sinn Féin". This is a very tenuous connection, to my mind, and on its own, would not support the conclusion that the consensus of academic opinion is that populism is an ideology of Sinn Féin. Let me repeat once again, I am in favour of the view of Sinn Féin as populist being examined in the relevant section of the article; I am opposed to the inclusion of "populism" in the infobox, because the combined weight of the sources provided does not justify it, and because it adds nothing to the article.

Also, I am reverting the addition pending the outcome of this RfC.Scolaire (talk)15:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire:

I meant a quote that said it straight out, as opposed to "populist issues", "populist policies" or "populist party".

I've spent many hours now once again researching and I cannot produce articles which specifically use the wording "The ideology of Sinn Féin is populism".

So you might think "Oh, well, we're done here so".

Well no, because additionally, I've also spent many hours researching, and I cannot produce articles with the specific wording "The ideology of Sinn Féin is Democratic Socialism" or "The ideology of Sinn Féin is left-wing nationalism" either. Even getting an article that says explicitly uses the phrase "The ideology of Sinn Féin is Irish Republicanism" is actually quite difficult. This is because authors simply don't phrase things like that. Let's take "Democratic Socialism". If you search for articles supporting the claim that Sinn Féin is a "Democratic Socialist" party, you'll get results such as "Sinn Féin advocates for Democratic Socialism", "Sinn Féin proposes Democratic Socialist policies", "Sinn Féin embraces Democratic Socialism" or simply "Sinn Féinis a Democratic Socialist party". Nobody just writes plainly "The ideology of Sinn Féin is Democratic Socialism". It's even more so the case for the term "Left-wing Nationalist". Authors will simply just write "Sinn Féinis a left-wing nationalist" rather than write the clunkier phrase "The ideology of Sinn Féin is left-wing nationalism".

If the bar for including "Left-wing Populism" in the infobox is that I have to find 10 sources that use the literal sentence "The ideology of Sinn Féin is left-wing populism", then I will probably not be able to do that nor will anyone else. But if that's the bar for inclusion, then the ideology section would have to be blank, because you're not going to get 10 sources using theliteral sentences "The ideology of Sinn Féin is left-wing nationalism" or "The ideology of Sinn Féin is Democratic Socialism" either.

The silver bullet phrase "Sinn Féin's ideology is X" is not out there. The closest some sources come is "Sinn Féin is ideologically X, Y and Z", and I can argue I can provide sources which state "left-wing populism" as Y just as much as "Democratic Socialism".

Sources supporting the claim that Sinn Féin is left-wing nationalist or democratic socialist will use language such as "Sinn Féinis a left-wing nationalist party" or "Sinn Féin advocates for Democratic Socialist policies". I can provide sources that use equivalent language to support the claim that Sinn Féin a "Left-wing populist party". The sources will use phrases such as "Sinn Féinis a left-wing populist party", or as we've already discussed, "Sinn Féin has left-wing populist policies".

If you're being fair here, you have to set the bar for the inclusion of "left-wing populism" at the same level as the other entries. And to do that, phrases such as " "Sinn Féinis a left-wing populist party" or " "Sinn Féin has left-wing populist traits" have to be accepted. And look, it's fine if you say that sources have to further clarify that, in those contexts, "left-wing populist" has to mean ideology rather than rhetoric, I can do that, because I already have and can provide more.

Does that sound fair?CeltBrowne (talk)09:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added22 new reliable sources citing Sinn Féin as a left-wing populism party to the expandable box above. I would beseech fellow users to adhere to the principle that what reliable sources state takes precedence over own views and opinions. Even though@Gitz6666: voted against the proposal, I respect that they at least seemed to take the time to consider some of the sources listed.

@Tomorrow and tomorrow: Respectfully, I don't believe that what politicians identify as should take precedence over reliable secondary sources. This is a very Irish example, but in the early 2000s, TaoiseachBertie Ahern proclaimed several times inthe Dáil that he was a socialist, based on the idea that he had "done more for the working class than anyone" in the previous few years. Ahern's proclamation was met with widespread dismissal from both his peers and the media; no-one viewed it as a credible claim. However, if we took the logic that "If a politician identifies as something, that's what they are", then Ahern's Wikipedia article would have to label him a socialist. This would be the incorrect outcome.

So to continue on this point, whether Sinn Féin do or do not label themselves as "Populist" shouldn't take precedence, instead reliable secondary sources should.CeltBrowne (talk)18:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that self-identification is not a good basis for deciding whether content is included in an article; Wikipedia policy is that content should be supported by reliable sources. I have said several times that it is proper for the article to talk about populism in the Ideology section. But the RfC question is: "Shouldthe infobox of Sinn Féin list Left-wing populism as one of its ideologies?" Inclusion of something in the infobox does not depend on whether it can be sourced, but on consensus, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for adding left-wing populism, or any kind of populism, to the Ideology field of the infobox, and adding another 22 sources doesn't change that. You may say that the "No" !votes are just "I don't like it", but to me we are all giving sound reasons for saying "no".Scolaire (talk)13:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything else, I just want to make clear that I'm only frustrated with some of the arguments, not with any user on a personal basis. Everyone here is an intelligent person who volunteers their time to Wikipedia and I respect that. It's just that me personally, I believe that disagreements on Wikipedia should really come down to "My sources vs Your sources", and the person with the best sources, as decided by a third party, should ultimately win out. So the fact that I have a lot of sources to support what I'm saying, and people are using arguments where they don't have to cite sources is playing on my mind a bit.

Inclusion of something in the infobox does not depend on whether it can be sourced, but on consensus, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for adding left-wing populism, or any kind of populism, to the Ideology field of the infobox, and adding another 22 sources doesn't change that.

But that's not how Wikipedia works. Hypothetically, to use a simple analogy, if we were on the talk page ofNazism, and I produced 32 sources saying "Anti-Semitism is a feature of Nazism", and in an RfC 15 people said "We don't think Anti-Semitism should be mentioned as a feature of Nazism" and didn't cite any sources, and only 3 people were in favour of it, an Administrator is going to close the RfC and rule in favour of the three. Sources are everything on Wikipedia. It does matter how many sources I can produce on this. I'm not saying this conversation is as simple as that analogy, I'm just trying to get across that sources weigh quite a huge amount on the scales of the argument. So that's the first thing.

Secondly, I'm just having trouble understanding the unpinning logic of your other positions. I don't understand how something can be suitable for the body of the article, but not the infobox.MOS:INFOBOX says that Infoboxes should reflect the body of the article, so if something is "good enough" for the body, it then therefore should be be "good enough" for the infobox. There are not two different standards for the article and the infobox. It's the same standard. Also, I previously addedCategory:Left-wing populism, which was then later removed, and I feel it should be the same standard there as well; if it's enough enough for the body, it's good enough for the category.

Previously you said the infobox shouldn't contain a "laundry list" of points andUser:Tomorrow and tomorrow also cited that. I agree there can be a point at which there are too many points in an infobox. If an infobox of a political party has 12 ideological points and many of them were very similar, I'd hold my hands up and say "Okay, there's room to condense here". I can admit that. But 4 points is not a breaking point. It's a very small, manageable amount.Republican Party (United States), which surely must be one of the highly edited and scrutinised political party articles on this website, has 6 ideological points listed, for example. 4 points is not a unreadable mess. So I don't believe Populism should be excluded on the basis that it would result in creating a "laundry list".

Ultimately, I believe if something is properly sourced and worthy of being in the body of the article, there shouldn't be a problem with it also being in the infobox.CeltBrowne (talk)21:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne, firstly, I'd just like to make clear my points above as they seem to have been misunderstood. I was not saying populism shouldn't be in the ARTICLE, I was saying I didn't believe it should be in the infobox. I also stated my agreement with @Gitz6666's points, I didn't feel I needed to repeat their quotations in order for other editors to believe I had considered the sources. Especially as I explicitly said "per the reasoning of..."

I alsonoted they didn't identify as populist, as a something else that we should consider (if they identified as populist, the rfc would be a different discussion, as it would then be about whether that identification was accurate, like in the example you gave ofBertie Ahern). I was in no way saying this should overrule reliable sources nor be treated as the 'be all and end all' nor that we should violate Wikipedia policy. I apologise if the way I phrased this could have been better, but it was 6 words at the end of my comment, and not the basis for my No stance. Absolutely agree that reliable secondary sources should take precedence.

To respond to your comment about "if something is "good enough" for the body, it then therefore should be be "good enough" for the infobox". I do not believe anyone is saying that there should be a greater burden of proof in relation to the infobox than the main article. What my understanding of what people are saying (which i agree with) is that as perMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE an info box is to help readers "identify key facts at a glance". What we are then saying is that we don't believe that the labeling of 'populist' is a "key fact", that helps readers who may not have heard of the party understand what it is about. This is what should be established by consensus rather than more sources.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk)00:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would fallowing be a fair summary of what you're saying:

"Sinn Féinarea left-wing populist party, but this fact should not be included in the infobox, because it is not akey fact about the party".

If the above is correct, how does one determine what is a "key fact" about the party? What makes "Democratic Socialism" a key fact about the party, and what makes "Left-wing populism" not a key fact about the party?

I understand I'm being incredibly, incredibly anal here, but this is what I've been trying to pin down for all of this discussion: The exact criteria for what does and doesn't go into the infobox.CeltBrowne (talk)01:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are everything on Wikipedia. I disagree. First of all, WP:V and WP:RS say that a fact can't be added to the article unless it is verifiable, not that everything that is verifiablemust be added; second, those policies are intended forarticle text, not for infoboxes. The exact criterion for what does and doesn't go into the infobox?Consensus. Honestly. "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals". Making decisions is not about everybody producing sources, with the editors with the most sources "winning"; it is about making constructive arguments that are consistent with Wikipedia policies. I repeat that everybody in this discussion has done that, obviously including you (let's ignore your elegant proof of Godwin's law).

A fair summary of what I'm saying would be: "Multiple academic and journalistic sources say that Sinn Féin is a populist party, and that should be stated in the article (which it is), but it is not akey fact about the party". Sinn Féin's republicanism is key, as witness the entire History section; and it's socialism is key, as witness the many socialist policies in the Ideology and Policies section. Populism just isn't, for all the reasons given above.Scolaire (talk)11:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire, that perfectly sums up my perspective as well. Consensus is what is needed to establish what is worthy of info-box inclusion.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk)00:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I don't want to come like I'm trying to make this go on forever, but I'm going to extend the RfC for another 30 days since we were discussing how to proceed right up to the 11th hour of the first deadline. I'm going to avoid making more comments going forward as I think I've said enough and people understand my position at this point. I'm also happy to say that I thinkScolaire andTomorrow and tomorrow have crystallised their points, and we're in a good position now where both the "yes" and "no" viewpoints are fairly clear. This extension is just to allow a final chance for people to be brought in from "outside" to give their views and read what was being said in the last week. At the end of this extension, I plan to ask for a formal close, and of course, will abide by whichever ruling is put down, yes or no. But just to be clear on one thing; Scolaire and Tomorrow and tomorrow, if the ruling is "No consensus" or simply "No", meaning that Populism is excluded from the Infobox, are you still to not opposeCategory:Left-wing populism being re-added to the categories regardless? (Since you've both said you're specifically voting on the issue of the infobox rather than the article at large)

Thank you to everyone who has participated thus farCeltBrowne (talk)19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with it being in the category, as the description of Sinn Fein as left wing populist is discussed in the article.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk)23:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: Firstly, thank you for taking the time to consider some of the sources. You at least read some of them and that's important to acknowledge. However, I just want to say something in response to "Additionally, as Gitz and the sources point out, it's often used negatively, or to draw equivalence with extreme politics (far-left or far-right)". I know that source you quoted is resistant to comparing Sinn Féin to other left-wing populist parties, but I promise you the vast bulk of what I've listed have none of the same reservations, and the vast bulk of them are not using the term "Populist" as a pejorative. In fact, many of them, including the one I've just added[4], are in factpraising Sinn Féin for their populism, particularly the fact that they do not embrace anti-immigration policies or rhetoric. And another one of my sources[5] even addresses this reluctance to call Sinn Féin populist by noting that while Populism sometimes has negative connotations internationally, this is not necessarily the case within Ireland itself. It's perhaps unfortunate (At least for my argument) that I placed that source you quoted as #2 on my list when it's not tonally in line with the rest of my sources. Secondly, you said thatThe infobox is a summary of accepted facts about the party. Unless a political party is widely accepted as running on a populist policy platform, and a type of populism as being an underpinning ideology, we should avoid listing it as an ideology in the infobox; I think despite the reservations of some users, actually my sources indicate thatit is widely accepted (academically and journalistically) that Sinn Féin runs on a left-wing populist policy platform (demonstrated by things such as anti-austerity, EU-critical, and anti-cronyism policies). The Brown Political Review actually breaks this down very well and I'm rather annoyed I didn't come across it previously.

I think perhaps many users are overly concerned/overly fearful that by adding the word "Populism" to the infobox, this will be disparaging to Sinn Féin. Neither myself nor the vast majority of my sources are trying to discredit Sinn Féin for being populist. It's simply to acknowledge that this is a dimension of their identity, no better or worse than "Fiscal conservatism" is a dimension of Fine Gael's ideology or Liberalism is a dimension of the US Democratic party. But even if there was a "critical" dimension to using the word "Populist", I don't know that it's our role to shy away from that. For contrast, the word "Neoliberal" is often used disparagingly by those with anti-capitalist views, nonetheless articles such asMargaret Thatcher andRonald Reagan don't shy away from using the term "Neoliberal" to describe their economic positions. I don't know that it's our role to manage the perception of the term "Populism" if and when this many reliable sources state that, regardless of the public's understanding of the term "populist", they are in reality, functionally, demonstratively a populist party. It's my view that if there's a consensus amongst the reliable sources on something, we as Wikipedians don't hold back on that out of fear of how the general public might perceive it. And in fact, we might actually be unintentionally feeding into the negative connotations of the word "Populism" by not allowing potential "positive" examples to be linked to the term.

Again, for me, this is not a moral thing. If reliable sources call a party "Georgist", then I categorise it as Georgist. If reliable sources call a party "Agrarian", I categorise the party as agrarian. And if reliable sources call a party left-wing populist...likewise. I have a background in political science, and for me, this isn't much different than a chemist acknowledging gold on the periodic table, rather than to make any personal commentary on Sinn Féin.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCeltBrowne (talk •contribs)

Merger

Not Centre-left

Should the ideology section be populist?