Talk:Physical force Irish republicanism

File:Patrick Pearse.jpg Nominated for Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

	An image used in this article, File:Patrick Pearse.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request merger

This phrase is a neologism, which has barely been used until recently. When it has been used, it seems most often used by Republicans themselves, and it appears to be propagandist in nature - softening the reality of limbs being blown off bomb victims and execution-style bullets shot through the back of victims' heads.

Google Ngram suggests a slight peek in usage in the mid-1990s in publications before the end of the last century.

I propose a merger with Irish Republicanism and also with Political violence. --24.182.92.247 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm a Nationalist and agree wholeheartedly, the entire article is rife with biased opinion rather than facts, and reads wholly like propaganda, with even the designation "Physical force Irish republicanism" feeling rather euphemistic. I frankly wouldn't even know where to begin on getting this entire entry up to normal Wikipedia standards. ––204.83.127.135 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Simplify language?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had difficulties understanding the following paragraph, and only that paragraph:

The Catholic church was integral element towards establishing a national identity for irishness. But the church remained pacific; priests abhorred physical force, eschewed its happening, shunned the company of the 'men of violence'. Attempts by the church leaders to reconcile the challenge to its spiritual dominance in a New Ireland, with accommodation of the long struggle of many of its parishioners for freedom aced as a condign judgement. Condemnatory declarations exacerbated contradictory messages to the population driving the movement underground. That the IRB was founded in the United States of America provoked legitimatism to counteract the universality of non-violent Christendom. This was doctrinaire, secretive, as befitted its extreme physicality.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming this to something less oblique

This article started in 2005 with the lede

Physical force Irish republicanism is a term used by historians in Ireland to describe the recurring appearance of non-parliamentary violent insurrection in Ireland between 1798 and the present.

… which is perfectly reasonable scope for the title, but has since grown to cover not just the use of the term by historians but the wider use of violence, including an implicit claim that this neologism is the normal term used to describe political violence in the cause of Irish republicanism.

(Also this is understandably linked from multiple places to talk about the impact of this violence outwith the island of Ireland, which is discounted in the way the topic is framed in the current lede, and violence by people opposed to republicanism; I note there's no article about violence in unionism, and it's simply covered in Unionism in Ireland.)

I propose that we re-name the article to something that is clearer and covers; some possibilities:

• Political violence in Ireland
  • … but this feels like it skips violence carried out in Great Britain or elsewhere.
• Violence in Irish republicanism
  • … but this risks making it seem like all republicanism is violent.
• Violence in the name of Irish republicanism
  • … which is slightly odd wording.
• Violence in Irish politics
  • … which would expand the scope to cover violence on all sides (and perhaps thus would expand to cover state acts as well?); possibly too broad.

Do others have thoughts? James F. (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

My own question is What knowledge does Physical force Irish republicanism present that is not contained within the Irish republicanism article?. I suspect not much. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In virtually every reference on the subject, at least that I've read, the "physical force" element within Irish republicanism is dealt with. It's most definitely not a neologism, since it's been used since the Fenians. FDW777 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I did a search for "Physical force Irish". The Times Digital Archive gives 1 hit (House Of Commons - The Sinn Fein Danger. Date: Wednesday, Nov. 6, 1918): "...that obstacle was the fact that Sinn Fein to-day was allied with the physical force, Irish republican brotherhood party,..." From the polar persective, anphoblacht.com presents zero hits - presumably Physical force republicanism would be the their WP:Common. They document that term back to one-time Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson (A week in politics, 6 December 2001 Edition). Bosley John Bosley (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest searching for things like "physical force tradition", both on Google Books and Google itself. FDW777 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Or see the use of "physical force" on many different pages of Parnellism and Crime: Evidence of Mr. Parnell (published 1889). FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate "physical force" as a synonym for "violent" but surely the this article's "Further reading" section would be more informative if it were transfered to the Irish republicanism article? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It was claimed it's a neologism, it isn't. It's a term dating back to the 19th century (at least), that's used repeatedly in the academic literature on the subject. I would suspect most constitutional republicans would agree there is a clear distinction between themselves and those who advcocate the use of physical force to realise the 32 county republic. FDW777 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

In use in 1848. FDW777 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Respect for the research. The term has been documented as early as 1846 in reference to advocates of the 1846 manifesto published in the National. It would be great to turn the redlink blue but it is not immediately apparent what they are referring to. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I assume it's following on from Young Ireland rebellion#Fenian Brotherhood, Irish Republican Brotherhood, if I could be bothered signing up for a free trial I'd see exactly who, if anyone, are being referred to as the authors of the manifesto. @Scolaire:, any more information about the 1846 manifesto? FDW777 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard of an "1846 manifesto". I've never seen it in a book or article. The newspaper search results are from the Durham Chronicle, the Pictorial Times and the Sun on 2–4 December 1846. I've done a search of the Irish Newspaper Archive for December 1846, using several search terms, and couldn't find any mention of it. I did find an account of a meeting in Dublin on 2 December 1846 at which Thomas Francis Meagher, John Mitchel and Richard O'Gorman all said that it was not their intention to resort to physical force. Was this "manifesto" possibly published in Le National by French republicans (two years before the 1848 Revolution)? In any case it is a dead end.

At any rate, the problem is not with the article title but with the article itself. As you say, the term belongs in the 19th century, or rather, in the 19th and early 20th century, where it is a counterpoint to "constitutional nationalism": Young Irelanders and O'Connell, Fenians and Parnell, IRB/Volunteers and Redmond. There's no discussion of that in the article, just a list of rebellions/campaigns followed by a truly laughable "History" section and a truly strange "Propaganda" section. Drastic action is needed. I suggest:

1. A complete re-write, properly explaining the concept of physical force versus constitutionalism. Realistically, that's not going to happen
2. Remove all the text and rename it as "List of Irish republican rebellions and armed campaigns". But do we really need such a thing?
3. Remove everything and make it a redirect to Irish republicanism, per Bosley John Bosley. This would be my favoured option. Note that the Irish republicanism article does not include a discussion of violent v political republicanism, so it could not be a redirect to a section.

Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I had 1848 in my head for some other uses in the newspapers and didn't seen the National publication of the manifesto was from 1846. If you think the current version is bad, you should have seen it before I deleted lots of really bad stuff. There's no doubting the article has been in bad shape for a while, but I'm sure it's not beyond repair. FDW777 (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the original version. It's always been awful. To be encyclopaedic, it would have to be written from scratch. It's better to have it as a redirect until someone is willing to take on that task. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, it was better before the editing down. At least it had the whole history of physical force from 1798. Now it's "History" consists of three very short paragraphs on 1916, the Troubles and the Peace Process. Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: I mean Bosley John Bosley's editing down, not your edit of 2019. Scolaire (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I can work out that manifesto was published in Le National on 30 November 1846. I can also see the word "manifesto" being associated with Smith O'Brien around this time but I have yet to form an opinion whether the republicans are Irish Republicans or European republicans (in which case the term has been documented as early as 21 April 1848). Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's here, or covered as a section in the main article it would still have the same issues. It needs to be properly written, and can't be simply ignored. FDW777 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Five months have passed, and nobody has attempted to address the issues. I am changing it to a redirect. Anybody who wants can write a proper article at any time. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! James F. (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)