Wikipedia

Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 6

< Talk:Sinn Féin
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mooretwin in topic Edit of History section, part 3
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Way forward

Latest comment: 14 years ago47 comments9 people in discussion

Based on the evidence provided by the sources, the following changes need to be made to the article:

  1. Significant culling of the "History" section, as this is already covered in the History of Sinn Féin article. All we need is a very brief background section with a link to the History article.
  2. This article really needs to start with the split. The current "1969–1970 Resurgence and "Provisional" / "Official" split" needs to be rewritten from a NPOV. Obviously it should include the Provisional version of events, and the Provisional view that they were, in fact, the true SF, inheriting the legacy from 1905.
  3. The lead needs to be reworked to reflect the article.
  4. Consideration should be given to renaming History of Sinn Féin as Sinn Féin 1905-1970. Mooretwin (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've partially reverted the infobox and lead back to the pre-November version per the discussions here and at the WP:NPOVN. I amended the wording of the lead, hopefully this compromise will stick. I'm not sure about actually splitting the article to mirror how the IRA articles are split. I think this article should remain at its current title and continue to be about the current party, with the history section focusing on post-1970. Rather than create Sinn Féin (1905 - 1922), Sinn Féin (1922 - 1970) and three new history articles, the entire history from 1905 to date can continue to be located at History of Sinn Féin. Seems more logical to me. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm proposing. You'll see from the four bullet points that I'm no longer proposing the creation of the additional articles. Mooretwin (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Im copying this commrnt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Talk:Sinn_F.C3.A9in Was this discussion notified on the talk page of the article itself? If not then the above does not constitute a consensus for change. I note that participation above comprises only one side of the argument on the talk page itself. --Snowded TALK 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) As this discussion wasnt notified here I am reverting Stuarts edit as no consensus was arrived at here.Cathar11 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I started the discussion at NPOVN to get new input. I wasn't going to canvas anyone. And Cathar, if you think there's no consensus for my change, then your correct action would be revert to the stable, pre-November version of the text. Domer had no consensus to change that version (breaching NPOV) but yet you seem keen to let it stand? Here's the link to the stable version, I expect you'll want to restore it now. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You do have to notify things on the talk page you know, and you certainly can't claim consensus for an edit if you don't. --Snowded TALK 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If I was starting a vote on the issue elsewhere, of course I would notify those already involved. But I was seeking input from uninvolved editors. What benefit would there be in those already involved repeating everything stated here on the NPOV noticeboard? Stu ’Bout ye! 16:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be fine if you brought them here, or copied the discussion. What you can't do is claim a consensus. Also the editors involved there were hardly uninvolved now were they. --Snowded TALK 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
My opening sentence at NPOVN was "Can I request some input regarding a dispute at the above talk page." I did direct them here. Maybe I didn't word it correctly. JD and Judith were not involved up to that point. If my intent was to game the system I would have emailed several users privately asking for their support, or something similar. Whereas I posted on the noticeboard specifically for disputes of this type. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but then on the basis of a discussion elsewhere, without notification on this talk page you claimed a consensus based edit. Right place to post, but it should have come here, or been notified here before any action was taken on the article itself. It was the edit summary of your amendment which created the issue. --Snowded TALK 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we try and see what the issues are? There appears no question that there is continuity with the 1905 formation, or that the various splits created various organisations that have a common lineage. There appears to be a difference as to what constitutes foundation between those who believe a split means a new creation date and those who think that the split per se (especially for a dominant successor) means that the origin remains. Is that fair? --Snowded TALK 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that some people wish this article to remain as it is, giving the impression that the current SF party was not formed by splitting from the 1905 party, but actually is the 1905 party, and/or that the party is the "one true successor" to 1905. No sources (other than 3 book titles) have been provided for this, but many sources have been provided to show that the current party began in 1970. This proposed way forward allows for this article to be about the post-1970 party, but with an explanation of the Provisional POV (i.e. that it is the "one true SF" with a direct, uninterrupted and unchallenged lineage from 1905). Pre-1970 is covered in the "History of SInn Féin" article. Mooretwin (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Totally disagree with the suggestion above by Mooretwin and it was a bit sneaky to go to a noticeboard without notifying any participant to this discussion and when like minded editors agree you then claim consensus. BigDunc 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't be absurd, it was exactly the correct action to take. It's what the NPOV noticeboard is for. Nothing "sneaky" about it. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Any reason why BigDunc "totally disagrees"? Mooretwin (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You are trying to create a new article about a party which don't exist. BigDunc 18:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Big Dunc is engaging in doublethink again. The party that is currently registered under the name SF is a new party that was founded in 1970. Full stop, end of story. For the background, see History of SF. That is as much as the article can say. Anything else is WP:OR and not verifiable against independent, neutral, reliable sources. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
And again RK is talking rubbish SF the party that Adams is the president were founded in 1905. Full stop, end of story. BigDunc 19:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
So, according to your sources, what happened in 1970? Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Flesh on the bones (1): history/background section

This section should be renamed "Background", and be significantly reduced, given that we already have a History of Sinn Féin article which rightly covers this ground. The Background section should read something like:

Main article: History of Sinn Féin

The Sinn Féin party was founded by Arthur Griffith in 1905, and its originally policy was for an Anglo-Irish dual monarchy like that which existed under Grattan's Parliament and the so-called Constitution of 1782, which it considered to be still in effect because it deemed the Act of Union of 1800 to have been illegal. The party remained small until it was wrongly blamed by the British for the Easter Rising. After the Rising, Eamon de Valera replaced Griffith as president and, in 1917, it committed for the first time to the establishment of an Irish republic. In the 1918 general election, Sinn Féin won 73 of Ireland's 105 seats, and in January 1919, its MPs assembled in Dublin and proclaimed themselves to be the parliament of Ireland. The party supported the Irish Republican Army during the War of Independence, and negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the British Government in 1921. The terms of the Treaty split the party in two, a Civil War was fought, and the majority (pro-Treaty) side went on to form the first Government of the Irish Free State as Cumann na nGaedheal. The minority (anti-Treaty) side retained the Sinn Féin name and refused to recognise the new independent state.

Sinn Féin split again in 1926 with the departure of de Valera, who left to form Fianna Fáil and to participate in constitutional politics in the Irish parliament.

The party subsequently declined into a fringe movement and in the 1960s, it moved to the left, adopting a 'stagist' approach similar to orthodox Communist analysis.

Views? Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to this going in? Mooretwin (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Object to this selective and narrow historical section written to comply with an agendaCathar11 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more specific? Remember the history of SF is covered in the History of Sinn Féin article. All that is needed here is a brief overview of events by way of background. If we put it into the article, you can still edit it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Flesh on the bones (2): section on split

Regarding no. 2 of the "way forward" above, this is a start in moving towards NPOV (changes in bold):

Formation: Provisional/Official split

There were two splits in the Republican Movement in the period 1969 to 1970. One in December 1969 in the IRA, and the other in Sinn Fein in January 1970.[1]

The stated reason for the split in the IRA was ‘partition parliaments’ [2] however the division was the product of discussions in the 1960s over the merits of political involvement as opposed to a purely military strategy. [3] The split when it finally did come in December 1969, arose over the playing down of the role of the IRA and its inability in defending the nationalist population in Northern Ireland. [4] One section of the Army Council wanted to go down a purely political (Marxist) road, and abandon armed struggle.[5] IRA had been dabbed on the walls over the north and was used to disparage the IRA, by writing beside it, “I Ran Away.” [6] Those in favour of a purely military strategy accused the leadership of rigging the Army convention, held in December and the vote on abandoning the policy of abstentionism and abandoning the nationalists.[7]

In January 1970, at a reconvening of the Army Council, the two motions in December were overturned. It was then decided to set up a Provisional Army Council because it was intended to reconvene in six months in order to regularise the IRA, when the term provisional would be abandoned. [8] The split in the Republican Movement was completed on 11 January 1970, when at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis the proposal to drop abstention was put before the members. [9] The policy of abandoning abstentionism had to be passed by a two-thirds majority to change the Party’s constitution.[10] Supporters of the Provisional Army Council made allegations of malpractice, including voting by pro-Goulding supporters who were not entitled to vote. [11] When the vote was taken the result was 153 to 104 in favour. The leadership had failed to achieve the two-thirds majority. The leadership then attempted to propose a motion in support of the (Goulding) IRA Army Council. This motion would only have required a simple majority. [12] About a third of the delegates saw this as an attempt to subvert the party's constitution, refused to vote and withdrew from the meeting.[13][14] Pre-empting this move they had booked a hall in 44 Parnell Square, where they established a “caretaker executive” of what became known as Provisional Sinn Féin.[15][16] The "Official" majority faction which remained loyal to the leadership became known as Official Sinn Féin and later evolved into the Workers' Party of Ireland.[17] Official Sinn Féin was also referred to as Sinn Fein (Gardiner Place) and Provisional Sinn Féin as Sinn Fein (Kevin Street), due to the location of the opposing offices.

1. Bell (1997), p.366; Feeny (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8; Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5
2. Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
3. Ferriter (2005), p.624
4. Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5; Feeny (2002), pp.249-50; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Bell (1997), p.366; Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281
5. Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
6. Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.2811
7. Bell (1997), p.363; Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; Anderson (2002), p.186
8. Anderson (2002), p.184
9. Anderson (2002), p.186
10. Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
11. Anderson (2002), pp.187
12. Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
13. Bell (1997), p.366; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
14. Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
15. Bell (1997), p.367; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
16. Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
17. CAIN Abstract of Organisations: entry under Workers Party.

Views? Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More than one third of delegates were involved. The meeting they held was to defend the Sinn Féin constitution. Parralel organisations were created. Referred to at the time as....... It continued to use this constitution. Does this sound like a new organisation???Cathar11 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Richard English says about a third walked out. Your opinion that the meeting was to "defend the Sinn Féin constitution" is very interesting, but you are not a reliable source and, in any case, whether PSF continued to use the SF constitution doesn't matter - they still walked out and formed their own party, as per the sources. They were a minority. They created their own HQ at Kevin St, separate from the SF HQ at Gardiner Place. They started up their own newspaper, An Phoblacht, separate from the SF paper United Irishman. They elected their own leader, Ruairi O Bradaigh, separate from the SF leader Tomas Mac Giolla. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Republican Sinn Fein? You only need to put four - to make a line... ~ R.T.G 12:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The RSF split in 1986 would be/is dealt with later in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought all this other stuff was too. I thought that RSF was highly relevant to todays SF as it might seem that the split was an expression of the cessation of violence and an indicator of differing support as when splitting at other times the focus of support has shifted toward the continuing militant campaigns. In fact is this the only Sinn Fein split where main support followed the non-militant route? It must be the only non-militant progression of Sinn Fein since Arthur Griffiths campaigns and even that is debatable, he hardly was discouragig it was he? I doubt that it is too much OR to note that observation on the article? It would shed light on the Continuity IRA but I don't see any question to neutrality. Shedding light on the Continuity IRA lends probably favour to Sinn Fein but it could still be a major element shaping SF today. ~ R.T.G 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, in all the splits with the exception of DeV's second one, it was the majority, non-militant, element that attracted the main support. Obviously the press was more interested in the minority of militants. --Red King (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Any objections to this going in now? It can, of course, be further edited once it's in. Mooretwin (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you simplify "regularise" and explain "Ard Fheis"? I don't know enough to approve/dissaprove your details looks pretty much "they disagreed and split such a date". GLuck ~ R.T.G 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right to query "regularise": it looks like POV language. The section needs a more radical re-write - I just made a few small amendments to it to get rid of the more glaring POV. If we're content with the changes in bold, we can insert the new section, and continue to edit it. As for "Ard Fheis", it is the Irish Gaelic word for "conference", used by various SF parties to describe their annual conference. (You're right that it probably needs explanation for the WP readership.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer both questions together: (1) I agree absolutely that the whole "history" section needs to be drastically reduced - it is almost a verbatim reproduction of the History article. (2) The question of whether to call it "history" or "background" is really an extension of the "1905 or 1970" debate; I think it would be better to shelve that question and try to agree a text first. (3) The split itself is only one part of that history, so it may be that a "History 1970-1983" section would make more sense than just re-writing the "split" section. (4) I'm not really in a position to review your detailed proposals on a Thursday morning; if you would be willing to wait a few days I will be glad to collaborate on improving these sections. Scolaire (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, willing to wait and to collaborate with you. Happy with (1) and (3). Regarding (2), we have to conclude that that debate is settled. The evidence for 1970 is overwhelming, and all we have for 1905 is three book titles: one a party publication and two others which the books themselves support 1970 (I've gained access to Rafter today and will post what he has to say). Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence for 1970 is overwhelming, there was no new party! --Domer48'fenian' 09:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to make sense, but every single source so far disagrees with you, with the apparent exception of a party publication. Mooretwin (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! It is now accepted that there is not and never has been a party called PSF! Read the sources again without the user of the media term and it becomes really simple. --Domer48'fenian' 10:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing two issues. Whether or not the party was called PSF (by itself) is a different question. By the same argument, there was no party called OSF either ("without the user of the media term"). Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a party called OSF! It started as a media term, but was later adopted as an official title. --Domer48'fenian' 13:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What source are you using to support that? And what bearing does that have on your (unsourced) efforts to contradict the scores of sources saying the current SF party was formed in 1970? Mooretwin (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we have to conclude, then, that the debate isn't settled. Since nothing new had been said for quite a long time, however, I still believe we should let it lie for now, and try to work at getting a concise and NPOV history section. Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What debate are you saying isn't settled? Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You said above, "Regarding (2), we have to conclude that that debate is settled." Given this edit and this one and this one, plus the exchanges immediately above here, I would have to conclude that the debate is still ongoing. It has, however, become stagnant, and nothing is ever going to be achieved by a continuation of "I'm right", "No, I'm right". Let's look at the History section, and come back to this when we have some new ideas. Scolaire (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Could people stop using edit summaries like "agreement has not been reached on the talk page to change this - please make the case there". There was no agreement for Domer to change the article from the stable version in the first place. Yet you are prepared to edit war to enforce this unagreed version. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Scolaire, policy on WP is to go with the sources. The sources overwhelmingly say that the party was formed in 1970. Editors who refuse to accept what the sources say should not be allowed to impose their will on the article simply by their determination to edit-war. Why are you content to allow this to happen? Mooretwin (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not "content" to let anything happen. I'm not in favour of the current - or any - edit-war. All I'm saying is that an edit-war is compelling evidence that the debate around it is not settled, regardless of the belief of one or both parties that they have won. I have more to say on your "overwhelming sources", but I decline to say it at this time, because I have begun the job of overhauling the History section and I do not wish to be side-tracked from it. Now, you said you were willing to collaborate with me. Is that still true? If so, can we confine the discussion to the bottom of the page? It's hard to keep track of a discussion that's going on in two places at once. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for editing the History section

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

My proposals, I have to say at the outset, are far more radical than Mooretwin's. The history of Sinn Féin, as far as I am concerned, takes in everything from the meeting in the Rotunda to the 2009 European elections. All of it needs to be drastically reduced, so that history will take up a reasonable proportion of the article. Two things I think are worth saying: first, that there is no need to introduce concepts such as "succession", "legacy" or "legitimacy" - a statement of the facts will do; and second, that the history of Sinn Féin is not the history of Ireland, or the history of the Troubles. In editing down, the focus should always be firmly on where Sinn Féin was, what it was doing and what it was saying. I suggest that there should be a single History section, with sub-headings "1905-1922", "1922-1970", "1970-1983" and "1983 to the present". Here is a proposed draft for the first section:

Sinn Féin was founded on 28 November 1905, when, at the first annual Convention of the National Council, Arthur Griffith outlined the Sinn Féin policy (MacDonncha (2005), p.12). That policy was "to establish in Ireland's capital a national legislature endowed with the moral authority of the Irish nation" (Griffith, The Resurection of Hungary, p. 161). Sinn Féin contested the Leitrim North bye-election of 1908 and secured 27% of the vote (Brian Feeney, Sinn Féin: a hundred turbulent years, pp. 49-50). Thereafter both support and membership fell until at the 1910 Ard Fheis (party conference) the attendance was poor and there was difficulty finding members willing to take seats on the executive (Feeney, pp. 52-4).
In 1914 Sinn Féin members including Griffith joined the anti-Redmond Irish Volunteers, which was referred to by Redmondites and others as the "Sinn Féin Volunteers". Although Griffith himself did not take part in the Easter Rising of 1916, many Sinn Féin members, who were also members both of the Volunteers and the Irish Republican Brotherhood, did. Government and newspapers dubbed the Rising "the Sinn Féin Rising" (Feeney pp. 56-7). After the Rising republicans came together under the banner of Sinn Féin, and at the 1917 Ard Fheis the party committed itself for the first time to the establishment of an Irish Republic. In the 1918 general election, Sinn Féin won 73 of Ireland's 105 seats, and in January 1919, its MPs assembled in Dublin and proclaimed themselves Dáil Éireann, the parliament of Ireland. The party supported the Irish Republican Army during the War of Independence, and members of the Dáil government negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the British Government in 1921. In the Dáil debates that followed, the party divided on the Treaty. Anti-Treaty members led by Éamon de Valera walked out, and pro- and anti-Treaty members took opposite sides in the ensuing Civil War (citations to follow).

On a procedural matter: in an edit as drastic as this, it is probably desirable to merge the affected sections with History of Sinn Féin, rather than just delete the current text. Scolaire (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely opposed to these proposals (as I understand them) in the macro sense because they would maintain - even strengthen - the current Provisional POV of this article, by giving the impression that the current SF party is the sole direct and legitimate successor to the 1905 party. An impression overwhelmingly contradicted by the sources provided. This article is about the current party and therefore should begin in 1970 with a short background section explaining the split. The History of Sinn Féin article should really be about the party up to 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this "Provisional POV" that is being suggested? Who said that the current SF party is the sole direct and legitimate successor to the 1905 party? There is not one person who has suggested this. This article is about the party and therefore should begin in 1905. There was no "new" party created in 1970! SF as a party did not dissolve in 1970! There is not and never has been a party called PSF, that is just a media term to differentiate between the two factions of the party in 1970. This is not disputed now by anyone! This is overwhelmingly supported by the sources which I provided. Any editor, who accepts that PSF was only a media term and yet insists that the party today was only founded in 1970 is only being disruptive and should be ignored. --Domer48'fenian' 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Moorertwin, the intention is not to bolster any claim to "sole succession" - just the opposite! As I said above, I want to take the question of "sole succession" out of it altogether. But the history of the 1917, 1923 and 1948 Sinn Féins - whether you see them as one and the same or not - is the history of the current Sinn Féin. The current Sinn Féin would not now exist without those earlier incarnations. And there is nothing to stop the Fianna Fáil, Workers' Party or ather articles from including exactly the same history. My proposed first paragraph is not essentially different to the one you proposed on Wednesday. The main difference is that where you summarised older, unreferenced information (e.g. "wrongly blamed for the Rising") I have tried to present a more coherent picture based on recent sources. So why do you think our approaches are totally divergent? Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's more then one SF party, split this article into those seperate SF parties. Then have a SF disambiguation page. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And will you write all theses articles for us? Let's try to keep the talk page for constructive discussion, can we? Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me, I've gotta get a band-aid for my bite-wound. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To Scolaire: I said my objection was at a macro level. At a micro level I have no difficulty with your text. The issue is that this article gives the impression that the current SF party was formed in 1905 and continues as that same party. In fact, as the sources say, it was formed by a minority break-away from the 1905 party in 1970. Therefore this article does not need a "History" section that treats the 1905-1918, 1922-1938, etc., periods the same way as, say, the 1970-86 period. The history of SF before 1970 is mere background. The history of this SF (which is the subject of this article) begins in 1970 with the split. Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. What I'm trying to do here is edit down the current overblown history in order to give a more neutral impression. As I understand it, you are in agreement that some treatment of the pre-1970 period is needed. Let's continue to look at the text on a "micro" level, and maybe that will give us greater clariy in the longer term in determining in what format that text is presented. Here is a proposed draft for the second section:

Pro-Treaty Dáil deputies and other Treaty supporters formed a new party, Cumann na nGaedhael, on 27 April 1923 at a meeting in Dublin where delegates agreed a constitution and political programme (Michael Gallagher, Political Parties in the Republic of Ireland, p. 41). Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin members continued to boycott the Dáil. At a special Ard Fheis in March 1926 de Valera proposed that elected members be allowed to take their seats in the Dáil if and when the controversial oath of allegiance was removed. When his motion was defeated, de Valera resigned from Sinn Féin and on 16 May 1926 founded his own party, Fianna Fáil (Tim Pat Coogan, The IRA, pp. 77-8). With the success of Fianna Fáil, support for Sinn Féin fell to pre-1916 levels (Michael Laffan, The resurrection of Ireland: the Sinn Féin Party, 1916-1923, p. 443). An attempt in the 1940s to access funds which had been put in the care of the High Court led to the Sinn Féin Funds Case, which the party lost and in which the judge ruled that it was not the direct successor of the Sinn Féin of 1917 (Laffan, p. 450). In the 1960s Sinn Féin moved to the left, in line with the changing policy of the IRA. It also moved towards the ending of abstentionism, although that movement was opposed by some members, notably Seán Mac Stíofáin and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh (Robert William White, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh: the life and politics of an Irish revolutionary, p. 119).

Please remember that this is only a draft proposal. All comments and amendments are welcome. Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, I don't understand. You said your rewrite was to be more radical than mine. Yet it is more than twice as long. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I said my proposal was more radical than yours. What I am proposing is to edit down "1969–1970 Resurgence", "1970s and 1980s", "Links with the IRA" and "Peace Process" sections to the same extent, and to take "Organisational structure" and "Electoral performance" out of the History section and into the article proper. In that way I hope to make the article what you say it should be: an article about a current political party rather than another article about 20th century Irish history from a republican perspactive.
Now, you say my re-write of the earlier sections is more than twice as long as yours. That is true. It is because I thought it desirable, to use your own phrase, to put "flesh on the bones". I think you will find it is still far shorter than what is now in the article - and what must remain in the article until we reach consensus on an alternative. Can you specify what parts of my proposed text are not useful in establishing what you see as the background to the formation of the current party? In that way we can get the collaboration up and running. Scolaire (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm clearer now. I agree about taking "Organisational structure" and "Electoral performance" out of the History section. (Why were they there in the first place?) Carry on - I'm happy with your efforts so far. My concern - as I've said - is at a macro level, but we'll see what the article looks like when you've finished your re-write (for which you have my support). Mooretwin (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
According to History of Fianna Fáil, your text "de Valera proposed that elected members be allowed to take their seats in the Dáil if and when the controversial oath of allegiance was removed" is not correct. It says that he proposed deleting the statement of fidelity. This is more likely: I can't see him expecting to delete the oath of allegiance to the state. --Red King (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
According to History of Fianna Fáil, "Fianna Fáil initially refused to enter the Irish Free State's Dáil Éireann in protest at the Oath of Allegiance which all members of the Dáil were obliged to take." It says nothing about any statement of fidelity. Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to move Scolaire's rewrite into the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember what I said above, we will have to merge the affected sections with History of Sinn Féin, not just delete the current text. I would rather wait until I have finished my proposed edit (1983 to the present), then I will be happy to do the work myself. Scolaire (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SOS - citation needed

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

I'm working on the 1970-1983 subsection of the History at the moment, and I need a reference for the use of the name/nickname/label/tag "Provisional Sinn Féin". Though most of the books cited by Mooretwin above use the wording "Provisional Sinn Féin", none of them seem to say where, when, how or with whom the name/label originated. I have looked through the whole of The Times Digital Archive and The Guardian/Observer Historical Archive for the year 1970 and the wording does not appear at all (although "Sinn Féin" and "Provisional Army Council" do appear in close proximity). The wording does appear twice in The Irish Times in 1970, but both times in small, peripheral pieces on the inside pages. In its report of the 1970 Easter Parades, by contrast, The Irish Times refers to the "Caretaker" Sinn Féin. So, can anybody provide a citation? Without it we cannot say that Ó Brádaigh's supporters were called, dubbed or referred to as "Provisional Sinn Féin". Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Bardon says "the names Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA remained with them ever since". Agnes Maillot says "To aim to unite the working class was seen as a dangerous path by those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin ...". There are dozens of sources using the term, and entries in political directories, etc., under the name Provisional Sinn Féin. Mooretwin (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not my question, Mooretwin. There are already two sources in the article saying that the name "remained with them". I'm asking when and by whom the name was given to them. Can you source that for me, please? Scolaire (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You have sufficient sources to say that they were known as Provisional SF. I'm not aware of a source saying "who" gave them the name, although I'll hunt around. Not sure why you need to mention who gave them the name in the article - you can just say they were known as PSF. Mooretwin (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"They were known as" is a classic example of weasel words. If I came across a similar phrase in an article I was not involved in, my first reaction would be to slap a [who?] on it. Of course "who" is important! Was it an Irish politician? A British journalist? A Chinese barber? The absence of any evidence that anybody used the name in the twelve months following the meetings of 11 January leaves a huge question mark over all of the cited sources. As of now I have sufficient sources to say that years after the event they would be known to historians as Provisional SF; no more than that. Scolaire (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, from "The Provisional IRA" by Patrick Bishop and Eamon Mallie, (1987), p.137 on the split in the IRA, "A few days before Christmas" 1969: The new 'Provisionals' met;

"Their first act was to repudiate the proposals passed at the previous Convention [dropping abstentionism] and to reafirm their allegiance to 'the 32 county Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by Dail Eireann in 1919, overthrown by force of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the British imposed 26 county and 6 county partitionist states'. They elected a Provisional Executive of twelve, which then withdrew to elect a Provisional Army Council of seven. The nomneclature, with its echoes of the 1916 rebels' Provisional Government of the Irish Republic reflected the belief that the irregularities surrounding Goulding's convention rendered it null and void. Any decisions it took were revocable. 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 movement. Ten months later, after the Spetember 1970 Army Council meeting, a statement was issued declaring that the 'provisional' period was now over, but by then the name had stuck fast."

In SF itself (p138): "The [Sinn Fein] Ard Fheis was held on 11 January 1970 in the intercontinental hotel in Dublin. When the resolution to end abstentionism was voted on it was carried, but without the majority necessary for it to become the policy of teh movement...[after a motion of confidence in teh leadership was passed], MacStiofain seized the other [microphone] and announcedthe at Goulding no longer represented the IRA and that to support him would be a breach ofteh Sinn Fein constitution, He declared his allegiance to the Provisional Army Council, urged th delegates to follow him, and left the meeting accompanied by about one third of the 257 Delegates to reconvene in a conference hall in parnel Square which had already been hired for the occasion."

In short, the provos themselves used the term for about ten months at the start, when they were still setting up their organisation. After that, they considered tehmselves to be the IRA and SF, but the name was already in common usage to distinguish them from the 'Officials'. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where are the words "Provisional Sinn Féin" in that quote? I'm not disputing that the abstentionists were called "Provisionals" or that "Provisional Sinn Féin" is a common enough label now. I'm looking for a specific reference to where that name or label was used at the start. Scolaire (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Maillot refers to "those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin". English says MacStiofain and colleagues "formed what became Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) and announced publicly that a Provisional Army Council had been set up to reorganize the IRA". Sounds contemporary to me.
Bardon says "The breakaway group, as an interim arrangement, elected a provisional executive ... with ... Ruari O Bradaigh as president of Provisional Sinn Féin ...". Hennessey says "from this point there were two IRAs … matched by two parallel Sinn Féins – Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin". Feeney says that Provisional Sinn Féin was founded in 1970. CAIN says "The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein".
If you don't want to say that they were known as Provisional SF, why can't you just use a form of words along the lines of what the many sources say - some good possibilities above. Although, personally, I think "was known as PSF" is fine (it's backed up by the sources and satisfies those editors who are concerned to emphasise that the party was never officially known as PSF - which is true, although as yet we have no source to back it up). Mooretwin (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are sources which show that the party was known as PSF in its early days, but is now known as PSF - thus refuting your suggestion that PSF is a retrospective label applied later:
  • John McGarry and Brendan O'Leary (1995), Explaining Northern Ireland: Broken images, Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd, p.511
    • Provisional Sinn Féin, republican political party which supported the PIRA, now known as Sinn Féin .
  • Peter Barberis, John McHugh and Mike Tyldesley (2000), Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations, New York:Blackwell Publishers Ltd, p.244
    • Provisional Sinn Féin, now known simply as Sinn Féin, emerged out of the fundamental split in the Republican movement which took place during the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in January 1970. ... . Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire I'll try get some sources together later today which actually answer the question ask. Rather than repeat myself, this might help here--Domer48'fenian' 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nell McCafferty says PSF called themselves PSF: The members of the breakaway faction, which emphasized armed struggle over politics, called themselves Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA ... (Nell McCafferty (2004), Nell, Penguin Ireland, p.250). Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
@Scolaire, no mention of 'Provisional SF', but a clue to where the name came from. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
So Nell McCafferty is the one with the inside track on Sinn Féin in the 1970s! Who'd of thunk it? More fool the poor sods who wasted their time writing biographies of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, Joe Cahill etc. Scolaire (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources

Hello. For some reason this talk page is on my watchlist and I've been watching the ping-ponging of arguments and the need for reliable sources. I have to say I very much doubt Nell McCafferty's autobiography cuts the mustard. Instead, I went to JSTOR which contains an archive of academic journals (I'm lucky enough to have access via my alma mater). Anyway I put "Provisional Sinn Fein" in as the esearch term and it found 30 articles : mostly from the 1980s and 1990s, some more recent and some of not much weight. However, I think the following might help to improve referencing, and give the "outside view" of academia:

  • White, Robert W (1989). "From Peaceful Protest to Guerrilla War: Micromobilization of the Provisional Irish Republican Army" (PDF). American Journal of Sociology. 94 (6). University of Chicago Press: 1277–1302. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

In late 1969 and early 1970, members of both the IRA and Sinn Fein split over whether political or miltary activities should be dominant in the republican movement. The Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein were formed by those emphasizing military activities. Those favoring a more political response became known as Official IRA and Official Sinn Fein.

...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".

After the split between republicans in North and South, the northern party, Provisional Sinn Fein, was established as the political arm of the IRA in 1970, but was not legalised by the British until 1974. Because of its policy of "principled abstentionism" the party did not contest elections until 1982. The poorest and youngest Catholics were mobilised by Provisional Sinn Fein with the hunger strikes of 1980-1981....

..the 1981 hungerstrike was perceived by Provisional Sinn Fein as an active arther than a passive means of continuing the armed struggle. I would argue that the 1981 hungerstrike was perceived and presented by Provisional Sinn Fein but also by the Catholic church, the nationalist community and the media as a passive protest for a legitimate right... ... and Provisional Sinn Fein, who before 1981 had limited involvement in the electoral process in Northern Ireland, gained 7.7% of the vote in the council elections of 1981 and 10.1% of the vote in the 1982 Northern Ireland Assembly elections... Undoubtedly, the 'success' of the hungerstrike and the electoral support gathered by Provisional Sinn Fein during the 1981 hungerstrike and its aftermath was, in part, the result of skilled manipulation of the news media... In recent years the upsurge in the Provisional IRA's campaign of violence...has once again met with disapproval from nationalisys in Ulster. This disapproval is manifest in the decline in support for Provisional Sinn Fein.

The Provisional IRA was created in December 1969... its twin-sister, Provisional Sinn Féin, shortly afterwards.... Hereafter, unless otherwise stated, the Provisional IRA will be treated as the IRA, and Provisional Sinn Féin as Sinn Féin because that is how the volunteers and members describe their organisations, and because, officially, the Official IRA no longer exists, having been disbanded by its party, the Workers Party, the heir of the defunct Official Sinn Féin.

As Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, president of Provisional Sinn Féin between 1970 and 1983, came to elaborate the position within a few years of the break with the Officials, the escape from "economic imperialism," and so the transition to publicly administered socialism, had to begin with Irish revolutionary secession.... As late as 2002, it remained the stated objective of Provisional Sinn Féin to remove the fundamental "cause of conflict" in Northern Ireland... British policy was possessed by the phantom of imperialism, but when the ghostly remnant was allowed to bow out, a million Protestant unionists remained as a solid political reality. Curiously, the leaders of Provisional Sinn Féin seemed to know this. McLaughlin, after all, conceded the point in speculating that if "unionists were to find that they could become a minority within the North of Ireland it is difficult to believe that they would not resist . . . change violently."

In 1970, the majority of republicans opted to effectively exit from the civil rights movement and support an armed campaign for the reunification of Ireland conducted under the newly constituted Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

Underlying this bout of party politics was a further element of uncertainty, when Provisional Sinn Fein decided at its Ard Fheis on 31 October - 2 November to end its traditional policy of abstaining from the Dail, thereby raising some electoral questions for Fianna Fail and impinging on Mr Mallon's hopes for a minimal degree of bipartisanship.

Mr. Rees endeavoured to placate the Loyalists by publically stating that the speed at which he released was related to the level of violence and that he would resume the use of ICOs if necessary. He explained to the writer that the Provisional Sinn Fein knew that this was likely because they were meeting with Northern Ireland Office officials at the time.

The Provisional Sinn Fein (the allegedly "political" wing of the Provisional IRA) have for some time advocated a form of Federal Ireland...

This debate has led to a schism within the two most active and radical "nationalitarian" movements, those of the Irish and the Spanish Basques. In Ireland the Workers Party has given up violence and made the first choice; Provisional Sinn Fein decided for the second.

Lozleader (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those, Lozleader. Unfortunately it has only added a list of journal articles to the already long list of books on the subject that use the name/label Provisional Sinn Féin. This only further confirms that the party was known by the authors of books and journal articles as Provisional Sinn Fein. What I'm looking for, and what doesn't seem to be forthcoming, is some sort of verification that it was known to the general public as Provisional Sinn Féin, and/or that it was known by that label around the time of its genesis i.e. the year 1970. It's one of those facts that everybody seems to know (I "knew" it myself until a few days ago) but nobody seems to be able to source. Please note what I said in my original post, that the label does not appear in two of the most important British newspapers in the whole of 1970, and not to any significant extent in one of the most important Irish papers. Does nobody find that strange, for a name "by which they were known"? Compare the frequency with which the British and Irish papers use "Jedward", the name by which John & Edward are known. Scolaire (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Why can't you just say what the sources say, i.e. PSF formed in 1970, later known only as SF? Or - using the second source provided by Lozleader - has styled itself simply as SF since OSF dropped the SF name. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I can say what I please. I choose to say what I am satisfied is verifiable. Thanks to everybody for responding to my query. I think there is no point in prolonging this. I will produce the next instalment of my draft shortly. Scolaire (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for editing the History section, part 2

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments4 people in discussion

Here as promised is the latest instalment of my proposed edit:

1970-1983
At the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis on 11 January 1970 the proposal to end abstention and take seats, if elected, in the Dáil, the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom was put before the members (Joe Cahill: A Life in the IRA, Brendan Anderson, O'Brien Press, Dublin 2002, ISBN 0 86278 674 6, pg.186). A similar motion had been adopted at an IRA convention the previous month, leading to the formation of a Provisional Army Council by Mac Stíofáin and other members opposed to the leadership. When the motion was put to the Ard Fheis, it failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority. The Executive attempted to circumvent this by introducing a motion in support of IRA policy, at which point Ó Brádaigh led a walk-out from the meeting. These members reconvened at another place, appointed a Caretaker Executive and pledged allegiance to the Provisional Army Council. The Caretaker Executive declared itself opposed to the ending of abstention, the drift towards Marxism, the failure of the leadership to defend the nationalist people of Belfast during the 1969 Northern Ireland riots, and the expulsion of traditional republicans by the leadership during the 1960s (J. Bowyer Bell, The Secret Army: The IRA, pp. 366-8). At the October 1970 Ard Fheis delegates were informed that an IRA convention had been held and had regularised its structure, bringing to an end the 'provisional' period (Peter Taylor, Provos, p. 87). By then, however, the label "Provisional" or "Provo" was already being applied to them by the media. (Gerry Adams, Before the Dawn, p. 149). The opposing, anti-abstentionist party became known as Official Sinn Féin (Feeney p. 252).
Initially, because the "Provisionals" were committed to military rather than political action, Sinn Féin's membership was largely confined, in Danny Morrison's words, to people "over military age or women." A Belfast Sinn Féin organiser of the time described the party's role as "agitation and publicity" (Feeney, p. 260). New cumainn (branches) were established in Belfast, and a new newspaper, Republican News, was published (Feeney, p. 261). Sinn Féin took off as a protest movement after the introduction of internment in August 1971, organising marches and pickets (Feeney, p. 271). The party launched its platform, Éire Nua (a New Ireland) at the 1971 Ard Fheis (Taylor, p. 104). In general, however, the party lacked a distinct political philosophy. In the words of Brian Feeney, "Ó Brádaigh would use Sinn Féin ard fheiseanna to announce republican policy, which was, in effect, IRA policy, namely that Britain should leave the North or the 'war' would continue" (Feeney, p. 272). Sinn Féin was given a concrete presence in the community when the IRA declared a ceasefire in 1975. 'Incident centres' were set up to communicate potential confrontations to the British authorities. They were manned by Sinn Féin, which had been legalised the year before by Secretary of State, Merlyn Rees (Taylor pp. 184, 165).
After the ending of the truce another issue arose—that of political status for prisoners. Rees released the last of the internees but introduced the Diplock courts, and ended 'special category status' for all prisoners convicted after 1 March 1976. This led first to the blanket protest, and then to the dirty protest (Feeney pp. 277-9). Around the same time, Gerry Adams began writing for Republican News, calling for Sinn Féin to become more involved politically (Feeney p. 275). During the 1981 hunger strike, striker Bobby Sands was elected Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone with the help of the Sinn Féin publicity machine. After his death on hunger strike his seat was held, with an increased vote, by his election agent, Owen Carron. These successes convinced republicans that they should contest every election (Feeney 290-1). Danny Morrison expressed the mood at the 1981 Ard Fheis when he said:
"Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?" (Taylor (1997), pp.281-2).
This was the origin of what became known as the Armalite and ballot box strategy. Éire Nua was dropped in 1982, and the following year Ó Brádaigh stepped down as leader, to be replaced by Adams.

Scolaire (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Pretty fair and balanced and also informative. I'd be a little concerned that the first para is a bit wordy (will the reader really be interested in the methods used to pass abstentionism at the 1970 Ard Fheis?). Also that the IRA didn't defend the Catholics in 1969 is disputed in "The Lost Revolution", the new history of the Officials. But apart from that it looks good. Jdorney (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I take your point about wordiness. If it could be shortened, and still make the point that it was not the original motion that led to the walk-out, I'd be happy with that. On the second point, I'm not arguing that the IRA failed to protect Catholics, only that the Caretaker Executive said it did. Scolaire (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The first part reads to me like it has deliberately been written to avoid saying that the Provos left and formed their own rival SF party. Doesn't even mention the name Provisional SF. Mooretwin (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty fair assessment. That the Provos left and formed their own rival SF party is one of two opposing points of view (POV). My draft is deliberately neutral on that question (NPOV). Scolaire (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Two opposing point of views? Who says they didn't? (Apart from Domer48, BigDunc and the Provos themselves?) Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You've answered your own question. Scolaire (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, The text could maybe be more explicit that the republican movement of the day split onto two parts, without saying which one was the "true" SF. Jdorney (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
So a small number of WP editors and the party itself says that the Provos didn't leave, and every single reliable source listed so far says the opposite - Scolaire thinks that the article shouldn't mention what the reliable sources all say? That's giving a hell of a lot of WP:Undue weight to one non-reliable source, and failing to go with what the scores of reliable sources say. Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've no problem with the article explaining PSF's own view that it is the "true SF", so long as it is clear that it is the Provo view, but the article should make clear that the party was formed in 1970 when it split from what then became known as OSF. Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I said at the outset this article is not about who is the "true SF"! I am determined to keep it NPOV. Now, the fact that one POV has "scores" of sources does not make it NPOV. And there is no consensus that the sources "prove" that they left. That's still only a point of view (POV). Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has said that the article should be about who is the "true SF": the article should be about the current SF party. The fact that said party believes itself to be the "true SF", however, is notable and should surely be mentioned. Seems crazy to ignore it, and does a disservice to WP readers. What you can't ignore either is the party's formation in 1970. For the article to purport that the current party was formed in 1905 is POV. To characterise around 30 reliable sources saying X against 1 (biased) source saying Y as two "POVs" of equal weight is, in itself, POV. Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, Mooretwin, you have cited "scores" of sources, and you have drawn a conclusion from them. Please show me where any other editor has agreed unequivocally that that is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Saying "this is so" for the 100th time doesn't make it more true than saying it for the 99th. It's still only a point of view. Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not a "point of view": it's an established fact, supported by all the reliable sources. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia to inform readers; not a cryptic maze where we hide from them important facts because a certain political POV disagrees with those facts. I notice that the Holocaust article doesn't avoid stating that it was a genocide of 6m Jews: by your logic it should avoid stating this because it is a mere "POV", of equal standing to the POV of Holocaust-deniers. To deliberately refuse to use the term "Provisional SF" is also ridiculous - how will that help readers to understand the split? Your "split" section isn't much different to what Domer48 had written! Mooretwin (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That aside, I'm content for you to insert your rewrites into the article as I'm happy with 90% of it. At least that will narrow down the areas of dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool! I want to work on the "1983 to the present" section for the next week or two, and then I promise to come back to the "formation" question and see if we can find some middle ground. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We could/should remove the history text completely from this article, leaving just a

Main article: History of Sinn Féin

. There we have a detailed article and we get around the problem of trying to write an NPOV summary. --Red King (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll understand if I'm less than enthusiastic about that idea, having spent the last three weeks working on a rewrite of this section :-) The History of Sinn Féin article is a disaster! I'd like to work on that article as well, but that would be a longer-term project. Anyway, if you think my efforts so far have NPOV issues you can point them out to me. Mooretwin is 90% happy with it—which I'd be very happy to get in an exam. The remaining 10% relate to issues that we still have to tackle regardless whether there is a History section or not. Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already commented that any pre-1970 history should be included merely as "Background", otherwise it gives the impression that the current party existed before 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment noted. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to move Scolaire's rewrite into the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note what I said above, we will have to merge the (pre-1970) sections with History of Sinn Féin, not just delete the current text. I would rather wait until I have finished my proposed edit (1983 to the present), then I will be happy to do the work myself. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain what you envisage being involved in the merging? If you mean scrapping the History of Sinn Féin article and redirecting to here, then that would be a controversial move. Mooretwin (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Merging is not scrapping. There is currently text in the history section of this article that is not in the History of Sinn Féin article. It needs to be merged into that article in a specific way, as set out in WP:MERGE. If you're willing to do that, and you're sure you can do it right, then great! Go ahead and do it, with my full blessing. Scolaire (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Mooretwin (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've attempted the merge. Mooretwin (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede wording

Latest comment: 14 years ago72 comments10 people in discussion

I've restored the pre-3rd November lede, which had been stable prior to Domer48's arbitrary edit on 3 November (which resulted in the edit-warring). There was no consensus for his edit, which was made without discussion. It was also incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources. Onus is on the person changing the text to seek consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What Scolaire said. POV forks are against policy. 2 lines of K303 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur, we also need to address the question in the info box. Many political movements split and reform in different ways. The naming convention tends to go to whoever wins out. While in 1970 there were two movements who could claim the title there is now only one (although others can claim origin). Mooretwin demonstrates his political position with the "Background" proposal above. I am going to attempt a compromise edit on the info box. --Snowded TALK 09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please retract your accusation. I don't demonstrate any "political" position. I seek the article to be accurate and NPOV. Those trying to impose the Provisional POV are, by definition, demonstrating a "political" position, contrary to all the reliable sources. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded that the "two dates" infobox is more useful than the "no dates" one. It may be that it could be better worded, but that is something we can all think about. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The 'two dates' solution is great. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What is Current 1970 supposed to mean? --Domer48'fenian' 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That the party in its current form, i.e. minus the Officials, dates from January 1970. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The only date in the infobox should be 1970: that's when the current party known as SF was formed. To include 1905 is indulgence of those seeking to push a POV. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And to assert that there is no continuity with the 1905 foundation is to indulge a different POV --Snowded TALK 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Who's asserting that there is "no continuity with the 1905 foundation"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You are --Snowded TALK 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong there, because I'm not. Can't see anyone else making such an assertion either. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Dunc 'n' Domer have restored the arbitrary 3 November edit against consensus. This will have to go to WP:3O to avoid the continuation of the edit war, which seems to have begun again. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have begun with this edit, notwithstanding the trotting out of all the buzzwords. Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Not true. The edit-warring began on 3 November, when Domer48 arbitrarily changed the stable, compromise version of the lede. Mooretwin (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Very true! Look at the opening paragraph on 1 January 2009. It was not I who arbitrarily changed the stable version. --Domer48'fenian' 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Er, on the 1 January (as the link you have provided demonstrates!) the lede said formed in 1970. On 3 November you changed it against consensus. You should change it back. Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another issue I have with the lede is the sentence "In the 2009 European Parliamentary elections Bairbre de Brun was elected with 126,184 first preference votes, the only candidate to reach the quota on the first count." Since the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and since the de Brun election result is not mentioned in the article outside the lede, I suggest it be removed from the lede, or is give some prominence in the article. --BwB (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Domer48'fenian' 22:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I added the sentences from the lede to the section on the election results in the 2000s. We can consider whether or not to leave the sentence in the lede, or to expand the section in the election results area. --BwB (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Scol for expanding and reorganizing the EU election section. Nice job. --BwB (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer no dates in the infobox, but would support both dates with better wording than present. Regarding the first paragraph, how about just saying:

Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) is a political party in Ireland. It is a major party of Irish republicanism and its political ideology is left wing. The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA. The name is Irish for "ourselves" or "we ourselves", although it is frequently mistranslated as "ourselves alone".

The formation can be dealt with in the main body. It's the first paragraph that's causing problems, we're making collaborative progress on the main body. So let's just remove the problem. BwB, I think I inserted that sentence about de Brun. The article previously said something like "Sinn Fein are the largest party in NI as of 2009", using her election victory as a source. This seemed misleading to me - they have less MLAs/MPs. So I changed it. Open to suggestions, but the fact that they topped a poll for the first time should be mentioned somehow. Stu ’Bout ye! 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The 1905 foundation of the party has to go into the lead. BigDunc 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree Dunc! It's obvious. --Domer48'fenian' 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with that Dunc and Domer. --BwB (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Below is the current opening paragraph.

Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) is a political party in Ireland, founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, and while there are a number of Parties with origins in Sinn Féin the current party is led by Gerry Adams.[3] It is a major party of Irish republicanism and its political ideology is left wing. The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA.[4] The name is Irish for "ourselves" or "we ourselves",[5][6] although it is frequently mistranslated[7] as "ourselves alone".[8][9]

Brief version. SF is an Irish political party, founded in 1905, a number of parties have their origins in the party. The current party is lead by GA its political ideology is left wing and SF translated is "ourselves".

Now the only problem I have with that is there is no mention of it originally was in favour of duel monarchy. Everything in the first paragraph is covered in the main body of the article per WP:LEAD. So what's the problem. --Domer48'fenian' 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my take on this: There are two points of view here, that the party originated in 1905, and that the party in its current form dates from 1970. As far as I'm concerned, both points of view are correct. Nobody (surely!) is denying that there is a single thread between the party of 2009 and the party of 1905-1917. The fact that there are other parties with origins in Sinn Féin is a matter for other articles, not this one. Nobody (surely!) is suggesting that the party that had its Ard Fheis in October 1970 was identical with the party that convened its Ard Fheis in January 1970. Something came out of that day that was different to what went in, and that something went on to become the party that is now led by Gerry Adams. Now, we can leave all of that out of the lead, as Stuart suggests, but nature abhors a vacuum, and the alternative dates will almost certainly continue to alternate. What's needed is an agreed wording that will take in both points of view, without offending either. "Emerged" seemed to work for a good while, but obviously it's no longer enough. I suggest something on the lines of:

Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) is a political party in Ireland. Originating in the Sinn Féin organisation founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, it took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party. Sinn Féin is led by Gerry Adams. It is a major party of Irish republicanism and its political ideology is left wing. The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA. The name is Irish for "ourselves" or "we ourselves", although it is frequently mistranslated as "ourselves alone".

Scolaire (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is reasonable effort, Scol. I support it. --BwB (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
All going well till "Nobody (surely!) is suggesting that the party that had its Ard Fheis in October 1970 was identical with the party that convened its Ard Fheis in January 1970." What came out of the Ard Fheis in January 1970 was a leadership challenge not a new party. --Domer48'fenian' 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Per The Lost Revolution: The Story of the the Official IRA and the Workers' Party, Brian Hanley & Scott Millar, Penguin Ireland (2009), ISBN 978 1 844 88120 8, Pg. 149. [1] --Domer48'fenian' 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Your personal theories aren't relevant. Only reliable sources will do. Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Domer, I didn't say it was a new party and I don't believe it was a new party. I said it was different to what went in. It wasn't led by Tomás Mac Giolla and it didn't contain anti-abstentionists or Marxists. Therefore it took a new form at this time, and that is the form it has today (although it did later end abstention by a democratic vote). Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
So, if the Provos didn't form a new party, then the Provos and the Officials must actually have been part of the same party. Are they still part of the same party? If not, when did they split, if it wasn't 1970, and have you any sources to back up this claim? Mooretwin (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Well? Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Where, Scolaire, are the sources that contradict the view that the current party was formed in 1970? You're triangulating here - trying to give equal weight to dozens of reliable sources on one hand with the POV of a small number of editors on the other, and then arguing for a "compromise". The current party was formed in 1970, when it split from the 1905 party. That's what happened. That's what the sources say. Why should the article not say that? Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a hunch you were going to raise the "sources" again. This is what I feel about the sources:
  1. In deciding whether a source is reliable in relation to a paticular fact, it’s not enough to establish that it was published by a reputable company. It would need to be clear that the author had reasonable grounds for stating that fact, viz. That he or she had access to primary documents. A sequence of authors each saying the same thing because the previous one said it, or because some journalist somewhere said it, does not make an overwhelming number of reliable sources IMO.
  2. We can't look at Sinn Féin in isolation. At least two major writers – Tim Pat Coogan and J. Bowyer Bell – treat the IRA as one continuous organisation from 1919 (or 1913) to 1994. So unless you're going to suggest that "Provisional" Sinn Féin left Sinn Féin but the "Provisional" IRA didn't leave the IRA...
  3. What do the sources actually say? Only you say that they say a brand new party was set up. Domer says that they merely differentiate between factions.[2] Valenciano says there is disagreement between sources and sometimes within sources themselves.[3] Stu agrees with Valenciano.[4]
So I'm not balancing sources against POV, I'm balancing POV against POV with due regard for the sources. Scolaire (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Scolaire, no time now but some time tomorrow I'll put forward the quote you were looking for above on the introduction of the different terms that says they merely differentiate between factions.. --Domer48'fenian' 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. You've got a load of reliable sources, many written by experts in their field, saying the current SF party was formed in 1970 when they walked out of the SF conference and set up a new party.
  2. So are you going to suggest that the Provisional IRA article should be rewritten, beginning in 1919, and the other IRA articles deleted?
  3. The sources actually say that a new party was formed. Read them. Domer48 isn't a reliable source.
Bottom line - you have no source to contradict the fact that a new party was formed in 1970 - only your interpretation of how Tim Pat Coogan and J. Bowyer Bell treat the IRA. Mooretwin (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I am having trouble accepting the 1970-only position you seem to favour. Sinn Féin have an official line on when their party was formed. It may not be decisive, or even terribly weighty, but it can't be ignored, can it? On the subject of the official party version of reality, what does the Workers Party version of history say happened? No self-respecting Marxist party could ever be without a party line on almost everything, so it must be in print somewhere. And what are we to make of of books like Sinn Féin, 1905-2005: in the shadow of gunmen and Sinn Feín: a hundred turbulent years? I have no idea of their contents but their titles seem to speak for themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Who has said SF's own position should be ignored? (Well, I guesss Scolaire favours that, but I certainly don't.) The Workers Party AFAIK say that the minority broke away from the majority and formed their own SF. As for the two books to which you refer: as had already been discussed, they both describe the new SF party being formed in 1970. Both are quoted among the list of sources above. Have you any sources to contradict what the quoted sources here say? Do you deny that the Provos walked out of the SF conference in 1970, and set up a new organisation, with its own headquarters? Do you deny that the rest of SF continued without the Provos? Mooretwin (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The Workers Party web site contains a history section, which has a paper on the history of the party. It doesn't describe the events of 1970, but does say: "It is a matter of historical record that the outcome of the vicious opposition to these changes was to culminate in the creation of the Provisionals in 1969 by an alliance of elements in Fianna Fail, rightwing Irish Americans, northern sectarian Roman Catholic nationalists, and embittered ex-members of the Republican Movement from the 1940s"; and also describes the Official IRA ceasefire in 1972 as "a major decision by (official) Sinn Féin and the IRA" - the use of the parentheses indicating their position on the split. A biography of Cathal Goulding on the site says that he was "a life-long member of Sinn Féin and was instrumental in bringing about fundamental change in that organisation, culminating in the name change to Sinn Féin the Workers’ Party and the building of the Workers’ Party into a force in Irish politics". Mooretwin (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with your wording today Scolaire. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"Took its current form in 1970" - what does that mean, and - applying Scolaire's unusually strict requirement for referencing - where's the source that says that it "took its current form"? This reads to me like the 1905 party made some structural or constitutional change in 1970, but is essentially the same 1905 party. That is not what happened in 1970, and so the lede is misleading. Why should readers be misled just because of a vocal minority here who - for whatever reason - wish to pretend that the current party did not split from the main SF party in 1970? Also, why has the reference to the connection with the Provisional IRA been removed? Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It means, as I said previously, that the party in its current form, i.e. minus the Officials, dates from January 1970. It is fully referenced in the History section, and will continue to be when the History section is edited. Now, It's time to stop talking about a "vocal minority". You, Mooretwin, are in a minority of one here. The majority is in favour of reaching a consensus based on two dates. Your arguments about sources have been answered repeatedly and patiently. There comes a point at which repeating the same thing stops being reasonable, and begins to be disruptive. Please don't cross that line.
The deletion of the "IRA" sentence was a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the majority are in favour of reaching a consensus on two dates - I have a feeling Domer or Dunc will revert so that 1970 and any mention of the split isn't in the lead again. But while I (partially) agree with Mooretwin, I think this is a good solution. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You, Valenciano, BwB, GoodDay and myself (at least) have expressed support for consensus based on two dates. Is that not a majority? I'm aware that you partially agree with Mooretwin's point of view; that's why your continued support of a consensus solution is so welcome. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The original consensus text (which I proposed some time ago) contained two dates. It said the party was formed in 1970, but traces its origins to 1905. What was wrong with that? It seems to me to be perfectly accurate and fair. Mooretwin (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
To Scolaire:
  1. Given your very strict requirement for precise references in respect of how to explain the term "Provisional Sinn Féin", why does this requirement not apply to the explanation of "took its current form"? What source uses this terminology? The sources make it clear that (P)SF split from (what became O)SF in 1970 as a new party. No sources have been offered to contradict this, but because a vocal minority get excited about it, you have decided that there must be a "compromise" between the sources and the unsourced opinions of certain editors.
  2. When I refer to a "vocal minority", I am not referring to those in favour of your "compromise", I am referring to those who wish to pretend - with no sources to support their view - that the current party was not formed in 1970. Those who support your "compromise" presumably do so because they wish to avoid an edit war which would be caused by the vocal minority reverting any text that supports the sources. Articles should not be written to appease the personal opinions of determined editors: they should be written according to policy.
  3. My "arguments about sources" (whatever you mean by that) have been answered neither repeatedly nor patiently. Where are the "answers"? Where are the sources that say that the current SF party did not, in fact, split from the main SF party? I asked you before - and you refused to answer: if the Provos didn't form a new party in 1970, then are you saying that the Provos and the Officials were actually part of the same party (if so, where is your source?). Are they still part of the same party? If not, when did they split? Mooretwin (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
So far I have consistently assumed good faith on your part (and I resent your assertion that I haven't answered your arguments or that I haven't been patient), but given your ongoing practice of 'I didn't hear that' I must now reluctantly assume that you are being deliberately provocative. As of now, I am ignoring any posts from you on this question, and I earnestly recommend that other editors who are genuinely interested in improving this article do the same. Goodbye. Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Such arrogance. I've read through the discussion again, and you haven't answered the issue about the lack of sources supporting the claim that the current party wasn't formed in 1970. Yes, you have responded to my comments, but the responses do not answer the point. I have attempted to engage you in dialogue, but you have arrogantly chosen not to engage - ironically I didn't hear that applies to you. Seeking dialogue is not attempting to be provocative. I do not understand your position here, and I am trying to rectify that through dialogue. I had a high opinion of you, but your refusal to engage here and your efforts to equate sources with the opinions of editors create doubts over your credibility. Your response here is very disappointing, but I will not respond in kind. I will always remain willing to discuss with you and anyone else. Mooretwin (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, below is the sources I'd said I would provide. I'm only half way through the book but this is the gist of it:


Now it goes into the faction fights and what have you but also discusses how some cumman [branch] were still meeting and contained members from each. There was also cooperation during military engagements. Now what is of note below is that the 'Officials' would later formally adopt the media term 'Official' and become Official Sinn Féin.


Now all the sources support the section on the split. It was a faction fight within both the political and military wings of the republican movement. There was no new party created! Now everyone agrees that the terms used were to differentiate between the factions, and that is all they were. Within two years the 'Provisional' section of the Party had claimed the ascendency in both the political and military wings, and the ousted leadership went on to form Official Sinn Féin. Now the only question I have with the Lead is why just highlight 1970? Why not 1986? Both dates re: splits would be equally important in my mind although for different reasons. Why not mention the the party was originally in favour of duel monarchy, one would think that should be mentioned in the Lead.

Sorry for the delay with the sources. --Domer48'fenian' 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source on Provisional Sinn Féin. That is useful. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that you claim that "there was no new party created". How do you explain, then, the walk-out; the setting up of new, separate headquarters; the election of a new leader; the establishment of a new party newspaper; and all the while the majority SF party continued as before (albeit minus the Provos)? How do you explain all the sources which describe PSF as the "new" party? Where is your source to support the assertion that SF "ousted leadership" "went on to form Official SF"? When did this happen? We await sources to back up these claims with interest. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re 1986, it was not a split in the same sense as 1970, when you had, as you say, two organisations or factions, one of which took the form that today's Sinn Féin still has. Hence, "it took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party." In 1986 Gerry Adams's Sinn Féin did not change; all that happened was that a small number of members left to form their own party (which stayed small).
Re "dual monarchy", not only would I not mention it in the lead, I wouldn't mention it at all. It's not much talked about in the modern literature. It was once popular to talk about it, as though it showed that Griffith was a monarchist. He wasn't. He was a former member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood! The "Sinn Féin policy" advocated following the example of Hungary, which set up its own legislature in a state known as the Dual Monarchy. There was no bar on republicans joining Sinn Féin, and Griffith himself said he would be perfectly happy with a republican form of government. Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll address the points you raise later, but for now I agree on ignoring Mooretwin's disruptive antics. They have conceded the fact that the term 'Provisional' was used to differentiate between the two factions within Sinn Féin not once but twice. --Domer48'fenian' 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
First, I am a single person: not plural; and I am male, so please refer to me as "he". Second, your interpretation of what I have "conceded" is disingenuous to say the least. Third, your failure to explain or source the rationale for your claims is noted. Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I know I have come to this party a little later than others and have not been involved in the discussion for very long, but it seems to me that we are splitting hairs and playing semantic games a little bit. There is no doubt that the current SF party had its roots in the original SF party of 1905. Now what happened in 1970 is the point of contention. We can say that there was a disagreement in the party and a split occurred - on this, I think we are all agreed. Now if we want to say that the split "created" the Provisional Sinn Fein, there are references to support this view. Or that PSF was just a continuation of original SF and then later OFS was set up, there are references to support this position also. Perhaps we do not need to say that the current SF party was "created" in 1970, rather that after the split the 2 factions went their separate ways, one faction evolving into the current SF party, the other into the Workers party. Would this be a reasonable compromise? --BwB (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While there was a parting of the ways only one faction went and formally adopted a new title for their faction. This has all been dealt with and no amount of word games will change that. [5] [6]. --Domer48'fenian' 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to play any word games - simply trying to reach agreement. Up to 1970 there was the Sin Fein party. At the meeting in 1970 a split occurred. Was a "new" party formed? If not, was it a continuation of the SF party? Then later did OSF branch off and rename themselves the Workers Party? Where can we agree? --BwB (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We've already agreed that the "true Sinn Féin" argument is pointless. No new party was set up in or after 1970. It was a split, as in mitosis. This Sinn Féin continued, the other Sinn Féin continued. The other Sinn Féin is not the subject of this article. The current wording reflects that, without laying the whole discussion out for the reader, who doesn't care. Do you have a problem with the current wording? If not, why not just draw a line under this discussion? Scolaire (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks to BwB for his comments - you're very welcome. No-one is disputing that the original SF started in 1905, nor that the current SF can "trace its roots back to 1905" (to quote the original lede-wording before Domer's edit on 3 November). So you are correct that what happened in 1970 is the point of contention. I think you are correct i in saying that we are all agreed that the party split in 1970, but it would be helpful if Domer48 confirmed that he agreed with this. You are right that there are sources to say that the split "created" Provisional Sinn Fein. But I have yet to see any source to support the view that "PSF was just a continuation of original SF and then later OFS was set up". I would be surprised if any source existed, since this is not what happened. What actually happened was that the minority faction (the Provisionals) walked out of SF and set up their own party, which they also called SF. There were, then, two SF parties. The Provisionals eventually grew bigger, and the Officials later changed their name (first, to Sinn Fein The Workers Party and later to The Workers Party). There are sources to support this. As I understand it, Domer48 is arguing that the Provos didn't set up their own party, but there was some kind of "reorganisation", but this is not supported by any sources. Mooretwin (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Scolaire's argument that the split was mitosis, i.e. an "equal" split, rather than the Provos splitting away from the main party, that is certainly one interpretation of events, but only one. Most of the sources describe the Provos leaving and setting up their own party, while (what became) the Officials continued constitutionally as before. The current wording merely says SF "in its current form" began in 1970 which, I think, greatly plays down the fact that they left and formed a new party (or, if "mitosis" occurred, two new parties were formed out of one). The current wording implies - despite what Scolaire asserts - that the current SF is the sole, direct continuation of the 1905 party. I ask again - what was wrong with the previous wording, i.e. that "the current party was formed in 1970, but traces its origins back to 1905"? We also have a proposed history section which doesn't actually tell the reader anything of what happened in 1970, and deliberately avoids even mentioning the term Provisional SF! So we have important information excluded from the article, so as to avoid upsetting Dunc 'n' Domer and a few other strong-willed editors. Mooretwin (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I fully agree with BwB that we are "splitting hairs and playing semantic games." We could stop right now if we chose. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's hardly semantics, when the article gives a wrongful impression of a party which does not match the sources. It's not semantics when we have a (proposed) history section which avoids properly explaining the split to the reader, and doesn't even explain the term Provisional SF. What if a reader reads about Provisional SF in another article, clicks on it, is directed here, and there is no mention of it? It's not semantics when we do not make it clear to readers what happened in 1970. It's not semantics when the reliable sources are ignored in the interests of appeasing editors. It's not semantics when the article lists leaders from before 1970 of a party which wasn't formed until 1970.Mooretwin (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were nearing agreement here. Let's not get too fired up about this and move along together to see if we can come to some text that can encompass most of the divergent viewpoints. How about something like "the current party was formed in 1970 when the party split with Official Sinn Fein, but traces its origins back to 1905"? Thanks to all for keeping the discussion lively but friendly. --BwB (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you again, BwB, what is it that you object to in this wording in the edit I did three days ago? When I first proposed it here on the talk page you said you supported it. What has changed? Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Scol, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have no objections to the edit you did a few days ago. However, it seems that others have and I was trying (perhaps unnecessarily) to try to get others to agree. Sorry if I have caused you any confusion. I am happy with the version of [7]. --BwB (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And it looks like everybody else bar Mooretwin is as well. Scolaire (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Great. Do you want to make the changes to the lede in the live article now? --BwB (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Either you or I are out of touch with reality! I'm pretty sure the link we both posted is to where I already made the changes in the live article! Am I wrong? Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
BwB, I would support your proposal "the current party was formed in 1970 when the part split [from] Official Sinn Féin, but traces its origins back to 1905". This is supported by the sources, is accurate, and is much clearer for the reader. Mooretwin (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1970s and 1980s Section

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have done a little work to clean up this section. However, I feel it needs some work to create a more "encyclopedic" tone. It reads more like narrative rather than an encyclopedia, and it could also be condensed somewhat. Most of the material is taken from Brian Feeney's book. This is not bad, I just feel the material could be presented in a better way. --BwB (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, BwB, but you've already wasted too much of your time :-) Please see Proposals for editing the History section and Proposals for editing the History section, part 2. I'm just waiting to finish "History 1983 to the present" till I replace the whole lot (consensus permitting of course). Scolaire (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, silly me!. I should have checked. Don't worry, I'll participate in the ongoing discussion. --BwB (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per WP:EL "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links", I am going to clear out a few of the links on the page. --BwB (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit of History section, part 3

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks to Mooretwin for merging the old history section into History of Sinn Féin. I have now added the re-write according to my earlier proposals, including adding in the GFA and susequent developments and making Organisational structure, Electoral performance and Links with IRA free-standing sections. I have not kept the pictures of Griffith and de Valera, for a good reason: while the current party hails its roots in the 1905 Sinn Féin, it would not regard either Griffith or Dev as major heroes; it would be misleading, therefore, to have an image near the top of the article that suggests that Griffith was the fons et origo of the current party. I suggest instead using an image of the Round Room of the Rotunda (aka the Ambassador Cinema), if one can be found. Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire. I've changed the "Leaders" section to "Leaders since 1970", to avoid any POV. The pre-1970 leaders (of the original party) are covered under History of Sinn Féin. Mooretwin (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Good work Scol and Moore. Many thanks to you both. I have read thru the new History section and made a few edits and tidied up the syntax. There are a couple of places that need references. I think the text can be tightened up a little and I plan to spend more time on this over the Christmas holidays when I have more time and can get some reference materials. --BwB (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BwB. Mooretwin (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bell (1997), p.366; Feeny (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8; Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5
  2. ^ Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
  3. ^ Ferriter (2005), p.624
  4. ^ Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5; Feeny (2002), pp.249-50; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Bell (1997), p.366; Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281
  5. ^ Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
  6. ^ Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.2811
  7. ^ Bell (1997), p.363; Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; Anderson (2002), p.186
  8. ^ Anderson (2002), p.184
  9. ^ Anderson (2002), p.186
  10. ^ Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
  11. ^ Anderson (2002), pp.187
  12. ^ Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
  13. ^ Bell (1997), p.366; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
  14. ^ Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
  15. ^ Bell (1997), p.367; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
  16. ^ Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
  17. ^ CAIN Abstract of Organisations: entry under Workers Party.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinn_Féin/Archive_6&oldid=1142445595"