Talk:History of Sinn Féin

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

Content Question[edit]

I might be completly missing something here, but to me, the following sentence doesn't make any sense: "It was rescued by the mistaken belief among the British administration running Ireland from Dublin Castle that it had been behind the 1916 Rising, an unsuccessful attempt to establish an Irish Republic." Why would the British Administration rescue an entity that it believed was behind an uprising? I am not overly familiar with Irish politics, or Irish history (hence why I was reading an article on the subject), so I could very well me missing something, but this sentece needs to be edited to either rephrase it or to add more information, a la why the British would help the them. Wolf 63.76.209.49 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that the British rescued them, or intended to rescue them. It just says (in the passive voice) that "it was rescued". It could do with rewriting, but I presume the thrust is that being blamed by the Government meant that SF could take the credit for being behind the 1916 rebellion, even though it wasn't. (Because, after the executions, the nationalist population felt sympathetic towards the rebels and did not share the Government's view that the rebels were bad.) Mooretwin (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ourselves alone[edit]

Sinn Féin translates as "ourselves" or "we ourselves" - sinn: "we" and féin: "self". "Ourselves alone" would be sinn féin amháin. "Sinn féin amháin" was itself a popular slogan a hundred years ago, and that's where the "ourselves alone" phrase came from. But it is not the English translation of Sinn Féin. Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is simply "ourselves". Compare mé féin ("myself"), tú féin ("yourself"), etc. "We ourselves" would be translated as sinne féin. --MacTire02 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation is not simply looking up words in a dictionary. Chuaigh mé féin, for instance, would not translate as "myself went", but as "I myself went" or "I went myself". Similarly, you can't say in English, "ourselves will govern Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations from Joe Cahill's book[edit]

Where the only citation in support of a statement is a reference to Joe Cahill's book, we need some kind of health warning. He is clearly not a WP:NPOV source, being a leader of the Provo side of the 1969/70 dispute. --Red King (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial edit[edit]

I've reverted a controversial edit by BigDunc, in which he added a "main article" tag to this article, pointing to Sinn Féin. This edit relates to a dispute at Sinn Féin, in which Dunc and others are asserting that said party was not formed in 1970, but is in fact the uninterrupted continuation of the 1905 party. Most sources, however, describe the current SF party has having been formed out of a split in SF in 1970. Several parties exist today whose history lies in SF just as much as the current SF party, therefore it is POV to say that the article about the current SF party is the "main" article in relation to this. It is no more "main" than the Workers Party of Ireland article, or indeed Republican Sinn Féin or Irish Republican Socialist Party - or, for that matter - arguably Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Mooretwin (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is best ignored! They have peddled this same nonsense on the Sinn Féin article. --Domer48'fenian' 13:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be well advised to avoid personal commentary and not to engage in POV-pushing. Mooretwin (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted as this is an attempt to create a POV fork. BigDunc 19:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! Plain and simple. --Domer48'fenian' 19:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to seek consensus for your edit, which is controversial and was hence reverted. See WP:BRD. There is no attempt to create a POV fork. Mooretwin (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I'm not sure where the POV fork comes in here? Damac's hatnote was completely correct. Valenciano (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed BigDunc's "main article" tag per above. Is there a consensus to replace it with Damac's hatnote - which is accurate and helpful to the reader? Mooretwin (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Damac's hatnote is a reasonable compromise. Valenciano (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. BigDunc 15:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a neutral edit so I don;t see it as a compromise. It says that there are two organisations. We need to find another form of words, or acknowledge the two positions. --Snowded TALK 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about something along the lines of "This article is about the history of SF up to the split in 1970. For SF after the split, see Workers Party of Ireland and Sinn Féin"? Mooretwin (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about the history of Sinn Féin up to the split in 1970. For Sinn Féin after the split, see Sinn Féin"? Makes no sense at all! This article is not about Sinn Féin after the split in 1970, its about Sinn Féin period! The history of Sinn Féin simply goes into more detail. Now if the intension is now to simply create a POV fork, I'll propose we expand the history section on this article and have the fork deleted. --Domer48'fenian' 11:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting confused again by the name. Just because one of the post-1970 SFs retained the name doesn't mean that the other one didn't or doesn't exist. Mooretwin (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that one of the post-1970 SFs retained the name that's great, because we have provided sources to say that one of the factions adopted the title "Official Sinn Féin" for their Party. --Domer48'fenian' 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has ever disputed that one of the SFs retained the name, although do we have a breakthrough now that you are admitting that there was more than one SF after 1970? I haven't seen any source that says Official Sinn Féin was officially adopted - although I fail to see the relevance, even if true (which I don't think is the case). It doesn't alter the fact that SF split into two in 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not go with 2 articles Sinn Fein (1905- present) & Sinn Fein (1970- present)? GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why??? BigDunc 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cuz they're 2 different political parties. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not that's the problem. BigDunc 15:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wowsers, it's confusing. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irish politics you got to love it. BigDunc 15:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really confusing at all. In 1969-70, the republican movement split. In December 1969, the minority "Provisional" faction left the IRA and formed what became known as the Provisional IRA (the rest of IRA then becoming known as the "Official IRA"). A month later, the same split occurred in Sinn Féin, with the Provisionals walking out and forming what initially was known as Provisional Sinn Fein, while the rest of Sinn Féin became known as Official Sinn Féin. Eventually, the Officials changed their name to "Sinn Féin: the Workers Party" and then simply "The Workers Party", after which the need to differentiate Provisional Sinn Féin ceased and that party became known simply as "Sinn Féin" (although the Provisional and Official tags were used only as disambiguators - both parties referred to themselves as Sinn Féin). Today, the (Provisional) Sinn Féin party is the only party called Sinn Féin and claims to be the legitimate successor of the pre-1970 Sinn Féin. This is also the view of Dunc 'n' Domer. Mooretwin (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005 Sinn Féin celebrated it's 100 Anniversary (Céad Bliain) with three histories of the party published to coincide with the event, Sinn Feín: a Hundred Turbulent Years by Brian Feeney, a source that is considered to be reliable likewise Sinn Féin, 1905-2005: in the Shadow of Gunmen by Kevin Rafter in addition to the parties own publication Sinn Féin A Century of Struggle by Mícheál MacDonncha with the Party planning a year of events to celebrate its founding [1] [2][3]. --Domer48'fenian' 17:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you, both Feeney and Rafter describe Provisional SF as splitting from SF in 1970. The party's own publication naturally puts forward the Provisional POV of events. There are dozens of sources describing the new party formed in 1970 (as you know) listed on Talk:Sinn Féin. DO you need them to be spelled out again? Mooretwin (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide quote to support your opinions, Feeney and Rafter do not describe Provisional SF as splitting from SF in 1970. Pure WP:OR and WP:SYN. Now no quotes no discussion! --Domer48'fenian' 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These have already been provided:
  • Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan, p.96
    • MacStiofain and his supporters had prevented the constitutional change but they were in a minority. They quickly departed to form a new organisation that would shortly come to represent the traditional republican doctrines and a majority within the militant republican constituency on the island. The new movement pledged its 'allegiance to the 32-County Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 ... etc.
    • After the split in the republican movement in 1969-70, Adams sided with the newly established Provisional movement. (p.9)
    • ... nobody, and no party, has a monopoly on the legacy of 1905. (p.18)
Brian Feeney book "A hundred turbulent years...", p.251
    • In early 1970 neither the Provisional IRA nor its political mouthpiece Provisional Sinn Fein, had much of an existence outside west Belfast. Its new Dublin-based leaders had almost no followers. There were of course, pockets of support around Ireland where various individuals in the republican movement, emotionally spurred by the events of August 1969, gave their backing to the breakaway group, which as yet had no organisation on the ground Mooretwin (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I see Cathar11 has inserted the POV "main" tag again. Sinn Féin is not the "main" article for this article. It is only one of two immediate successors to SF in 1970 (the other being the Workers Party of Ireland. Republican Sinn Féin and Irish Republican Socialist Party are also later successors. Mooretwin (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a "see also" not a main tag as a useful and useable compromise.Cathar11 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Cathar. We'd also need a "see also" to the Workers Party of Ireland, though to ensure NPOV. Mooretwin (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a "see also:Workers Party", but it was removed. Why? If we are to avoid POV this article cannot take sides over the 1970 split. Indeed, there is more reason to link to the Workers Party article, given that it was the party from which the current party called SF split. Mooretwin (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there was no response to the above question, I restored the link to the Workers Party article. Unfortunately, this has been reverted again - with no discussion. Under the Troubles remedy, this will have to be referred to a third party. Mooretwin (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Workers Party was founded in 1982! End of discussion! Now find another article to cause a problem on. --Domer48'fenian' 12:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was when it changed its name to the current name. It was previously called "Sinn Féin The Workers Party" and, before that, simply "Sinn Féin" (although known as Official Sinn Féin). If you read the article on the Workers Party, it is explained for you. (I should say that, from my perspective, you are causing the problem, by supporting a POV hatnote, for which consensus has not been sought.) Mooretwin (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no agreement to include links to both the Sinn Féin and Workers Party of Ireland articles, then there is no consensus for the hatnote per se, and it should be removed. Mooretwin (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mooretwin on this. I am beginning to have a serious concern that some editors are members of PSF and are acting contrary to the WP:Conflict of interest principle. It is the only thing that would explain the level of doublethink in their edits. The history is very clear and there are multiple independent sources for it. --Red King (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to know about your conspiracy theories. BigDunc 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got a better explanation? --Red King (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are skating on very thin ice Red King. I suggest deleting those accusations of PSF membership, its not acceptable in WIkipedia and I've seen people blocked for less. --Snowded TALK 20:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Red King, you are wrong on so many levels! First, a person can have an opinion without having to belong to a political party. Second, membership of a political party is not of itself a COI. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have many thousands of members; are they all precluded from editing any Irish politics articles? Third, even Mooretwin has acknowledged that there is no Irish party, nor ever has been, named PSF. Why don't you apologise now and get it over with? Scolaire (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do know, though, that the current SF party was (and sometimes still is) known as PSF? Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there's clearly no consensus for the hatnote, I intend to remove it completely until consensus is achieved. Mooretwin (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ill advised! --Domer48'fenian' 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If there is no consensus, then the best solution is to remove it until consensus is achieved. Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Mooretwin on this subject matter and have to congratulate Red King for pointing out the serious concern that some editors are members of PSF and are acting contrary to the WP:Conflict of interest principle. The history is indeed very clear and there are multiple independent sources for it. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now, Red King! You have the support of a blocked IP hopper. That must please you ;-) Scolaire (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ad hominem attack doesn't change the accuracy or otherwise of his point: a few editors are directly contradicting the independent published sources and trying to rewrite history so that is says what PSF wants it to say. That is CoI. Yes, there are members of other parties (that have a far stronger claim to the heritage of SF than does the Adams Family), but I don't see any of them trying to include material that is directly contrary to the independent sources. And to avoid counterclaims, I am not and have never been a member of any political party. --Red King (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed the hatnote. There is currently no consensus on what hatnote, if any, should be applied, so omitting the hatnote for now restores the status quo ante. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BigDunc just arbitratily put the hatnote back in, so I've reverted, pending consensus being achieved here. Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now Domer48 has escalated an edit war by re-inserting the controversial edit. This will have to go to an outside opinion again. Mooretwin (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the hatnote, without prejuduce to its restoration if and when there is a consensus to do so. For goodness sake, discuss the hatnote and try to reach a consensus, rather than simply re-inserting it once the 1-week 1RR limit has expired. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus for the hat note, here and the editor who canvassed your opinion knew full well there was. This is the history of Sinn Fén article, which was moved from the main article. --Domer48'fenian' 12:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion that you linked to mentions nothing about "main articles". Mooretwin (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for section "1930s to 1968"[edit]

Does anybody have "Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers' Party " (ISBN-10: 1844881202, ISBN-13: 978-1844881208) and/or "Official Irish Republicanism, 1962 to 1972" (ISBN-10: 1430319348, ISBN-13: 978-1430319344)? as (judging from the reviews) these will provide the citations for Sinn Fein's Marxist dialectic analysis. --Red King (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Domer said somewhere that he had this book. BigDunc 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the first one. Give me a few days.--Damac (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I split the two sections into 1930s to 1947 and 1948 to 1969. While the history of the party during the 30s up to 47 isn't of much importance, the latter section definitely needs to be expanded (which I'm trying to do). If anyone can go through Hanley and Millar's the Lost Revolution and put the important points up it would be helpful. Coogan's The IRA would be also useful.

Exiledone (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Foundation' of Sinn Féin[edit]

Recent posts on Talk:Sinn Féin have raised the questions of whether Sinn Féin can properly be said to have been founded in 1905, or to have been founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, or even to have been 'founded' at all. Never one to shirk a challenge, I have done some reading and I present some facts and ideas below. I would welcome comments on my comments and/or ideas on how to treat the subject in this article in a manner that is both verifiable and readable. Any possible effect on the Sinn Féin article could be considered later.

The various organisations on the one hand, and the term Sinn Féin’ on the other, appear to have quite separate histories, so I am treating them separately here. As to the organisations:

  1. Cumann na nGaedheal was set up with the help of Arthur Griffith (Brian Maye, Arthur Griffith, p. 39) or at his suggestion (Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Ireland, p. 21) in 1902.
  2. The National Council was set up in 1903, with Edward Martyn as chairman, specifically to coordinate opposition to the king's visit to Ireland, but continued in existence and held its first annual convention in November 1905 (FSL Lyons, chapter 5 of A New History of Ireland, volume VI, p. 115).
  3. Bulmer Hobson and others set up the Dungannon Clubs in March 1905 (Laffan, p. 21). They and the National Council became rivals (Laffan, p. 24).
  4. The National Council convention of 1905 voted to organise nationally (i.e. to set up branches) against the opposition of Griffith and other Dublin delegates (Maye, p. 40). However, I can see no suggestion that Griffith regarded this as a personal defeat, or that other delegates saw it as a defeat of Griffith, or that Griffith did not continue to dominate the organisation in the following years.
  5. The Dungannon Clubs and Cumann na nGaedheal merged in April 1907 as the Sinn Féin League (Laffan, p. 25). Later the same year the National Council and the Sinn Féin League merged. Laffan says that "in effect [Griffith] took over his rival and forced it to adopt his policy" (Laffan, p. 26). In 1908 it changed its name to Sinn Féin.

As regards the term Sinn Féin:

  1. The first use of Sinn Féin to describe a policy or movement was on 28 November 1905 at the annual convention of the National Council when Griffith presented what had previously been called his 'Hungarian policy' as The Sinn Féin Policy (Lyons, p. 115; Maye, p. 101). The convention had been called "to launch the policy...formally and to establish a new organisation to carry it out" (Maye, p. 40). It is on this basis that the Sinn Féin Party is said to have been launched by Griffith on this date.
  2. The Dungannon Clubs, although set up by IRB members, initially espoused the same policy as Griffith (Laffan, p. 21; Lyons, p. 115; Maye, pp. 101-2). Hobson's newspaper The Republic said in December 1906 that the Dungannon Clubs were part of 'the Sinn Féin movement' (Laffan. P. 23).
  3. Griffith called his 1906 newspaper Sinn Féin. Laffan (P. 25) says that he thereby "appropriated" the term, but since Griffith had himself coined the term in its modern sense, it's difficult to see how he could "appropriate" it.
  4. In March 1907 Joe McGarrity, in reference to the three competing organisations, said that he would favour merging the 'different Sinn Féin Clubs' (Laffan p. 25).
  5. Also in 1907, Nationalist MP C.J. Dolan resigned his North Leitrim seat in order to contest it as a 'Sinn Féin candidate'. Dolan did not align himself with either organisation, and was supported by both. His candidacy was a factor in the unification of the organisations (Maye, pp. 103-4). Even at this point, therefore, the term 'Sinn Féin' had a separate existence from the parties that used it.

So, definitely not straightforward, but definitely worth tackling. What does anybody think? Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding it that SF considers its founding date as 1905. It depends, if this article is about one political party's history or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Sinn Fein was first used on 28 November 1905, then 1905 is the year we can accurately state that the party was founded. There shouldn't be any objections.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is when the movement was founded. But it is not clear that what was founded was a yet political party. When did it change from just being just a movement to actually adoping the aparatus of party politics? 1907 Bye-election? --Red King (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article can say that the movement was founded in 1905, but did not become an actual political party until 1907. Perhaps somebody has a book that can pinpoint the exact dates?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of books, but no exact dates. That is the nature of history. Anyway, I'm not trying to say that we have to change x to y, but rather that we can edit this article to better show the complexity of the situation, but in an accessible way. To answer Red King's question, it became a single 'party' with the merger of the three organisations in 1907, and became Sinn Féin the following year, but when it actually adopted the aparatus of party politics is another question again - probably not until the 1917 Ard Fheis. Scolaire (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff, which certainly merits being drawn out in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great summary there Scolaire. Seems to me that we have an origin in 1905, but firmly established as the dominant opposition to British rule under the leadership of Griffin by 1907.--Snowded TALK 05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure we can make the huge jump from what Scol is saying to "firmly established as the dominant opposition to British rule under the leadership of Griffin by 1907", can we? I think Boleyn's statement seems more applicable. --BwB (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can say that by 1907 it was the only separatist political organisation in Ireland, and therefore the dominant force in advanced nationalism. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if we have references I am OK with this text, Scol. --BwB (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my object in starting this discussion was not to find a snappy one-line summary. Rather, it was to encourage collaboration to completely re-write the 1905 to 1917 section. As of now, the section is almost completely unsourced, and it contains some information that is of dubious notability, while omitting quite a few notable facts, events and personalities. All of the feed-back I have got so far is very useful, none of it is 'wrong' and no one view necessarily contradicts any other. Thank you, and keep it coming. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

Until that dispute is resolved, 'tis best not to add any. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, please[edit]

The section on Leaders listed all the leaders to 1970, but then only the Provisional leaders after 1970 (although it did acknowledge the split into Official and Provisional Sinn Féin). I added the Official leaders, and also mentioned the IRSP and Democratic Left splits (the RSF was already mentioned), but BigDunc has reverted this.

Under NPOV, this article cannot take sides over the split - the leaders of both post-split parties should be included. Can we agree to abide by NPOV? Mooretwin (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So will we list all the FF leaders too. This is a history of SF and not of every party that claims to have links to it. BigDunc 09:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, remove all the Provisional leaders, too. Under NPOV, we can't pick sides and say that one party to the split was the "true" SF and the other wasn't. Mooretwin (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are Provisional leaders? BigDunc 11:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the article content, but speaking strictly to policy, since the information that was added was unsourced, then per WP:V, it can be removed by any editor (though often times it's better to tag the information with a {{fact}} tag). Mooretwin, do you have sources which verify the information that you were attempting to add? --Elonka 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To say or suggest that today's Workers' Party is Sinn Féin is an absurdity. It is not Sinn Féin; it does not claim to be Sinn Féin; it does not want to be Sinn Féin. It is anti-Sinn Féin. It opposes everything Sinn Féin stands for. It wants no part of the legacy of Griffith, de Valera, Fr. O'Flanagan or Margaret Buckley. That's why it dropped "Sinn Féin" from its name. I wish you luck finding reliable sources for Elonka that say De Rossa, Donnelly or the others were ever leaders of Sinn Féin. Scolaire (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it decided, that this article is about the history of one political party or a movement? GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Scolaire agree that the Official SF leaders should be listed up until 1982, when the SF name was dropped? Or else, the list of leaders should stop at 1970, with links thereafter to the Sinn Féin and Workers' Party articles? Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll let you people figure this whole thing out, as I'm getting a nasty headache. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can Mooretwin remind me of the list of Official SF leaders up to 1982? Because I could have sworn there was only Tomás Mac Giolla, whose name is already on the list! Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mac Giolla is only listed as leader until 1970, but he continued as (Official) leader until 1988 (or 1982 if - as you appear to be suggesting - you treat the name-change as a cut-off point. Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place), also referred to by the media as Official Sinn Féin. Led by Tomás Mac Giolla until the party renamed itself Sinn Féin the Workers Party (1982), before settling on the Workers' Party of Ireland (1982).
  • Sinn Féin (Kevin Street)...
Not endorsing the current wording by any means, but showing how a simple edit can state a simple fact in an NPOV way. No need for list wars. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for the source that De Rossa was the leader of SF, anytime your ready MT. BigDunc 09:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same editors, same battles on all these Republican articles. Fascinating to watch. --BwB (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could write a book about it. Oh yes, somebody already has: see 1984 (book). --Red King (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be complete without you throwing in a comment from your favorite book. BigDunc 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading Scolaire's 16:37 contribution as supporting the inclusion of Mac Giolla in the list as Official leader (up to 1982). So how about this as a solution:
In 1970, split into two parties claiming to be the legitimate Sinn Féin
  • Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place), also referred to by the media as Official Sinn Féin. The party renamed itself Sinn Féin the Workers Party (1977), before settling on the Workers' Party of Ireland (1982). Tomás Mac Giolla remained its leader during this period.
  • Sinn Féin (Kevin Street), also referred to by the media as Provisional Sinn Féin. This wing is now generally known as Sinn Féin and was led by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh (1970–1983) and then Gerry Adams (1983–present). Mooretwin (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) You may take it that I am opposed to any edit whose sole purpose is to push a POV that was pushed unsuccessfully for eighteen months on another article. You may also take it that I will not contribute any further to a discussion whose apparent sole purpose is to cause the same disruption on this page that we saw for eighteen months on another talk page. I have a pretty good idea what your response to this will be, but feel free to say it anyway if you want to have The Last Word, because it will be the last word as far as I am concerned. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, we have the same position here as on the main article, with one editor refusing to accept consensus. --Snowded TALK 08:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, enough said. --Domer48'fenian' 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is not to push a POV - quite the opposite, and there is no intent to cause disruption. Scolaire has acknowledged that SF split into two in 1970, therefore the leaders of both sides to the split ought to be listed. Why should this article ignore the leaders of one side, and list those of the other? It is no longer proposed to include leaders after the name change in 1982, so rather than engaging in ad hominem comments, why not explain your objections? Mooretwin (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to include the leaders of both parties after the split until the name change in 1982. --BwB (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also reasonable to include references to support the addition of the names that are likely to be challenged is it not Bigweeboy? --Domer48'fenian' 13:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable and I'm content. Mooretwin (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Domer. As upstanding Wiki editors, we all want to have all the content supported by good references. --BwB (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actioned. Mooretwin (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Domer48 claimed to have "updated" this, but the edit didn't appear to include any new information, while removing mention of Mac Giolla's post-1970 leadership. Hence I reverted. Mooretwin (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made 2 reverts care to explain the other? BigDunc 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? You explained your revert of Domer not of my edit. BigDunc 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under the relevant discussion (entitled "controversial edit". Mooretwin (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added clarity to the text and removed the slant, and have replaced the sentence on MacGiolla. This sentence adds notting to the section, best place for it is in the article, but if it removes the need to find fault, so be it. --Domer48'fenian' 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add any clarity. You went against the agreement here, by removing reference to Mac Giolla's post-1970 leadership (thus inserting your own POV, and removing referenced text - a source for which had been added at your request). You only later added in Mac Giolla, but retained a structure which lists O Bradaigh and Adams separately, rather than dealing with them in the same way as Mac Giolla. Either all post-1970 leaders should be "listed", or all should be mentioned in the explanatory text about the split. Otherwise it's POV. I've made an edit to treat all the post-1970 leaders consistently, but I've retained your "split within the party" phrase, so I can't see any further grounds for complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What agreement? Were is it? Your edits are ignoring the consensus here. This is the History of Sinn Féin, which was moved from the main Sinn Féin Article, your edit here has revert the edit I made here, here now in addition to your edits here and this one again. Now I suggest you self revert as you have gone over the agreed 1RR. --Domer48'fenian' 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement is above, if you read the discussion. This article wasn't "moved from the main Sinn Féin Article" as you claim. I've self-reverted and I suggest you do too as you've also broken 1RR: 1, 2. Mooretwin (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No! I edited the article yesterday, and made one revert today! Now I've read the discussion, and there is no such agreement, please provide a diff if I'm mistaken? --Domer48'fenian' 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my previous post, NPOV does not have to mean perfect balance (still less the pushing of a POV that has failed to get a consensus elsewhere). Where one faction had only one leader, while the other faction had more than one, and especially where is the party known as Sinn Féin today, this edit is sufficient to state the facts in an NPOV way. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An indirect way of re-starting the discussions [4][5][6][7][8] from Sinn Féin talk page, it is being moved both here and here.--Domer48'fenian' 09:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Domer48 made two edits within 24 hours and therefore broke 1RR. He should self-revert. As for Scolaire's comments, the edit to which he links deals inconsistently with the Official and Provo leaders - visually, the Provo leaders are listed as though forming the natural continuation from 1970, while mention of the Official leader is tucked away in explanatory text. This is particularly ironic treatment given that MacGiolla's leadership actually continued uninterrupted after 1970 - with the Provos having to elect a new leader for their new party. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is an edit the same thing as a revert? --Domer48'fenian' 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not and no-one said that it was. An edit which involves a revert, however, is the same as a revert. I don't know how long the definition of a "revert" has been in place, though. Mooretwin (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff of me reverting because if I did it was completely unintentional? Adding text to an article is not a revert! --Domer48'fenian' 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diff has already been provided. "Reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors", in whole or in part. Your first edit partially reversed one of my edits. Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was two days ago, for God's sake! And the text has been edited since anyway. Please stop filling up these talk pages with fruitless arguments about nothing. Scolaire (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tiring and disappointing[edit]

It's amazing to come back to the talk pages of these articles after some time away and to see the same editors squabbling over the same points again and again and again and again......... It seems like it will never end. A bit tiring and disappointing. --BwB (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did you go away? Why not first go away for some time and then come back and add something useful. --Domer48'fenian' 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, Domer. Earlier attempts to add material resulted the same sort of edit wars with the same editors. --BwB (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "adding material". Since Mooretwin merged in the text from Sinn Féin before Christmas we've had this edit, which wasn't reverted, this one, which wasn't reverted, and this one, which was quickly reverted because it added a number of Workers' Party leaders to the list of Sinn Féin leaders. If you yourself had ever added material (as opposed to copyedits), or even argued a point of view (rather than "Mooretwin has a point there"), your complaint about people "squabbling" might carry more weight. As it is, I agree with Domer: it has no obvious use other than to raise the temperature. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote, part 2[edit]

As an admin, I have no opinion one way or the other on what the article's hatnote should or shouldn't be, but could the editors here please weigh in with their opinions on what they believe that the current consensus on the hatnote is (or isn't)? Thanks, --Elonka 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly states on the main Sinn Féin Article here, that this article is the main History of Sinn Féin article. It was agreed that the history section of the main article was too big and should be merged with this article and the editor who is objecting to the tag accepted already that this was the main History of Sinn Féin Article. That they were a party to this discussion, and then this discussion, and then this discussion and then this discussion and they were the editor who merged the backgeound section of the main Sinn Féin Article, into the main History of Sinn Féin Article and now suggest that there was no consensus is just being plain disruptive. --Domer48'fenian' 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus, but I can try to summarise the positions: Domer and BigDunc want the 'main' tag; Mooretwin and Red King want anything but. Damac and Valenciano favour a long, explanatory hatnote, but one which necessarily takes one view of the article. Mooretwin would be happy with that; Domer and BigDunc would not. Cathar suggested 'see also' as a compromise, which Domer and BigDunc went along with, but Mooretwin and Red King see it as a compromise only if there are 'see alsos' to one or more other parties as well. GoodDay is for no hatnote at all if is divisive; Snowded (I think) takes the same view. BrownHairedGirl has removed all hatnotes, but as an admin, not as an editor. I myself don't really have a view. I disagree with Damac's note, or with more than one 'see also', but otherwise the article looks all right to me whichever option is chosen. Scolaire (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48's diff farm and allegations of disruptiveness misrepresent the issue.

There was no "main" hatnote on the History of Sinn Féin article until it was added by Domer48 in December 2009, and promptly reverted. AFAICS, there had been no such hatnote since the article was created in early 2006. Since then, Domer48 has repeatedly re-inserted the hatnote rather than seeking consensus.

There are basically two views on the history of Sinn Féin. One view is that it is a name used by a succession of parties over the last century, with numerous splits along the way, and that the current party is one of a number of successors to the pre-civil war Sinn Féin; the other view is that the current party is the rightful heir to the early one. The article History of Sinn Féin discusses both those perspectives, as does the article on Irish republican legitimatism, and the question of whether the current SF party is the "main" relating to all that history is hotly disputed on sides. Rather than posting a set of irrelevant diffs and seeking to promote one perspective over another, editors should be seeking a consensus on what is the best way to achieve an NPOV representation of the conflicting perspectives.

This article describes a strand in Irish politics which has been subject to a series of seismic changes, notably:

  • A monarchist nationalist movement from 1905-1917
  • A radicalised, more republican group from 1917 (though not unequivocally republican in its early stages)
  • A split in 1922 over the Anglo-Irish Treaty, after which the minority retained the name Sinn Féin
  • Another split in 1926, in which the majority retained the name Sinn Féin, and the minority left to form Fianna Fáil, taking most of the popular Republican vote.
  • A further split in 1970, in which the majority formed what came to be known as Official Sinn Fein, and the minority Provisional Sinn Fein. The Officials renamed themselves the Workers' Party,
  • The provisionals split in 1986, with the minority calling themselves Republican Sinn Féin.

So there are a number of groups which claim to be the "main" descendants of the 1917-1922 SF:

  1. Cumann na nGaedhael and its successor party Fine Gael, who represent the majority at the 1922 split
  2. Fianna Fail, who claim popular legitimacy at the ballot box as the heirs of the post-1922 Republican majority
  3. The Workers' Party of Ireland, which is the direct successor of the majority at the 1970 split
  4. The current Sinn Féin party, a direct continuation on the Provisional minority which retained the Sinn Féin name after the 1970 split
  5. Republican Sinn Féin, whose claim to be rightful successors is based on the republican legitimatist concept of succession to the 2nd Dail, and on adherence to what they regard as fundamental republican principles

Those competing claims are not simply theoretical: they are live issues of political contention in Ireland today. It would be a blatant contravention of WP:NPOV for a wikipedia article to assert that any one of those claims is more valid than the other.

The articles on any of these five groups can point to this History of Sinn Féin article as the the "main" article on their shared (tho disputed) history. However, Domer48's proposition is that the History of Sinn Féin article should one of these five groups as the main article. Domer48's view accurately portrays the perspective of the current Sinn Fein party, but however strongly and sincerely Domer48 holds that view, it remains a heavily-contested view, and arguably a minority view. I suggest that if Domer48 wants to continue to argue that his preferred hatnote is a neutral device rather than a a partisan one, that he offers some evidence that it represents a consensus of political and academic opinion on the subject.

Personally, I doubt that any hatnote can neutrally convey the complexity of the bitter, multi-faceted dispute around who can claim to be legitimate successors of the 1917-1922 party, when even the whole History of Sinn Féin article does a poor job at conveying it. But if (very big IF) a hatnote can help the reader by neutrally reflecting the differing views rather than promoting one contesting perspective, it will be one developed through a consensus effort to represent fairly the conflicting views. The relentless pushing of a partisan POV by repeatedly adding a contested hatnote does not reflect WP:NPOV, and ignores the requirement to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. It also ignores WP:BRD's guidance to discuss' contested changes rather than edit-warring.

As usual with these disputes, the tenacity of some editors leaves them in a "last man standing" situation, where only the most dedicated partisan editors remain. The voices raised recently are those of Domer48 and Mooretwin, two editors with polar-opposite partisan perspectives and long block logs, both reduced to trading allegations of misconduct. However, a number of other editors have contributed to this discussion further up the page, and it's unsurprising that those voices are no longer present when the same dispute over a simple hatnote persists after 6 weeks.

Rather than leave this as yet another war-of-attrition between the two sets of tenacious partisans, I suggest an RFC to encourage uninvolved editors to try to help settle this issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your overview is pretty good, but I'm going to have to call you on some of the details:
  • Sinn Féin 1905-1917 was not monarchist
  • In 1922 the majority in Sinn Féin went anti-treaty
  • In 1926 the majority went into Fianna Fáil with de Valera
  • In 1970 they split down the middle; the oft-cited 'minority' was a minority of delegates at the Ard Fheis
Of course, the proper way of dealing with this is to write a decent article. Once you do that lists, leads, hatnotes etc. pretty well write themselves, since they reflect the article text. I hope to edit the 1905-1917 section very soon, per my post above, and hopefully later deal with the rest, based on my edits to the Sinn Féin article. As regards RfC, it's a good idea in principle, but in practice it usually results in a renewed bout of fighting between existing combatants, with little or no input from outside, as one editor ruefully observed in another Ireland-related discussion recently. Elonka did manage to establish a consensus on the Sinn Féin page last month. I think we should give her a chance to try the same thing here. Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire, that was a rushed summary, and I probably goofed on several of the details, though some of the points are issues of interpretation (e.g. in counting minority or majority positions, whether to count Ard Fheis votes, subsequent affiliations of members, and destination of the popular vote). I agree with you, though, that this history article needs a huge amount if work: it is very sketchy about some critical periods.
I agree that issues such as hatnotes may well become clearer once the article is in better shape. If you are planning to expand the article, wouldn't it be best to postpone further consideration about whether to include a hatnote until that expansion has taken place, and until then to stick with the status quo ante of no hatnote? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl it clearly states on the main Sinn Féin Article both here and here, that this article is the main History of Sinn Féin article. Yes? The editor who was advised to canvass your imput accepts that this is the main History of Sinn Fén Article. Yes? That this issues was well discussed here here here and here. You ignored all that. If you had of read the discussions you would have known that the tag was only added after the merge between the Sinn Fén Article and this one was finished, [9] [10][11][12]. Now the Tag was not added by me in December 09, and there is no need to apologise for yet another of your mistakes. Yes? This has nothing to do with dubious block logs, most of which were over turned. Yes! But then I've again just illustrated how you have "misrepresent the issue" and are trying to argue an issue on this Article which has been resolved already on the Sinn Fén Article! BHG on a final note, your long rambling which don't address any of the issuses raised should be addressed. --Domer48'fenian' 14:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, yet more who-said-what-when diff-farming only obscures the very simple central point: that the 1905-1917 Sinn Fein has numerous descendants, any of which has some degree of claim to be the "main descendant". So while the "History of Sinn Fein" article may be the main historical article on several of them, that is not the same thing as your claim that the current Sinn Fein party is the main article for the history of these different groups.
Rather than repeatedly accusing other editors of mistakes, and edit-warring to repeatedly reinstate a contested hatnote, please try to find some evidence in reliable sources to show that your view of the succession represents a political and/or academic consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again ignoring your misleading comments about me and having a discussion with me on a subject I have not even commented on? Having mixed me up already with Dun, are you now confusing me with Scolaire? Either way, you seem confused? Since you don't want to address the issues I've raised, I'll leave it to Scolaire to entertain you. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, you're right on one point: the hatnote was initially added by BigDunc, and I was wrong to attribute that to you. However, after it was removed, you repeatedly reinstated it despite the lack of a consensus, so my error over the initial addition has little bearing on the substantive point of a lack of consensus.
However, my long post above was addressed to you, because it was a reply to you rather than to Scolaire; and no, I have not confused the two of you.
The issues you raised in diff-farming are a sideshow: the question here is not the same as that discussed at the Sinn Fein article, but it seems that you don't actually want to discuss the question of whether your view of the succession represents a political and/or academic consensus. That's your privelige, but if you don't want to discuss the issues to seek a consensus, then don't edit-war in pursuit of your position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said there is no need to apologise for your misleading comments? Now having apologised for one misleading comment on me, there is no reason to keep making the other ones. You are right when you accept above to Scolaire you "probably goofed on several of the details, though some of the points are issues of interpretation." Now I'll leave it to Scolaire to entertain you, because I've not commented at all on your understanding of the historical details you "goofed on" and simply say that your edit here seems to be more in line with your pov. The editor really lucked out when they canvassed you, what were the chances of that! Bye bye, --Domer48'fenian' 15:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Domer48, it's a pity that you manage to post so many times without once trying to address the substantive issue. Repeated diff-throwing doesn't help reach a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BHG come on, can you please make a post that doesn't concern the edits of another and lets try end this here. Accusation throwing doesn't help reach a consensus. BigDunc 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunc, I made a long post on the substance of the issue, to which Scolaire made a very thoughtful reply, but I am still waiting for Domer stop his diff-throwing and start discussing the substance. He's at it again below, with more diffs ... do neither of you have anything to say on the substance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can editors please stick to the issue and not snipe at each other it entrenches sides and nothing can come of this discussion. BigDunc 16:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your right Dunc, being accused of edit warring from an Admin who has made the same number of reverts as me on the tag [13][14] is a bit of a joke, there best ignored! --Domer48'fenian' 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So ignore it, then, Domer, and try discussing the substance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an off shoot of the SF article and as such the main tag should be added so that the reader can read about the party. All of the splits can be added to this article and a link at each section to the relevant page be it FF, FG or whoever. BigDunc 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I said above Dunc on each section dealing with the various split we place a link to the main Articles on FF, FG, etc.., however on the Sinn Féin Article the hate note says "For the history of the party, see History of Sinn Féin." On the History section of the Sinn Féin Article it say quite clearly "Main article: History of Sinn Féin." The reason it say "Main article: History of Sinn Féin is because this section of the Sinn Féin Article was merged with the History of Sinn Féin Article hereherehere and here. The editor who merged the history section of the Sinn Féin Article with the History of Sinn Féin article accepted the History of Sinn Féin article as being the main article prior to the merge. As was pointed out during the various discussions, trying to create a POV Fork would not be acceptable.--Domer48'fenian' 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the main article dealing with the history of SF before 1970. Any article about any of the post-1970 SFs should therefore point here for a more detailed history - that includes Sinn Féin, Workers' Party of Ireland, Irish Republican Socialist Party and Republican Sinn Féin. The main article to this article, however, is not Sinn Féin, because that article is about only one of the post-1970 parties, yet there were two parties to the 1970 split - and two further splits after that. Sticking a hatnote on this article saying Sinn Féin is the "main" article to which the history of SF refers is clear POV in favour of the Provisional POV. Mooretwin (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the main article dealing with the history of SF before 1970? The main article to this article, however, is Sinn Féin because anything else would be your attempt at a POV Fork. You have been at this for eighteen months on the Sinn Féin and I'll address it the same way. --Domer48'fenian' 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can the main article be Sinn Féin, when that article only deals with one of the post-1970 SFs? Mooretwin (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears however that consensus is against you. I will not be having the same discussion here. --Domer48'fenian' 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, when it comes to discussing substance, you fail to answer the question. "Consensus" on the Sinn Féin article has no bearing on this issue. Although, if you read that article, it says "The Sinn Féin party split in two at the beginning of 1970." Mooretwin (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did, and in an effort to reassert its authority, the Goulding section began to call itself “Official IRA” and “Official Sinn Féin,” but to no avail according to Brian Feeney. Within two years he says the “Provos” as they were called by the media had secured control of the Republican movement, with the 'Officials' both North and South considered a 'discredited rump' and 'regarded as a faction' by what was now the main body of the movement both militarily and politically. Well discussed and well supported! I'll not be discussing it again, and the other editors on the Sinn Féin article have also had enough. --Domer48'fenian' 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? How the Provos regarded the Officials is irrelevant. The fact is there were two SFs after 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the Provos regarded them! That's how Brian Feeney reported it? Bye bye, --Domer48'fenian' 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've just quoted Feeney as saying "with the 'Officials' both North and South considered a 'discredited rump' and 'regarded as a faction' by what was now the main body of the movement both militarily and politically". By "main body" he means the Provos. Regardless of how the Provos regarded the Officials, the fact remains that they were a political party. Mooretwin (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the Provos view of the Officials (or vice versa) has to do with this. There are five groups which can claim the history of Sinn Fein to be part of their history, and a stickies-versus-provos debate is good fun, but doesn't bring anything near a conclusion.

Would anyone disagree with the proposition that the 1917 to 1922 Sinn Féin was at least as significant as the current incarnation? Overwhelming majority in two all-Ireland elections, and government during the War of Independence, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree, and don't see how anyone with even a basic knowledge of Irish history could disagree. Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've just read the following sentences in a mostly unlikely of places: "The 1969 split was a disaster for Irish republicanism. Talented and committed leaders and activists went their separate ways and two Sinn Féins and two IRAs emerged at a time when the Orange state was collapsing and people in the 26 Counties were looking North as never before."
Yes, "two Sinn Féins and two IRAs". Source: An Phoblacht,[15] 24 September 2009.--Damac (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, Damac. And and interesting source. --BwB (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that source at all! --Domer48'fenian' 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tag[edit]

I placed a tag here, as the sentence "After 1982 it was known simply as Sinn Féin" conflicts with a number of subject specific books. I specifically added the [dubious – discuss] because I was not requesting a reference. Now the tag was removed here and replaced with a reference? I would have thought the tag I added was clear enough? Can we have a quote from this fringe view? --Domer48'fenian' 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snowded, the tag was very clear. Now if we can have the quote, we can address the issue. --Domer48'fenian' 22:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...Sinn Fein was riven into official and political factions in 1970 (mirroring a parallel split in the Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.) brought about by differing propensities towards violent action. The former transmuted itself into "Sinn Fein the Workers' Party" and then (in 1982) the "Workers' Party". Since that time, Provisional Sinn Fein has styled itself simply "Sinn Fein"." Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did Sinn Féin style itself "Provisional" Sinn Fein? What is meant by "Sinn Fein was riven into official and political factions in 1970." Why is there no mention of abstentionism? No mention of how in an effort to reassert its authority, the Goulding section began to call itself “Official IRA” and “Official Sinn Féin.”
Northern Ireland: A Chronology of the Troubles 1968-1993, Paul Bew & Gordon Gillespie, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 1993, ISNB 0 7171 2081 3 pg.24-5 cite.’ Two leading commentators on the "Provisionals" noted: ‘The nomenclature, with its echoes of the 1916 rebels’ provisional government of the Irish Republic, reflected the delegates’ belief that the irregularities surrounding the extraordinary convention [1970 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis] rendered it null and void. Any decisions it took were revokable. They proposed to call another convention within twelve months to ‘resolve the leadership of the movement. Until this happened they regarded themselves as a provisional organisation. Ten months later, after the September 1970 Army Council meeting, a statement was issued declaring that the “provisional” period was now officially over, but by then the, name had stuck fast.’ (Bishop and Mallie, p.137)
The sentence conflicts therefore Brian Feeney, Paul Bew, Gordon Gillespie, Patrick Bishop, Eammon Mallie and every other source currently used in the article. The Party never called its self Provisional Sinn Fein, it was a media label, there is not and never has been a Party called Sinn Féin, and all the Authors cited above have addresses this, except the one being offered here to support an off the cuff throw away remark. Its not supported by the article, and should be removed or we just add all the contradictory comments above to address one fringe view. --Domer48'fenian' 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say the party called itself Provisional SF. Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would this help?
  • "The former were referred to throughout the 1970s as 'Provisional Sinn Féin' or 'Sinn Féin (Kevin Street)' to distinguish them from the latter (who eventually became the Workers' Party), but by 1983 they were the only party in Ireland claiming the right to be called 'Sinn Féin'." Michael Gallagher, Political parties in the Republic of Ireland. link. Mooretwin (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the Party was referred to as 'Provisional Sinn Féin' to distinguish them from the Goulding section who began to call itself “Official IRA” and “Official Sinn Féin.” Now this is very simple, on the link you provided, in the last paragraph directly under your quote above it says "In 1971 Sinn Féin published a set of policies (Sinn Féin, 1971) for a 'Eire Nua' (New Ireland)". Who is Michael Gallagher referring too? Answer a)Sinn Féin or b)the party who called themselves “Official Sinn Féin?”? --Domer48'fenian' 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say the party called itself Provisional SF. Mooretwin (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Michael Gallagher referring too, Answer a) or b)?--Domer48'fenian' 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. What matters is that the party was initially referred to as PSF - as the sources say - but eventually became known - and are now known - simply as SF (once the Officials ditched the SF name). That's what the text says and that's what Gallagher's quotation supports. Mooretwin (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to waste my time, the sentence gets removed, or gets heavily qualified. I'll propose it gets removed, as this is covered in the article. Editors are not interested in semantics. --Domer48'fenian' 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you, Domer, what you believe the situation to be? You accept that the party called itself Sinn Féin (Kevin Street), and was referred to by the media as Provisional Sinn Féin. You accept (I presume) that it is now referred to as, and calls itself, simply Sinn Féin. Do the sources say when that change occurred, or do they say anything that can be cited as evidence of when it occurred? To me it seems logical that it happened when the other party stopped calling itself Sinn Féin, and that is also my memory of it, but of course neither logic or memory is enough. The quote from Clive Walker, "[PSF] has styled itself simply Sinn Féin", does not bear out the statement "it was known simply as Sinn Féin". Mooretwin would be the first to say that those are not the same thing. Michael Gallagher isn't writing as a historian, but on the whole he seems to have a better grasp of the situation, so I would be more inclined to accept that source, if no better or clearer one is available. Scolaire (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Gallagher is the better of the two sources. Others have been provided that say "the party was originally known as PSF, but is now simply SF", but which do not provide a date when the change happened. Walker and Gallagher provide dates, which is why they are relevant here. Mooretwin (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never be able to provide a source to support the suggestion that the party called its self Sinn Féin (Kevin Street), if they did, I've never seen a source that said they did. If there is one please let us see it? Likewise I've read sources which support the fact that it was referred to by the media as Provisional Sinn Féin, and Sinn Féin (Kevin Street). Being referred to by the media as Provisional Sinn Féin, and Sinn Féin (Kevin Street) and the Party accepting the titles is not the same thing.--Domer48'fenian' 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to answer Scolaire's question? Mooretwin (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What question? Scolaire made a number of incorrect assumptions and I addressed them. Now on the subject of questions, do you want to answer the very simple one I asked above? Scolaire can if they wish answer also? And anyone at all can provide a source that says that Sinn Féin ever accepted, acknowledged or used the media titles Provisional Sinn Féin, or Sinn Féin (Kevin Street). I've provided a source that says the Goulding faction began to call themselves “Official IRA” and “Official Sinn Féin and that was before they ever called themselves Sinn Féin The Workers' Party. --Domer48'fenian' 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional text which should help the discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He asked you what you believed the situation to be, but you didn't answer. I'm not sure why you're asking for a source saying PSF ever "accepted, acknowledged or used" the PSF title. No-one's suggesting that they did. The discussion, as far as I can work out, is about when they stopped being referred to as PSF. We have two sources, one more helpful than the other, saying it was after OSF became the WP- which, as Scolaire says, would make sense. Mooretwin (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some sections of the media still to this day refer to the Party as "Provisional Sinn Féin" [16][17][18], so to support the inclusion of a sentence that says "After 1982 it was known simply as Sinn Féin" is complete nonsense! To also suggest that the Party was not referred to as Sinn Féin before 1982 would be equally ludicrous as I indicated above using the link you provided. --Domer48'fenian' 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's suggesting either of those things. The text in question conveys the general position, but there will always be exceptions, of course. If you're not happy with the current wording, I'm sure other editors would be happy to consider any revisions that you might propose or alternative sources that you might provide. The link that you mention, of course, is a retrospective reference: that book was published long after PSF had ceased to be the main name by which the party was referred. (It's encouraging, by the way, that you now accept that Provisional Sinn Fein was a term used for the party: it shows the usefulness of dialogue.) Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been fed enough! The text gets heavily qualified.Pending it being removed per WP:Fringe. --Domer48'fenian' 10:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we OK to remove the "dubious" tag, and replace it with the Gallagher source noted above, which supports 1982 as the approximate date when PSF became more generally known as SF? Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we now have a source supporting the text, I intend to remove the dubious tag within the next few days, assuming no objections are forthcoming. Mooretwin (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, although he didn't object here, Domer48 had now re-inserted the "dubious" tag. It's not clear why, given that the Gallagher citation has now been provided. It appears that he is now arguing, going by the additional text that he has added - and contrary to what he used to argue - that the name Provisional SF continued after 1983. Is this a correct understanding? Please explain. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "dubious" tag is back in, without explanation, and text about the Provisional tag added, without explanation. It is unclear what is being disputed here, and the editor inserting the "dubious" tag refuses to explain. Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1905 to 1917[edit]

I have done a complete rewrite based on this discussion. Comments and suggestions welcome. Scolaire (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1930's to 1946 and 1947 to 1968[edit]

I split the two sections into 1930s to 1947 and 1948 to 1969. While the history of the party during the 30s up to 47 isn't of much importance, the latter section definitely needs to be expanded (which I'm trying to do). If anyone can go through Hanley and Millar's the Lost Revolution and put the important points up it would be helpful. Coogan's The IRA would be also useful. Exiledone (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any expansion of this section is very welcome. Brian Feeney and Kevin Rafter have both written books on Sinn Féin; these should not be overlooked. Scolaire (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin Funds case[edit]

This edit has a number of problems with it, as I pointed out when I reverted. But the major problem is that while it may have been "actually a highly important case in terms of separation of powers", that has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of Sinn Féin. What is relevant, that the judge ruled that the 1945 Sinn Féin was not the direct successor of the Sinn Féin of 1917, is removed by the edit. The separation of powers aspect might well be dealt with in a separate article, Sinn Féin Funds case, but if somebody is to attempt it, a bit more research might be in order. This edit summary, "Laffan is clearly wrong", is ridiculous. Laffan is the source that is being cited in this sentence, and if he is clearly wrong (which he's not) it needs a reliable source that says he is. While it's true that "the 1947 Sinn Fein Funds Act was declared repugnant [to the constitution] by the judge", the case was not primarily about the act; it was about the funds. The document linked to in the citation relates to "an ex parte application, made on behalf of the Attorney General of Eire, for an order of the High Court pursuant to s. 10 of the Sinn Féin Funds Act, 1947", not to the original action by Margaret Buckley and others. The judgement in the case itself, surprise, surprise!, was what Laffan said it was. Scolaire (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing?[edit]

What does it mean to say that Sinn Féin is left-wing? That's a rather broad term, especially for a resource like Wikipedia that can be read in any number of different countries where left-wing refers to markedly different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Sinn_Féin&oldid=1207554865"