Jump to content

Talk:People Before Profit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


County Councils seats

[edit]

article has confused me. It says they won 5 seats in 4 county councils yet i see the 5 seats being in 3 county councils? Phil Nolte (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stormont elections

[edit]

I recently edited this article but refrained from editing one paragraph as I am banned from editing articles which concern the recent Ulster conflict, and some administrators could interpret my editing that paragraph as violating that ban. What I'd like to suggest is that 2007 Stormont elections and West Belfast constituency be linked. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about linking Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? It could be linked in the fourth paragraph. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone at all? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Snappy (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added in brackets that Sinn Féin was running 5 candidates, as without the context it sounds like PBPA was the most popular party in the constituency, when this wasn't the case. - FactFixer2113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfixer2113 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

All-Ireland parties are by definition parties in the ROI. Is the latest category addition really necessary? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PBPA can be in both as per Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein. One is not a sub cat of the other, they are both at the same level, so they are both needed. Snappy (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GB candidates

[edit]

There have been a couple of by-election candidates under the name People Before Profit in England. Does anyone know their relationship with the Irish party? Should this be covered? Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Assembly Elections 2016

[edit]

The Northern Ireland Assembly Elections took place on 5th May 2016. The counting started on 6th May 2016 but has not yet completed as of 7 May 2016 01:30. Article subject to change.Useriemf (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Ireland Stance

[edit]

I have removed the "United Ireland" stance to reflect the position reflected going into the 2017 Northern Assembly Elections. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfixer2113 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McCann's piece is convincing, all right, and they can't really be described as having a "United Ireland" ideology if they refuse to declare as nationalist in the NI Assembly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They support a united Ireland, that is all that matters. From my understanding they don't declare themselves as nationalists because they believe it to be sectarian. Anyway your individual opinions don't matter Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. They matter equally as little as yours. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, then why are you giving your own opinion status? Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my opinion. It's that of the party leader. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He never says they don't support a united Ireland, he says something entirely different. Quote him where he says that. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can I quote something he didn't say? What he does say is "We are neither green nor orange but up for the fight."; "One television commentator spluttered these things couldn’t be true, that it was fantasy to suggest that our approach could draw support from, as we say, “both sides”. Eschewing both nationalism and unionism has always implied the mushy politics of the decent middle classes."; "When it comes to the inbuilt blocking mechanism, the Petition of Concern – laying down that, essentially, a majority of each of the nationalist and unionist blocs is required to pass any measure regarded as vital by more than 30 members – simply disregards the presence of “Others.”" Tl;dr: PBP aren't nationalist. QED. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does any of this mean we should exclude united Ireland, something they clearly support from the infobox?Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Irish Times Article

Trotskyist front

[edit]

The line "The founders were members of pre-existing organisations such as the Socialist Workers Network and the Socialist Party leading to accusations that it is a front for Trotskyism." is incorrect and the source doesn't support it. The Socialist Worker's Party was only renamed the Socialist Worker's Network after the People Before Profit Alliance was set up so that couldn't possibly be the case. On top of that, the source cited is an article talking about the AAA (now Solidarity) which is the one with the relationship to the Socialist Party (unlike PBP). Also is it just me or is "a front for Trotskyism" just bad grammar? The relationship between Solidarity-People Before Profit and the original smaller Trotskyist parties is genuinely notable and interesting so it's disappointing this edit contains misinformation (and not only that, early enough in the article that it shows up in the info box when you Google People Before Profit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosialachas (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How aren't these fringe people not classed as "far left"?

[edit]

Wikipedia is quick to label a mild right wing party as FAR RIGHT yet an actual trotskyist party is spared of the "far" label? Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:5A7F:FBC1:88AC:8EE4:B190:6734 (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

[edit]

Laurel Lodged, Helper201, you're both here long enough to know how WP:BRD works and to be aware of WP:3RR, which you are both in danger of breaching. Please discuss here and get consensus for the proposed changes. Laurel Lodged, please note the infobox already describes PBP as Trotskyist and nobody has suggested removing that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to highlight the fact that the last major edit has multiple issues:
That notwithstanding, is there any particular reason why you chose to get rid of the entirety of CeltBrowne's edit rather than just the bits you take issue with? I didn't see any issues raised about the content in the Ideology section which was added, and having looked through it, it seems well cited and accurate and imv belongs in the article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the claims were reliant on the McGee opinion piece as a factual source. There was also a large emphasis on the Trotskyist element that seemed unbalanced. Furthermore, there were continued elements of WP:SYNTH by claims being made that were not explicitly stated in the non-opinion sources given. Helper201 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I genuinely didn't see that a discussion had already started on this talk page until now because I don't have this article watched. Look, I don't have too big an issue with the concerns raised by Helper201 (although we obviously probably don't agree on the specifics), and have attempted to address those issues by adding several sources on both the "Trotskyist" claim and the "Far-Left" claims, most of which is citing Irish politics professors. I feel that these reliable sources should smooth over Helper201's stated concerns. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are still many problems with this edit/edits:
  • The Harry McGee opinion citation (number 12) is still being used as a citation to support the claim of,: "People Before Profit are a Trotskyist party committed to permanent revolution and political agitation through working-class mass action in capitalist societies.". This is a factual claim, not an opinion. Its not saying "person A thinks X about Y". The claim is saying the party is/are Trotskyist based off of an opinion piece, this clearly breaks WP:RSOPINION.
  • Also, in relation to the Harry McGee citation, the full title of the citation isn't even used. Why? The full title includes the authors name as clear indication that its opinion piece. Title in citations should always use the full title of the source. Omitting part of it seems like it’s made to cover u the fact it’s an opinion piece.
  • The only reliable, non-opinion piece that meets WP:SYNTH in calling the party Trotskyist is the Village Magazine citation. I don't think we should change how the party is labelled in the intro and the start of the ideology section to this claim based off of one source. That would be very unbalanced (please see WP:BALANCE). Far more sources call the party socialist and the party makes no claim of being Trotskyist, explicitly calling themselves socialist. Again, there has never been any consensus on here to define the party as Trotskyist. Helper201 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable, non-opinion piece that meets WP:SYNTH in calling the party Trotskyist is the Village Magazine citation.
I've already included two academic sources calling the party Trotskyist and/or Far left:
  • Ó Dochartaigh, Niall (3 February 2021). "Beyond the dominant party system: the transformation of party politics in Northern Ireland". Irish Political Studies. 36 (1): 7–28. Retrieved 7 April 2022. The exception was People Before Profit, a small all-Ireland, pro-unity, Trotskyist party that aligned with the Lexit (left-wing Brexit) position of a section of the British left.
  • Dunphy, Richard (2017). "Beyond Nationalism? The Anti-Austerity Social Movement in Ireland" (PDF). Journal of Civil Society. 13 (3): 267–283. doi:10.1080/17448689.2017.1355031. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
And I will continue to add more if I have to, such as the following
  • Hearne, Rory (May 2015). "The Irish water war" (PDF). a journal for and about social movements. 7 (1): 309–321. Retrieved 9 April 2022. Right2Water involves a number of small trade unions (Unite, Mandate, the Communications Worker's Union, the CPSU and OPATSI), as well as the Left parties of Sinn Fein and the united front organisations of two Trotskyist parties (People Before Profit and the Anti Austerity Alliance), and the Workers' Party........The 'Campaign against the Household and Water Taxes' involved socialists from the far left trotskyist parties (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
  • "Antifa without fascism: the reasons behind the anti-fascist movement in Ireland". Irish Political Studies: 1–23. 28 January 2019. doi:10.1080/07907184.2019.1570139. Retrieved 9 April 2022. For example, under the banner of the United Left Alliance (ULA) the two Trotskyist parties in the Dáil, the Socialist Party (SP) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP), attempted to form a political alliance with left-wing independents but right from the start cooperation was hampered by infighting between the three parties involved (McGee, 2012). (the Socialist Party = Solidarty, the Socialist Workers Party is now the Socialist Workers Network and is the basis of People before Profit)
  • M. Viola, Donatella (21 March 2018). Routledge Handbook of European Elections. p. 247. ISBN 9781138597495. National Party: People before Profit Leader: Collective Leadership Seats in the Dáil in 2011: 2 Ideological orientation: Trotskyist, Marxist, radical left Political group: EUL/NGL
  • Landy, David (January 2019). "The State of the Irish Left:Half-Full and Half-Empty". Retrieved 9 April 2019. In like manner, Trotskyists still refer to themselves as revolutionaries, but winning and keeping local and parliamentary seats (and the income from these seats) has become far more central in their practices. Recently, in a perhaps unprecedented move for Trotskyist groups, the Socialist Workers Party in Ireland was swallowed up by its electoralist front, People before Profit. (Landy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, director of the MPhil in Race, Ethnicity, Conflict and teaching on the Masters and Undergraduate programmes in sociology at Trinity).
the party makes no claim of being Trotskyist, explicitly calling themselves socialist.
Firstly, as a Trotskyist party, entryism and the use of front organisations are strategic tenets of their ideology. The deliberate obscuring of their beliefs is part and parcel of their ideology.
Secondly, regardless of their ideology, just because a group claims an ideology does not necessarily mean this is the correct ideology to ascribe to them. Famously, the National Socialist German Workers' Party and many Neo-Nazi groups have described themselves as "Socialists", but political academics would not label these groups "Socialist" in any meaningful sense. If multiple reliable sources ascribe Trotskyism to PBP, this supersedes their own declarations on the matter.
Thirdly, there isn't a contradiction in specifying that a socialist party is a Trotskyist one, as Trotskyism in a sub-category of Socialism. In fact, we can see this in the article's own categories: Category:Trotskyist organisations in Ireland is a subcategory of Category:Communist organisations in Ireland, itself a subcategory of Category:Socialist organisations in Ireland. This is in-line with the rest of Wikipedia. For example, Category:Trotskyist organisations in the United Kingdom is a subcategory of Category:Communist parties in the United Kingdom, itself a subcategory of Category:Socialist parties in the United Kingdom. Noting PBP as a Trotskyist part is simply specifying what kind of Socialism they practice.
Again, there has never been any consensus on here to define the party as Trotskyist.
Actually I heavily dispute that assertion; "Trotskyism" has been listed as an ideology of theirs in their infobox since 2012, seemingly without dispute. It's only now that someone has bothered to create a dedicated ideology and policies section in the body of the article that there has been major objections raised to this classification. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, could you please explain why you feel Celtbrowne's sourced additions are not appropriate? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're now in election campaign mode after SOPNs have been printed with polling day next month, so any mass edits from one extreme view point to one particular political party sets off my Spidey Senses. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, there's a NI Assembly election. I'd forgotten about that. It's irrelevant, though. Wikipedia does not employ any sort of reporting moratorium, much less a month out from an election, and WP:NOTCENSORED. The recent additions are (see above) reliably referenced. And frankly, it's bizarre that PBP are not described as far-left. Hiding that (while still labelling them 'Trotskyist' in the infobox would be doing more of a disservice to voters who come to Wikipedia before deciding how to vote. I invite you to self-revert. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not revert. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that adding op-eds from low-quality sources like 'The Village' and 'breakingnews.ie' would be a good idea, especially since these are op-eds and there is already scholarly sources backing up the cited information. I think it is not necessary nor wise to have op-eds from low-quality sources in the article irregardless of anything else. Furthermore, part of the reason the edits were objected to is that these are op-eds so I'm not sure how adding them would resolve the dispute, instead of cementing it. StairySky (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree that The Village is a "low-quality" source! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c Also I'm not sure that the little mini-Brexit debate going on in the Ideology is section has much encyclopedic value. Why would the Shinners years old comments be something worth mentioning here? StairySky (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist not sourced for Wikivoice

[edit]

The opinion that PBPA is Trotskyist is not strongly supported enough to state in wiki voice, and is in fact passing off opinion as fact.

The first linked source, Harry Browne, describes it as "historically trotskyist". That can not be used to support "trotskyist" in the article, though could perhaps in the infobox.

The first Dunphy and the Ó Dochartaigh article are not about PBPA, but use the term trotskyist as throwaway lines. They both refer to the period 2015-2016 and earlier. These are possibly not due for the purpose, but in any case must be attributed to their author as individual opinions.

Hearne describes PBPA as "The united front organisation of [a] trotskyist party", this does not support the statement "trotskyist". At that point PBPA was the united front organisation of the Socialist Workers' Party, which definitely is a Trotskyist party. The quote does not specify the ideology of PBPA

Dunphy again calls the PBPA trotskyist as one of its designations, that is his opinion (shown above) but not enough for wiki voice.

Landy does not describe PBPA as trotskyist, he states that the trotskyist Socialist Workers Party "has been swallowed by its electoral front". Again PBPA is not called trotskyist here, so the quote does not support using trotskyist in the article.

Therefore I have attributed the viewpoint to Dunphy and Ó Dochartaigh.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Trotskyism ideology should be removed from the infobox in my opinion. StairySky (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is well sourced, and can absolutely stand. Restored to the last good version by CeltBrowne - there is no consensus for removal. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". StairySky (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not say what is claimed, please see above. One of the sources actually contradicts the claim that PBPA is currently Trotskyist. There is plenty of evidence for Trotskyist parties being involved in the foundation of PBPA, and that should of course be fully discussed and can be added in wikivoice. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spleodrach: Where is the consensus for stating trotskyism in Wikipedia's voice? I can't see one anywhere. I would also add that you added unsourced information about Solidarity supposedly supporting a British Isles Federation. StairySky (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussions on this page, there seem to be 3 users who have stated there is not enough evidence to add Trotskyist in wikivoice, 3 who want it there. That would seem to be the very definition of "no consensus"Boynamedsue (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD, after a Bold edit that is Reverted, the next step is Discussion - not edit warring. The sources absolutely do say that PBP is Trotskyist. You can't remove referenced content and references from WP because you don't like what they say. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the first bold edit was the addition of Trotskyist, for which there is no consensus, as it is the personal view of two individuals. There is consensus (I think) for including it attributed to the individuals who hold that opinion. There isn't for its inclusion in wikivoice as that is not what the sources say. But as there is edit-warring to include the new material (the claims of Trotskyism) I will restore the status quo prior to the addition of the disputed material. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the first bold edit was the addition of Trotskyist, for which there is no consensus, as it is the personal view of two individuals
It is not simply "the opinion" of two individuals, it is the viewpoint of several Irish political academics, experts in this field.
here is consensus (I think) for including it attributed to the individuals who hold that opinion. There isn't for its inclusion in wikivoice as that is not what the sources say. But as there is edit-warring to include the new material (the claims of Trotskyism) I will restore the status quo prior to the addition of the disputed material.
If you do that, you'll be ramming through a watering down of the article to suit yourself, not because you have consensus. You could wait and actually discuss this matter here on the talk page and see if you actually have consensus instead of immediately shooting in your edit once you've made a reply.
To go back to your original statement, which is, frankly, a ridiculous reading of the provided sources: You seem to be going out of your way to avoid the obvious conclusion. You're looking at the work of several Irish political academics and judging "well that's just their opinion", even though these would be experts in this field. You're also playing the inane game of suggesting the Socialist Workers' Party is Trotskyist, but PBP isn't, even though effectively SWP and PBP are one in the same, something covered in several of the sources. In other cases, you're outright ignoring what the authors have said. For example, how on earth can dismiss Ó Dochartaigh as "not about PBP" when the citation specifically quotes this entirely unambitious sentence:

The exception was People Before Profit, a small all-Ireland, pro-unity, Trotskyist party that aligned with the Lexit (left-wing Brexit) position of a section of the British left.

You also seem to be entirely ignoring the New Left Review source by Daniel Finn, as you are the Donatella source.
Out of curiosity, since you're taking this tack of "it's just an opinion"; hypothetically if multiple Irish political academics are not authoritative enough source to call the party Trotskyist in wiki voice, what source would be? I seriously hope your answer is not to suggest only the subject themselves. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly two sources state that PBPA are Trotskyist, the others simply don't. I know you want them to, but they just don't. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly two sources state that PBPA are Trotskyist, the others simply don't
Okay, so you're acknowledging the Dunphy and Ó Dochartaigh sources, but dismissing all the other sources. Let's address each of these objections.
Firstly, specifically, what is your objection to the New Left Review source by Daniel Finn and the Donatella source, which both outline PBP as Trotskyist? You haven't acknowledged either, and if it's the case that you don't object to them, then it's actually at least four reliable sources stating PBP are Trotskyist.
The first linked source, Harry Browne, describes it as "historically trotskyist". That can not be used to support "trotskyist" in the article, though could perhaps in the infobox.
Why not? Because he used the word historically? It's a party that only came into it's current form in 2008, and it's not like it's undergone radical ideology shifts. Also, each source does not exist in a vacuum, if multiple sources are saying the party was and presently is Trotskyist, it suggests a party that has been continuously Trotskyist in ideology.
Hearne describes PBPA as "The united front organisation of [a] trotskyist party", this does not support the statement "trotskyist". At that point PBPA was the united front organisation of the Socialist Workers' Party, which definitely is a Trotskyist party. The quote does not specify the ideology of PBPA
Landy does not describe PBPA as trotskyist, he states that the trotskyist Socialist Workers Party "has been swallowed by its electoral front". Again PBPA is not called trotskyist here, so the quote does not support using trotskyist in the article.
This is like saying the Fine Gael national executive might be Liberal conservative, but that doesn't reflect in any way the ideology of the Fine Gael party, which would be implausible given that body is the leadership of the party.
Dunphy again calls the PBPA trotskyist as one of its designations, that is his opinion (shown above) but not enough for wiki voice.
It's the opinion of an expert in this field, as Dr. Richard Dunphy was a Professor of Political Science in the University of Dundee, and it's one of several sources all firmly stating the same thing.
CeltBrowne (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue, seriously, stop edit-warring. Restoring "Trotskyism" to the infobox is not in any way, shape or form a "bold addition", it's restoring content that was literally there for years. Take this as your warning that you may be about to breach the three-revert rule. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun You have just completed your third revert on this page, the reverts are the following http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=People_Before_Profit&type=revision&diff=1084962284&oldid=1084956048, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=People_Before_Profit&type=revision&diff=1084915756&oldid=1084909271, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=People_Before_Profit&type=revision&diff=1084947339&oldid=1084932136. At no point have you seriously discussed the failings in the sources, and you have now edit-warred your POV into the article with three reverts within 12 hours. Please self-revert, deleting the content for which there is no consensus, or I will report you to ANI edit-warring. I assume this is an oversight on your part, so I will give you 24 hours to self-revert. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? I suggest you have a read, if not. You are well aware that I restored content - and references - which you had removed, claiming it to be a "bold addition". It was not - it has been here for years. Ten years, in fact. This has been pointed out to you now on a couple of occasions, but you're refusing to acknowledge it. There is no consensus to remove this valid, referenced content. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Love the wikilawyering here! I've reverted "trotskyism" twice, you've done it three times and you are saying I'm edit-warring and mentioning boomerangs. Top tip, you don't get a pass for thinking you are right, everybody always does. --Boynamedsue (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering?! You remove ten-year-old referenced content, then claim it being restored is a "bold addition", but I'm wiki-lawyering?! Get a grip! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first post in this section by Boynamedsue. As what they have written shows, there is an awful lot of breaking of the WP:SYNTH rule by using these various sources to try to assert the party as Trotskyist. Helper201 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more additional sources, because apparently, this has to be spelt out explicitly in over a dozen sources:

And just a note on that last source by Layte and Landy; previously Boynamedsue said Landy in another source was only suggesting that SWP were Trotskyist, and this did not mean Landy thought PBP were Trotskyist. Well, here's the very same author explicitly calling PBP, not SWP, Trotskyist. Helper201, if you can look at the above list and somehow come to the conclusion that I'm engaging in WP:Synth, you're on another level. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again lots of synthesis there.
Kelly (more or less) does call PBPA Trotskyist, I don't disagree that this opinion exists, but it isn't widespread enough for wiki voice. Dunphy calls the group "Trotskyist-led" which is not the same as Trotskyist, and so doesn't support current wording. McCabe says the SWP is Trotskyist not PBPA, "under the banner of" is an ambiguous phrase if you want to argue that the SWP and PBPA are the same thing today, then I'm afraid that is a completely different discussion. Sheehan, calls the PBPA an alliance of Trotskyist parties and their Broader Fronts, this is not saying PBPA is Trotskyist, a broad front, by definition, is not a Trotskyist party. Keith does use Trotskyist, in a somewhat throwaway fashion. Bréadún doesn't mention PBPA, synthesis, as you must know. de Waele says the PBPA arose from the SWP, which everybody knows, especially if they read the article, but again this is synthesis. Nordsieck, not really a specialist on either Trotskyism or Irish politics, but yeah, that one is ok. Holmes, well surely you must realise that is synthesis? "Have roots in Trotskyism" =/= "is Trotskyist", it in fact implies that the opposite is the case. The Landy quote is again something of a throwaway statement, and related to the specific time period of 2008-2014, during the early part of this period PBPA was entirely SWP led, prior to its absorption by PBPA documented above.
I do not disagree that the opinion that PBPA are Trotskyist exists, or that the shorthand use of "Trotskyist" to cursorily designate a more complex reality of a coalition containing Trotskyists but not following any recognised Trotskyist policy or tactic is common. However, this identification is not widespread enough, as shown by the amount of stretching you did above, to use wikivoice for a controversial opinion, contested by the party itself. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to think of a way to overcome this impasse, and so I've been consulting over other political party articles and the descriptions of their ideologies, and what sort of phrasing they use. Some parties such as Liberal Democrats (UK)#Ideology have their ideology described in Wikivoice as fact. Other parties such as Labour Party (UK)#Ideology, Green Party of Canada# Principles and policies, Conservative Party of Canada#Principles and policies, Free Democratic Party (Germany)#Ideology and policies such phrasing such as "Usually described as", "Often described as", "generally considered to be", "broadly considered" and so on. If such a phrasing was used to describe the party as Trotskyist, will you still object to this? PBP's objection to the label would still be retained, per how it is now in the article. A second option would be to use the phrase "Political scientists and journalists have described" per Alternative for Germany#Ideology and policies CeltBrowne (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me that there's no consensus for these additions and that there is some edit warring going on in spite of this. StairySky (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. Once again - we are not talking about "additions." The infobox label has been present for ten years now. Even those promoting removal of the term acknowledge above that we have sources stating PBP are Trotskyist. And you don't get to remove referenced content just because you don't like it or refuse to acknowledge reliable sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bastun There is no consensus for inclusion of the word "Trotskyist" in the infobox, it really doesn't matter when it was added there. Your edit-warring to force this POV into the article, pushing it right to 3 reverts is really shocking in such an experienced user. The policy is, if there is no consensus for text, it goes, no matter when it was added.
CeltBrowne thanks for the constructive attitude, I would be happy to have wording in the infobox along the lines of "sometimes described as Trotskyist, a label the party does not accept." In the article I feel, for balance, a couple of attributed quotes should be added which specify it was historically trotskyist, maybe Holmes and Browne? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop mis-representing the inclusion of the word 'Trostskyist' in the infobox as an "addition" to the article. It is, de facto, the consensus version! You are also mis-representing the consensus policy. Please actually read it! What it actually says is: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. So yes, it does matter that 'Trotskyist' was in the infobox for 10 years, with no dispute as to its inclusion. Bottom line: There is no consensus for removal. As to "historically Trotskyist" - it's only 17 years old! CeltBrowne, given that one of the only three people disputing inclusion of 'Trotskyist' in the infobox states themselves, above, that I do not disagree that the opinion that PBPA are Trotskyist exists, and that they accept some of the references, I would argue that there is no need for any compromise or watered-down wording for the infobox - the article body accurately and neutrally describes the situation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the infobox Bastun; I've never once seen on any political party infobox, ever, "qualifying" terms like "sometimes described as" used. As far as the infobox goes, it's binary: The ideology is either in or out, and my position is of course that it should be in. This would also my position for the lead section, which I believe should state "People Before Profit (Irish: Pobal Roimh Bhrabús, PBP) is a Trotskyist political party formed in October 2005."
What I was suggesting is that in the body of the article, in the "Ideology and policies" subsection, is that a phrase like "People before Profit is generally considered a Trotskyist party" could be used. Please note Boynamedsue there is a stark difference between terms like "generally" against a term like "sometimes". "Generally" denotes a majority view. "Sometimes" implies a frequently disputed term. It is still my position that the (vast?) majority opinion of journalists and political academics in Ireland state that the party is currently Trotskyist, and thus the phrasing should reflect this. Given that not a single source by someone from outside of PBP contradicting this view has been presented, I think I'm being pretty fair with this, and I'm worried even in this that I might be being going too far, as Bastun points out. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


RfC: How should People Before Profit be described?

[edit]

How should the article describe the political ideology of People Before Profit?

  • Option A: "People Before Profit are a Trotskyist political party"
  • Option B: "People Before Profit are generally considered a Trotskyist political party"
  • Option C: "People Before Profit are sometimes described as a Trotskyist political party"
  • Option D: The article should not describe People Before Profit as a Trotskyist party
  • Option E: The lead is kept neutral and not weighted in any particular direction or towards any one ideology and simply states "People Before Profit (Irish: Pobal Roimh Bhrabús, PBP) is a political party formed in October 2005."

CeltBrowne (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Option A, based on the following reliable sources:
CeltBrowne's sources for asserting that PBP is Trotskyist
  1. Landy, David (January 2019). "The State of the Irish Left:Half-Full and Half-Empty". Retrieved 9 April 2019. In like manner, Trotskyists still refer to themselves as revolutionaries, but winning and keeping local and parliamentary seats (and the income from these seats) has become far more central in their practices. Recently, in a perhaps unprecedented move for Trotskyist groups, the Socialist Workers Party in Ireland was swallowed up by its electoralist front, People before Profit.
  2. McCabe, Conor (8 December 2015). "The Radical Left in Ireland". Socialism and Democracy. 29 (3): 158–165. doi:10.1080/08854300.2015.1084697. Retrieved 28 April 2022. The smaller (though no less active) Trotskyist group, Socialist Workers Party (SWP), currently has one TD, Richard Boyd-Barrett, and 14 councillors. It operates under the banner of People before Profit", which was founded in October 2005.
  3. Browne, Harry (13 February 2020). "Irish voters reject the Right: a new opportunity for the Left?". Retrieved 7 April 2022. a loose historically-trotskyist alliance called "Solidarity – People Before Profit" (S-PBP), some affiliated to the Committee for a Workers International's successor International Socialist Alternative, and others to the Cliffite International Socialist Tendency
  4. Finn, Daniel (4 August 2021). "The Tributary". New Left Review.
  5. Harry McGee (9 October 2015). "People Before Profit and the Anti Austerity Alliance - spot the difference". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 6 January 2019. Retrieved 16 April 2018. For anybody who has not been intimately involved with the Socialist Workers Party or the Socialist Party, you would need to have a PhD in semantics and rhetoric to winkle out the actual ideological difference between them. They are both Trotskyist and advocate permanent revolution and political agitation through working class mass action in capitalist societies such as Ireland.
  6. "The PBP/Solidarity explainer: from Campaigns to Revolution". Village Magazine.ie. Archived from the original on 21 October 2020. Retrieved 21 October 2020.
  7. Ó Dochartaigh, Niall (3 February 2021). "Beyond the dominant party system: the transformation of party politics in Northern Ireland". Irish Political Studies. 36 (1): 7–28. doi:10.1080/07907184.2021.1877897. S2CID 232272571. Retrieved 7 April 2022. The exception was People Before Profit, a small all-Ireland, pro-unity, Trotskyist party that aligned with the Lexit (left-wing Brexit) position of a section of the British left.
  8. Dunphy, Richard (2017). "Beyond Nationalism? The Anti-Austerity Social Movement in Ireland" (PDF). Journal of Civil Society. 13 (3): 267–283. doi:10.1080/17448689.2017.1355031. S2CID 148867851. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
  9. Kelly, John (2018). Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain. Routledge. p. 153. ISBN 9781138943810. Finally, the Irish case has also been mentioned frequently because a Trotskyist electional coalition won six seats in 2016 following its leadership of a prolonged and popular campaign against the introduction of charges for water consumption. Yet the presence of a record number of Trotskyist deputies in the Irish parliament needs to be set in the context of the Irish recession. At the February 2011 election three far-left groups secured the election of five deputies - the Socialist Party, People before Profit (led by the SWP) and the United Left Alliance (including Workers and Unemployed Action, the Socialist Party and the SWP).
  10. Dunphy, Richard (July 2014). "The situation on the left in Europe after the EU elections: new challenges international workshop of the Rosa Luxemburg foundation July 21-23, 2014, in Berlin" (PDF). Retrieved 28 April 2022. The 31-year old Murphy is much less well-known and faced competition from a rival Trotskyist-led group – the People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA) - which decided against supporting his candidacy, instead choosing to field the popular Dublin councillor, Brid Smith, as its own candidate.
  11. Sheehan, Helena (January 2017). Syriza Wave: Surging and Crashing with the Greek Left. Monthly Review Press. p. 204. ISBN 9781583676271. It was aimed particularly at Sinn Féin and Anti-Austerity Alliance– People Before Profit (an alliance of two Trotskyist parties and their broader fronts).
  12. March, Luke; Keith, Daniel (October 2016). Europe's Radical Left: From Marginality to the Mainstream?. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 194. ISBN 9781783485369. By 2015, with splits and defections from most political parties, including both the small Trotskyist parties (the Socialist Party [SP] lost Clare Daly and the People before Profit Alliance [PBPA] lost Joan Collins), the number of Independents had risen to 20.
  13. de Bréadún, Deaglán (October 2015). Power Play: The Rise of Modern Sinn Féin. Irish Academic Press. ISBN 1785370316. TD Richard Royd Barrett, a member of the Socialist Workers' Party, a Trotskyist group, was quoted as backing the talks.
  14. de Waele, Jean-Michel; Escalona, F.; Vieira, M. (2016). The Palgrave Handbook of Social Democracy in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan London. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-137-29380-0. A group called People Before Profit emerged from the Trotskyist Socialist Workers' Party in 2006
  15. Nordsieck, Wolfram (May 2020). Parties and Elections in Europe: Parliamentary Elections and Governments since 1945, European Parliament Elections, Political Orientation and History of Parties. Books On Demand. p. 294. Party: Solidarity – People Before Profit (S-PBP) Foundation: 2015 Orientation: Socialism, Trotskyism
  16. Holmes, Michael; Roder, ‎Knut (2019). The European left and the financial crisis. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-2428-9. Further left, four main groups held seats in the Dáil (the Irish Parliment) during the crisis. Two have their roots in Trotskyism, the Socialist Party and the People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA).
  17. Layte, Richard; Landy, David (2018). "The Fighting Irish? Explaining the Temporal Pattern of Social Protest during Ireland's Fiscal Crisis 2008–2014". Sociology. 52 (6). Retrieved 28 April 2022. The interviewee is referring to the left-republican party Sinn Fein, and two contending Trotskyist groups – the Anti-Austerity Alliance and People before Profit – who were involved in the campaign.
  18. Ó Dochartaigh, Niall (3 February 2021). "Beyond the dominant party system: the transformation of party politics in Northern Ireland". Irish Political Studies. 36 (1): 7–28. Retrieved 7 April 2022. The exception was People Before Profit, a small all-Ireland, pro-unity, Trotskyist party that aligned with the Lexit (left-wing Brexit) position of a section of the British left.
  19. Dunphy, Richard (2017). "Beyond Nationalism? The Anti-Austerity Social Movement in Ireland" (PDF). Journal of Civil Society. 13 (3): 267–283. doi:10.1080/17448689.2017.1355031. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
  20. Hearne, Rory (May 2015). "The Irish water war" (PDF). a journal for and about social movements. 7 (1): 309–321. Retrieved 9 April 2022. Right2Water involves a number of small trade unions (Unite, Mandate, the Communications Worker's Union, the CPSU and OPATSI), as well as the Left parties of Sinn Fein and the united front organisations of two Trotskyist parties (People Before Profit and the Anti Austerity Alliance), and the Workers' Party........The 'Campaign against the Household and Water Taxes' involved socialists from the far left trotskyist parties (Rory Heare is/was a a Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University)
  21. "Antifa without fascism: the reasons behind the anti-fascist movement in Ireland". Irish Political Studies: 1–23. 28 January 2019. doi:10.1080/07907184.2019.1570139. Retrieved 9 April 2022. For example, under the banner of the United Left Alliance (ULA) the two Trotskyist parties in the Dáil, the Socialist Party (SP) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP), attempted to form a political alliance with left-wing independents but right from the start cooperation was hampered by infighting between the three parties involved (McGee, 2012).
  22. M. Viola, Donatella (21 March 2018). Routledge Handbook of European Elections. p. 247. ISBN 9781138597495. National Party: People before Profit Leader: Collective Leadership Seats in the Dáil in 2011: 2 Ideological orientation: Trotskyist, Marxist, radical left Political group: EUL/NGL
  23. Kelly, Fiach (6 March 2019). "Paul Murphy uses Trotsky to explain how Socialists can compete with 'sectarian' SF". Irish Times. Retrieved 1 May 2022.

CeltBrowne (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Helper201, could you maybe refactor your answer above to a single line for the Survey section, and move the rest down here to the Discussion section? Also, procedurally, the standard for an RfC is to leave it open for at least 30 days, so everyone will have time to respond. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it for the lead or the ideology and policies section, or both? I'm against simply using only the term Trotskyist in the lead (which the vast majority of options by CeltBrowne included, with only simply omitting it entirely as an alternative). I think a similar number of sources could be found calling the party socialist, so it would be wrong for us to omit one in favour of the other. The most neutral option would just to say in the lead, "People Before Profit (Irish: Pobal Roimh Bhrabús, PBP) is a political party formed in October 2005." I think the ideology and polices section can say "People Before Profit are sometimes described as a Trotskyist political party" or "People Before Profit are described by some as a Trotskyist political party" and also state that others refer to it as simply a socialist party. I don't think the lead has to be a binary choice between socialist or Trotskyist and should not be weighted one way or the other or be determined via the opinions of Wikipedia editors as we should remain as neutral as possible. I think the best option would be to keep the ideology claims to the ideology and policies section and refrain from simply labelling the party as one or the other but say that it is described by some as socialist and by others as Trotskyist. I have only just added option E to the list, so I respectfully ask that editors are given enough time to see and consider this option before any changes or decisions are made. Helper201 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

Asarlaí, StairySky - you're both here long enough to be aware of WP:3RR, and our WP:BRD guidelines. Can both of ye stop edit-warring and discuss, please? Discussion should be here, on this article talk page, not an editor's talk page. Per BRD, the 'original' version should be left in place until consensus emerges (i.e., Asarlaí made the change, it got reverted, so now the proposed change is discussed.) Please both consider this a 3RR warning. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political position

[edit]

“People Before Profit” political position can simply be described as far left. 2A06:C701:4F3B:ED00:98FE:28A1:9E38:7192 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People Before Profit - "historically-Trotskyist" but what about now?

[edit]

People Before Profit, regardless of what the Socialist Workers Network's official line is, is not a Trotskyist organisation. While one could argue that the ideological makeup of the Socialist Workers Network and RISE's positions are Trotskyist (as is argued in the sources stated by @CeltBrowne in the May 2022 RfC), the organisation is not majority factional and there exist tendencies within the party that do not subscribe to the ideas associated with Trotskyism.

Could it not also be argued, that the characterisation of People Before Profit as Trotskyist by Wikipedia and others has also led to the idea that it is a monolitically Trotskyist organisation and therefore poisoned certain sources used by @CeltBrowne and @Bastun??

I am not disagreeing that there are factions within PBP that are Trotskyist, nor am I discrediting the origins of the party from the decidedly Trotskyist SWN, but I feel it is wrong to characterise the party as such and feed into the poisoning of sources that aim to nail down a cohesive organisational ideology. I do not believe that any party here has engaged in any bad faith, I'm sure the terminology used was done so with the best intentions, however I am worried at some of the mostly anecdotal and at times, decidedly pointed language being used in both sources and the language on the page itself.

I think that a fair compromise could be to have something akin to the factions section in the info box on the Democratic Party (United States) page, where it states that the party is majority socialist with a trotskyist faction and to remove all mentions of trotskyism when referring to the organisation's politics and ideology.

I mean this with the best intentions and I apologise for any page vandalism that occurred from this IP previously. 193.1.100.61 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I would also like to add that instead of trotskyism or trotskyist being used, to replace it simply with socialism and to replace the sidebar under politics and ideology from trotskyism to socialism 193.1.100.61 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched from the previously logged out IP to this username. Mxcxsx04 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mxcxsx04, as you can see further up this page, the ideology of the party was discussed intensely in the past. It was decided that reliable, secondary sources identify the party as Trotskyist. As a new user to Wikipedia, please do not remove extensively cited content simply because you disagree with the assessment. Consensus building is a core aspect of Wikipedia. You made a Bold edit, which is fine, but now you have been reverted and the reasons why have been explained in the edit history of the page and now here.
In order to remove the Trotskyist identification, you would need to post reliable, secondary sources contradicting the claims of the sources currently included. To learn more about how Wikipedia works, please see Help:Introduction.
I am highly concerned about your use of the term "poisoned sources". Most of the sources identifying the party as Trotskyist are academic and high quality in nature; I advise against casting wild and unsubstantiated accusations at them. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mxcxsx04: The fundamental point is that Wikipedia policy is not to make editorial judgements about what is right, but to accept what apparently reliable published sources say. The fact that someone who has chosen to come along and edit Wikipedia thinks that a particular description is wrong and another one is correct can't be taken as a basis for what articles say, because anyone can come along to edit Wikipedia and express any opinion they like, whether right or wrong. JBW (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://irishmarxistreview.net/index.php/imr/article/download/448/432 Mxcxsx04 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that document is John Molyneux, a member of Socialist Workers Network, which is deeply intertwined with/the same organisation as People before Profit. This means that it a primary source rather than a secondary source and therefore not appropriate.
Funnily enough, Molyneux has his own Wikipedia article...John Molyneux (Trotskyist), which identifies him as a Trotskyist. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what the sources say. While there is always a danger of WP:CIRCULAR, if we are using reliable, secondary sources, that danger is much minimised - simply, good sources won't be using Wikipedia itself as their source. If, over time, a majority of good sources come to describe PBP as something else, then we can add or amend. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it party communist?

[edit]

The party looks communist to me but is it even communist? AlienBlox2.0 (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlienBlox2.0, please stop creating very similar threads like this on Irish political party talk pages. This is NOTAFORUM. You should be find the answer to your question by reading the article, reading this talkpage and reading the cited reliable secondary sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok AlienBlox2.0 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_Before_Profit&oldid=1257556104"