Talk:Workers' Party of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Why does this page have a link to the Irish Workers' Party, a completely unrelated party?

Also, seriously, is this the best history of the WP and SF/TWP that can be written?

- Removed link to the Irish Worker's Party, an unrelated defunct party.

If this article is moved then surely it should be moved to The Workers' Party of Ireland as that is the proper name of the party.--padraig3uk 15:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Election box metadata[edit]

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

Requested move 2006[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Workers Party (Ireland) → Workers Party of Ireland … Rationale: First, although this party has a habit of using the definate article in its title, there is no need to do it on Wikipedia. Second, the party uses "of Ireland" in its title).--Damac 12:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

Vegaswikian 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


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


I proposed the move and would like to add some additional comments. I acccept that the party is registered at Dáil Éireann as the "The Workers Party".[1] However, so too is the Labour Party (Ireland) as "The Labour Party", and the "The" is not used in Wikipedia. The Workers Party is not the title of a film or a book, so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) does not apply. (Indeed, as that guideline remarks, the White House is preferrable to The White House, etc. Using the definite article results in the WPI being listed under "T" rather than "W" in categories.
The party concerned does use the title the "Workers Party of Ireland". Indeed, as the title on its current website clearly demonstrates.[2]. --Damac 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) does of course apply - official names should be considered as proper names, and the article should be included if that forms part of the official name. For example, we have The Hague, not Hague; The Football Association, not Football Association. This party styles itself in various ways on its website - "Workers Party of Ireland" in the URL, "The Workers Party of Ireland" as the title, "The Workers Party" in the body text - but there is only one official name, The Workers' Party, as referenced in the Iris Oifigiúil link above. I would propose moving the article to The Workers' Party (Ireland). Categories are not an issue here; it is very easy to change how an article is sorted alphabetically. See m:Help:Category#Sort key. --Kwekubo 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of how to sort categories - it's a pity, though, that the proposors of the last WPI move didn't adhere to it though.
I think we need to ask ourselves here whether it is essential to include the definite article in this case. Please consider the rule of thumb:
If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name.
The Workers Party of Ireland rarely does, and more independent sources never do (the Irish Times archive, for example, generally omits the "the" altogether when referring to the WP). Neither does any Wikipedia article mentioning the WP include the definate article. All these credible sources reflect common usage. --Damac 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Workers' Party generally only uses the term "The Workers Party of Ireland" for international usage and "The Workers' Party" is normally used for domestic purposes.Coolavokig 07:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence "Yet while the party can boast two councillors in the city it has yet to make any electoral breakthrough into Dáil Éireann in that constituency" because it is inaccurate. The party did make a breakthrough to the Dáil in February 1982 when Paddy Gallagher was elected a TD for Waterford, although he lost the seat the following November. Coolavokig 08:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Workers Party / Workers' Party / Worker's Party[edit]

The party's own website uses the style "The Workers' Party" -- [3] [s']; so too do its banners -- [4] [s']; or do they? -- [5] [s].

In Irish, "The Workers' Party" [s'] is, of course, Páirtí na nOibríthe. The only evidence I can find of Páirtí na nOibrí (which would mean "The Worker's Party" ['s]) is the logo currently accompanying this Wikipedia article (where exactly did it come from?).

Are the signwriters in charge of how this party styles itself? -- Picapica (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the change to the grammatically-correct and sourced (as above) Workers' Party of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Official Sinn Féin[edit]

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

Comments requested on Sinn Féin articles[edit]

See Talk:Sinn_Féin#Proposal_to_re-orient_SF_articles. Mooretwin (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Substantial restructure - and the Kerry dispute[edit]

I've heavily reconstructed the Origins section from the mish-mash of confused timelines and organisations. [We have to pretend that SF and 'IRA' are independent but alligned].

In the course of that, there were a couple of sentences about Kerry which were really quite detailed in the scheme of things and (IMO) were causing the article to get bogged down. So I've summarised it and deleted it. Here it is of anyone really wants it.

This was despite the Marxist-led leaderships' disbandment of traditionalist branches and district committees, such as the 1966 disbandment of the entire North Kerry Comhairle Ceantair of Sinn Féin, embracing 13 Cumainn and 250 members and including three local councillors and expulsion of leading figures such as Miss May Daly (sister of Charlie Daly, executed at Drumboe, Donegal, in 1923), John Joe Rice, Sinn Féin TD, 1957-61 and John Joe Sheehy, veteran Republican and Kerry footballer. Many others were simlilarly ousted from the organisation. The underlying issue was the uncompromising stand of North Kerry in refusing recognition to Westminster, Leinster House and Stormont. South Kerry overwhelmingly supported the leadership, strongly influenced by individuals like Paddy O'Callaghan who remained loyal to the Goulding leadership.

I've also deleted monotonous repitition of "the Marxist leadership" every sentence. I've added a summary of the political analysis that is described in detail later, as I think it is important to see what the big debate was about. --Red King (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with all of your changes. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved article to correct name[edit]

Although "Worker's Party" (withn the apostrophe) is gramatically correct, it is not what they call themselves. I've moved it to "Workers Party" (without the apostrophe). --Red King (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the current main page of their website [6] shows 5 names with apostrophe after the s ("Workers' Party") and 1 without for confusion! Their facebook page [7] is all apostrophes. Snappy (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
"Worker's Party" would not be correct, unless they purport to be a party only of one worker (and could they then be a party at all?" Mooretwin (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
But they are using "Workers' Party" (apostrophe after the s) which is grammatically correct. According to Apostrophe article, When the noun is a normal plural, with an added s, no extra s is added in the possessive; so pens' caps (where there is more than one pen). So it appears that the party is using its name correctly. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Er, yeah, I know. Red King said "Worker's Party" is grammatically correct: that's why I said it would not be correct. Mooretwin (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The party uses the correct form Workers' Party in all official communications. The Facebook page is contributed to by numerous individuals who may or may not use the correct form. Coolavokig (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case, the article should be moved back to Workers' Party of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If no one objects (with a valid reason), I will move it to Workers' Party of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved, per this discussion. Snappy (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, the party is registered on Ireland's Register of Political Parties as "THE WORKERS' PARTY". AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the reference needed[edit]

The following sentence has two supporting references:

Each rejected the tag, preferring to identify themselves by the location of their head office, Kevin Street and Gardiner Place respectively. The name of the ('official') party remained Sinn Féin until changed to Sinn Féin the Workers Party in 1977.

One of them is this book here:


which provides page 59 the page cited. A quick review illustrates that the reference does not support the text, therefore I suggest its removal or the text be changed to reflect the source cited. However, there is still the first reference, which may support the text? I would therefore request an exact quote from this book to support the text. From the many books cited on the Sinn Féin article on this subject, none support the text "preferring to identify themselves by the location of their head office" and that is why a quote is necessary. --Domer48'fenian' 15:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You've quoted two sentences, but referred only to one sentence. Both references support the statement in the second sentence (i.e. the one immediately preceding), that the party changed its name to SFWP in 1977. Mooretwin (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No! Provide the quote as requested please. --Domer48'fenian' 16:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To what are you saying "no"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to both sentences! Are you accepting that neither source supports the first sentence? If so, change it to reflect the source or I can? If your saying that both sources support the second sentence, fine, provide the quote requested from the first source cited, because we know its not supported by the second. Thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
As I've already said, both sources support the statement in the second sentence about the 1977 name change. They don't support the first sentence. Put a request citation tag against the first sentence and see if one can be provided. Mooretwin (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
All press releases issued by the Officials was on headed paper bearing the name Sinn Féin, not Sinn Féin Gardiner Place. The address at 30 Gardiner Place may have been beneath the name (as on most normal headed paper) but the party referred to itself as Sinn Féin until such time as it became Sinn Féin the Workers' Party. The appellation (Gardiner Place) was most likely added by newspaper editors to differentiate the groups.
The [citation needed] wasn't clear - I thought it applied to the leadership, which is why I added the ref. It's true that for years the media used their addresses to distinguish the two organizations, as both referred to themselves as Sinn Féin. It would be more correct to say that they "allowed themselves to be identified by the locations of their head offices". Many people in Dublin referred to them simply as "Gardiner Place" or "Kevin Street". Hohenloh + 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not from Dublin, so I can't tell whether what Hohenloh says about people referring to the parties as either "Gardiner Place" or "Kevin Street" but in my opinion the public would have been more likely to refer to them as Official Sinn Féin or Provisional Sinn Féin - or in more informal speech as simply "Sticks" or "Provos" Coolavokig (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
As the source supplied above in my post of 16:09, 2 February, does not support the second sentence, I have per our policy on Verifiability asked for a quote from the first source cited which our policy states "must clearly support the material as presented in the article" and notes that "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." I've now asked three times for the quote, and will as a matter of courtesy ask once more before I remove the second sentence. --Domer48'fenian' 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The source supplied in your post of 16:09, 2/2 does support the second sentence. If you click on the link you've provided, go to page 59, and read the text you'll see that it says the party changed its name to SFWP in 1977. The other source says the same thing. Mooretwin (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(Moved from Domer48 talk page to centralise discussion) I see you have inserted another citation request at the end of a paragraph. What, specifically, would you like the citation to refer to - that the soubriquet died out, or that the Gardiner Place address carried more weight? IIRC, this information is from the Lost Revolution, and I can supply the page nos. Hohenloh + 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No I requested a quote which would support the current text. If you want to use the Lost Revolution please do so, I have the book but can't find a quote myself that would support that text, so a page number would be very helpful. If however you feel the text in the book could be open to interpretation supply a quote also, it would help. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 15:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Having made four requests for a quote to be provided to support the text, I've amended the text to reflect the source.--Domer48'fenian' 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


The sidebar says that the party was formed in 1982. While the current name was adopted in 1982, the party existed before then as Sinn Féin The WOrkers' Party (from 1977) and Sinn Féin before that (known as Official SF from 1970). I attempted to add this information - using the model agreed at the Sinn Féin article, but it was instantly reverted. My proposal was: "Orginal 1905; Current 1970; Current name 1982". Can we have some discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a source that states that the Workers Party were formed in 1905. BigDunc 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that the Workers' Party name only dates from 1982. Before that it was Sinn Féin The Workers' Party and before that, SF. As you know, there are plenty of sources to say SF was formed in 1905. Mooretwin (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This is The Workers Party article so a source please, or else put it into virtually ever article on Irish political parties. BigDunc 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This was the solution at Sinn Féin, so it also applies here. Both parties originate in the 1905 SF. Both parties took their current form in 1970. The difference is that the Workers' Party changed its name in 1977, and then 1982 (which I proposed to reflect in the sidebar). What's the problem? Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Source please that WP were formed in 1905. BigDunc 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Claiming that the Workers' Party was founded in 1905, is quite ridiculous. I agree with BigDunc, that if you add 1905 here, you have to add it to FF, FG, etc. I have also removed the pre-1962 history of Sinn Fein, there is no point duplicating it here. Democratic Left (Ireland) dosen't have a complete history of SF or an original foundation date of 1905, though it could (by some logic) claim both. The history of Sinn Fein article needs to be improved, especially the 1923-1968 sections. It would better to spend time on this article.
As for the foundation date of the Workers' Party, the sidebar should match the text, and the current version says it was founded in 1970 after a split in SF, 1977 and 1982 were name changes not foundation dates. I'd suggest putting 1970 as the foundation date in the infobox, with a footnote mentioning the name changes in 1977 and 1982. Snappy (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both Dunc and Snappy claiming that the Workers' Party was founded in 1905, is quite ridiculous and becoming disruptive. The reason they changed the name from Sinn Féin The Workers' Party, to simply The Workers' Party was to remove all links with its past, and can and will be supported by referenced sources (The Lost Revolution). --Domer48'fenian' 10:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a footnote for the Foundation Date. Is it acceptable? Snappy (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not ridiculous in the leats to claim that the Workers' Party was founded in 1905. The Workers' Party was Sinn Féin before it changed its name. If (Provisional) Sinn Féin is listed as being founded in 1905, then so too must the other party to the 1970 split. After all, it was the Provisionals who split from Sinn Féin, so they have more claim on the continuity. You don't have to add 1905 to FF, FG, because those parties were formed as new parties. The Workers' Party wasn't. It just changed its name. Same with Democratic Left. Mooretwin (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of the pre-1962 history - if, as Snappy says, there is no point duplicating the history of Sinn Fein here, then fair enough - but it would then need to be removed from the Sinn Féin article too. I suggested that both the SF and WP articles should begin in 1970, with the pre-1970 stuff dealt with at the History article, but that was rejected. That being the case, it needs to be covered here too. This was actually a suggestion by Domer48, supported by O Fenian, so it shouldn't be controversial. Either include pre-1970 histories at both articles or neither, per NPOV. Even Scolaire says it was a split in mitosis, i.e. one party branched into two. Mooretwin (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Not even the Workers' Party themselves claim to have been founded in 1905, on the history section of their website (yes, I know its a primary source), the earliest date mentioned is 1962.
No-one claims that any SF party was founded in 1962. That's nonsense. Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
No one is claiming to be founded in 1962, I said it was the earliest date mentioned, meaning they make no mention or seem to have no interest in anything before that date. Snappy (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, since no new party was formed in 1962, the WP must consider themselves (i.e. the old SF) to have been in existence before 1962, therefore you can't say that they don't trace their origins back to 1905. There is more reason for this article to include pre-1970 history than there is the Sinn Féin article, since it was from this party that the current SF split. The proposal, however - supported by Domer48 and Scolaire - is to treat both the current SF and the WP the same way in terms of their history. That means including a brief overview of the early period here, and recognition of the original party foundation. Mooretwin (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't go duplicating the history of SF all over the place, as I've said before, all these version will just get out of synch. The History of Sinn Fein article needs work, so the other parties can point at the relevant section of it or have a See also. Snappy (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Snappy we are seen the same nonsense on this article also. We had it for eighteen months on this article. That they are trying to misrepresent my view is just sad, very sad. I'll seriously be ignoring this disruption, and just concentrating on editing the articles.--Domer48'fenian' 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Snappy, I'm content with a solution that sees the history of SF dealt with at History of SF, and not at each individual article. I proposed that some time ago. Presumably you'll support its removal from the current SF article? Mooretwin (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Edit[edit]

That was a good edit by Snappy if it remains here do we place it on FF an FG also? BigDunc 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

References are needed on the article[edit]

I've flagged a number of areas which need references. I'll add some that I can source and address the text which can not be sourced. --Domer48'fenian' 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Removed text from NI election section[edit]

I have removed the following text from this section as it has nothing to do with the WP, the subject of the article:

"The other party to emerge from the 1970 split, is the party that is now commonly referred to simply as Sinn Féin. They have had much greater electoral success than Official Sinn Féin/Workers Party in Northern Ireland. However, the Provisionals' electoral performance in the Republic was poor until the IRA ceasefires of 1994 and 1997 and they have as yet failed to reach the seven seats won in Dáil Éireann by the Workers' Party in 1989.[1]" --BwB (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Requested move 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. KiloT 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Workers' Party of IrelandThe Workers' Party (Ireland)Relisted since the talk page pointer to the discussion was bad. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Registered name per the register of the UK Electoral Commission and the Oireachtas register. It is also the name by which the party is known in practice. Kwekubo (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, "of Ireland" is mainly used in its international relations, the party is invariably just "Workers' Party" in domestic usage. Brocach (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I get an 'Access Forbidden' when I click on the UK Electoral Commission link, can the nominator provide a working link? Snappy (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The link works for me; nevertheless, a trivial amount of searching would have revealed It is not possible to link directly to the individual entry for the Workers' Party. --Kwekubo (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - The parties own website says Workers' Party of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Common name is not determined by what the party places on its own website. Do you have any evidence that common usage has changed? --Kwekubo (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Since when does common name trump what a party calls itself? Snappy (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Few parties have changed their name more often than this one - but its Northern Ireland Assembly election posters, which I passed several times today, clearly state "Workers' Party". Brocach (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. No opinion on the geographical identifier, but if "of Ireland" is removed it should be Workers' Party (Ireland), not The Workers' Party (Ireland). Articles are not usually used in article titles unless "The" is regularly capitalised in running text, which is not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name and move[edit]

I'm sorry that I missed this discussion. One note, for future reference, is that the party calls itself by many names on its website, which seems to be the only source for the incorrect article title at present. We have "the Workers' Party of Ireland", "the Workers' Party" and "The Workers' Party" on the front page. On other pages, we have "the Workers Party" and "The Workers Party". I would suggest that the website is therefore not a good source for choosing a name, because we don't have evidence that the presence of one particular name in the banner heading is due to deliberate choice, as opposed to the haphazard use of different names that permeates the website.

We should look instead to the Register of Political Parties, in which the name is listed as "THE WORKERS' PARTY". In common use, "The" is not capitalised. I would support a future move of this page to "Workers' Party (Ireland)" or "The Workers' Party (Ireland)".

For comparison, within the Register, The Labour Party is the closest parallel to The Workers' Party, being different by only one word. Its article title is Labour Party (Ireland). In contrast, the "Communist Party of Ireland" is listed as such in the Register, including the words "of Ireland".

AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Mooretwin (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"the violent beginning of what were to become The Troubles"[edit]

The links for " the violent beginning" and "The Troubles" both link to the article for "The Troubles", it seems redundant, I think it would make a lot more sense if it linked to something like or — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"The policy document used Marxist jargon"[edit]

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


Snappy, italics are usual for non-English words on the English Wikipedia. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No, for example, we do not italicise Taoiseach where that word is used, or Dail or Seanad etc. Snappy (talk)
So why are non-English words italicised elsewhere? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
For example? Snappy (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Workers' Party of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Workers' Party of Ireland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Just wondering about the ORM's who broke away in or about 2000ad

Does anybody know what became of them?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)