Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Move pre-1970 history to History of Sinn Féin

Now what needs to happen is that the history section needs to go to the History of Sinn Féin article (either that or it would be better placed in the Official Sinn Féin article) - and needs to be replaced by a short historical summary in this article. Mooretwin (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The present content is a POV fork contrary to Wikipedia:Content forking. The motives for including it here are very suspect. --Red King (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this statement in the lead disputed "The party traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905." If it is explaine please? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not disputed, because all parties which split away from SF can trace their history back to 1905. That includes:

• Fine Gael
• Fianna Fáil
• The Workers Party
• Labour Party
• Republican Sinn Féin
• IRSP

And, of course (Provisional) Sinn Féin.

It doesn't mean that the Wiki articles on all of the above should include a detailed historical account of SF, as though the party in question was one and the same. Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that - it's sufficient to move that info to the history of SF article. Regarding "Provisional" SF, it's sufficient to mention that they were called that by media sources and if necessary, point out that the party never stood in elections under that name (see the elections results archives at eoni.org). Valenciano (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Valenciano re "Provisional" SF, I have suggested the same already above. As to the history of SF, could you or anyone explaine why there should be a seperate article on the history of the Party. The party traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905. The are countless sources to support this, such as Brian Feeney's A Hundered Turbulent Years, Kevin Rafter, Sinn Fein 1905-2005 In the Shadow of Gunmen being the two most recent. I can not understand the logic behind it, might you explaine it to me? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The logic is quite simple and has been explained several times already: the party was formed in 1970, and it is inappropriate to include in this article the history of the party from which it split (just as the Fianna Féil article doesn't include the history of SF 1905-1926) or the Republican SF article doesn't include the history of SF 1905-1986). The history section should begin in 1970, with a short introduction relating to the circumstances of the split. Mooretwin (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Domer, the logic is that there are 3 distinct points of view over what happened in 1970. The first (per CAIN above) is that those led by O'Bradaigh (I'll call them PSF purely as a dab) left the SF org and formed a new grouping/party in 1970 and thus OSF are the successors to the original 1905 party. The second is that SF split in 1970 into two distinct groupings OSF and PSF, both with equal claims to be the successors. The third, propogated by PSF, is that OSF shall we say "betrayed" the ideals of 1916 and thus only PSF are the legitimate successors. That's ignoring the subsequent claims of RSF of course.

It's not for us to judge which if those 3 or 4 POVs is correct but by including the pre-1970 history only in this article, we are implicitly siding with the PSF version of history. Per NPOV, we either need to include the pre-1970 history in all relevant articles OSF, PSF, RSF or else in none of them. I feel it's simpler to include it in none of them with a note at the top of the page, as now saying "For the history of the party from its inception to 1970, see History of Sinn Féin." That avoids any POV judgements and would be a stable solution. Valenciano (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The party traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905, and so dose its history. The are countless sources to support this, such as Brian Feeney's A Hundered Turbulent Years, and Kevin Rafter, Sinn Fein 1905-2005 In the Shadow of Gunmen, so address those two sources and tell me what party they are talking about? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As explained already, this is just one of the many parties that traces its origins back to 1905. But this branch began in 1970 and not before. So to repeat (with inevitable variations) the HoSF article is redundant and a POV fork, as stated already. And by the way, "O"SF are also a minority split off, their history starts in 1922, not 1905. --Red King (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true, PSF (1970) is a split from a split (SF 1922-70) from a split (SF 1905-22). Mooretwin (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As Domer has asked could someone explain how The party traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905. is not true. He has provided 2 sources from Brian Feeney and Kevin Rafter which back up this claim, so please stop removing it and dont edit war. BigDunc^Talk 08:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do repeat questions for which answers have been given on several occasions. No-one has claimed that the line is not true. The line remains and has never been removed. You appear confused. What a POV editor is doing is removing the intro reference to Provisional SF, even though it appears in the article. The intro is meant to reflect what is in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not referenced in the article, or the lead! Now both Valenciano and myself have explained how it could be introduced. End of. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now. Mooretwin (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just discovered a rather crafty act of censorship by Domer - he removed the references for PSF, then the next day came back and removed the reference to PSF because it was unreferenced! Mooretwin (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to remove the pre-1970 stuff now. Mooretwin (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what needs to happen: The following sections need to be merged into History of Sinn Fein

1.1 Early days (pre-1916)

1.2 The Easter Rising

1.3 First elections

1.4 The split over the Anglo-Irish Treaty

1.5 1930s to 1968 – Decline to fringe movement

Then the following sections need to go into a "Sinn Fein split of 1970" section along the lines of the one at Official Sinn Fein.

1.6 1969–1970 Resurgence and "Provisional" / "Official" split

1.7 1970s and 1980s

Mooretwin (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Sinn Féin, which was founded in 1905 not 1970. This article begins in 1905. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not. It clearly states at the top of the article: This article is about the present-day Sinn Féin party led by Gerry Adams. For the history of the party from its inception to 1970, see History of Sinn Féin. Mooretwin (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to move the pre-1970 history section to History of Sinn Féin within the next few days as it is POV to retain it in this article (see Valenciano's comments above). There is a majority of editors in favour of this move, which was proposed some time ago. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this move and as such should not happen until consensus is reached. BigDunc^Talk 14:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Define consensus. Do two editors have the power of veto? On this page of discussion alone there are 11 editors (Gramscis cousin, zoney, Damac, gaillimh, padraig3uk, Alai, Mooretwin, jnestorius, 137.146.173.252, Red King and Valenciano) in favour of the change, and only 2 (you and domer) opposed. Mooretwin (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a spurious use of editors you have listed if you check you will see that

• Gaillimh last edited wiki on June 29, 2008
• Gramscis cousin last contributed to this article on May 23, 2008
• Zoney last contributed to this article on May 9, 2007
• Alai last contributed to this article on August 18, 2007
• Jnestorius last contributed to this article December 8, 2007
• 137.146.173.252 has made 7 edits in total on wiki the last being January 17, 2008
• Padraig a friend of mine sadly died on May 17, 2008.
• Damac last contributed to this article on October 14, 2007

So you are left with 5 editors 2 who say no 1 who definitly says move and 2 which have not said yes or no outright so you will see no consensus well actually consensus not to move. Also as you asked see WP:CONSENSUS BigDunc^Talk 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I simply recorded those editors on this page who were in favour of a move. May and June 2008 are fairly recent - don't see why their views should be ignored, plus you have misrepresented Valenciano and Redking, both of whom explicitly said the history section should move. Oh, and thanks for being so helpful as to direct me to WP:Consensus but it doesn't define what a consensus is - that is why I posed the question. Mooretwin (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, for the record, I would outright say yes, it needs to be moved. I've already explained why above - there is dispute in the sources over whether the current party led by Gerry Adams was a new creation in 1970 or whether it is the sole legitimate successor of the original 1905 party. Even if the latter is true, there's no problem with having a history of SF article linked to from here as that avoids any POV. By maintaining the pre-1970 history we are implicitly siding with the "provisional" SF version of history. Valenciano (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit break

There are three books which will have to be dismissed before the logic of what is being suggest can be applyed. They are:

• Sinn Féin - 1905-2005 In The Shadow Of Gunmen, Rafter, Kevin, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 2005, ISBN 0-7171-3992-1
• Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years, Brian Feeney, O'Brien Press, Dublin 2002, ISBN 0 86278 695 9
• Sinn Féin: A Century of Struggle, Parnell Publications, Mícheál MacDonncha, 2005, ISBN 0 9542946 2 9

In addition we also have:

• A New Dictionary of Irish History From 1800, D.J. Hickey & J.E. Doherty, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 2003, ISBN 0 7171 2520 3
• Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, London (Revised Edition 2005), ISBN 0 349 11676 8
• The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000, Diarmaid Ferriter, Profile Books, London 2005, ISBN 978 1 861974 43 3
• Eyewitness to Irish History, Peter Berresford Ellis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Canada 2004, ISBN 0 471 26633 7

We could go on, but this should be enough, the first three alone would suggest that this discussion is pointless. Unless editors would like to put forward books which dispute the authors listed above. The history of Sinn Féin begins in 1905 with Griffith and continues to today with Adams. That is what the sources say, has any authors disputed this? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The history of SF begins in 1905 and one strand of it continues to today with Adams. Have you never heard of Official SF/Workers Party or Republican SF? Or 32CSM for that matter. Have you an air-brush to hand? Mooretwin (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would again refer to the above publications and Authors. In particular the first three which deal specifically with the Party and its first hundred year history. Could you please cite an author which disputes their histories of the Party. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are histories of the post-1970 party, but tracing the history back to before then. If you read the relevant sections about the 1970 split you'll realise that the party split from "official" SF at that time. Mooretwin (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer, several sources have already been posted on *multiple* occasions so why do you persist in asking for them? As I posted on 4 September: "This is an article about the modern party which the BBC [1] says was founded in 1970. Or how about CAIN, one of the most widely used sources which states: "The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970" [2]"

I followed that up with: "To add to that authors Jonathan Tonge [3] and Richard English of QUB [4] both state that the party was formed (as Provisional Sinn Fein) in 1970. The UCD homepage [5] states that SF split into two seperate parties Provisional and Official in 1970." That's the third time I've posted this so please don't waste my time by asking for it again.

Your three books in no way alter the point that the post-1970 succession is disputed and that there are several parties which claim to be the successor. The only NPOV thing we can do per the sources (including your three) is to seperate the pre-1970 history into a separate article. That would in no way contradict the three books you've listed above. Valenciano (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the titles of the books you will notice "1905-2005," "A Hundred Turbulent Years" and "A Century of Struggle" their is no dispute between these authors as to the succession. Could you please provide an Author who disputes the succession? There is no reason to seperate the history section based on these books, I would suggest that the history of Sinn Féin is a fork and should be removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein, can you not see what is wrong with that? Richard English of QUB Sinn Féin's hundredth birthday. CAIN The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF. Provisional SF? Spot the problem? The UCD homepage [6] In 1970 the party split again, into Official Sinn Féin which eventually became Democratic Left and Provisional Sinn Féin, a stronger, more fundamentalist party. Provisional Sinn Féin? Again spot the problem? Likewise Jonathan Tonge [7],Provisional SF? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything you say supports taking the history section out of this article! Looks like Dunc's on his own now. Mooretwin (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but arguing that because those three books (which represent half the argument) agree means that there is no dispute is about as illogical as me saying that because me and Moore agree that means there's no dispute. You're continuing to ignore the other half of the argument made in the five sources I've listed above. Do you really want me to post them for a fourth time? You're proposing a solution based purely on those three books which totally ignores the five sources I've given you. That's POV. I'm proposing a solution which in no way contradicts those three books but also respects my five sources. That's NPOV. Valenciano (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right, plus we need to have the relevant passages from Bid Dunc's source quoted on here. I doubt any of them actually demonstrates that the 1970 split was a straight continuum from SF-PSF rather than SF-OSF or SF-OSF&PSF. SImply quoting their titles isn't good enough. Mooretwin (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally regarding your comments on the sources please read WP:VERIFY which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Valenciano (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article not called Provisional SF? Because no such Party exists, and never has. You are trying to compare Histories of the Party with Press releases. In addition to the Histories, I have also put forward additional books. Lets compare like with like if you wish, to date you have not. Please provide a source which says that the Party was originally called Provisional Sinn Fein and your sources may start to carry some weight, in addition in the discussion below you have also agreed that the name is only used by commentators to distinguish it from Official and or Republican Sinn Fein. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, you're posting in the wrong section. Try the section below. This is about pre-1970 history, not the name. Mooretwin (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is a bit of an echo in here. I've already provided five such references on four separate occasions and you even duplicated them once, implying that you'd read them. Are you asking me to post them for what would be... what ... a fifth time? Seriously? Let me repeat what I've already said to you: go read WP:VERIFY which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Those sources above state a viewpoint that the Adams led party was formed in 1970 do they not? They do. Good. Now unless you're going to argue that the BBC and CAIN aren't reliable sources (something I seriously would advise against) then we're left with the fact that there is disagreement on whether the current SF party is the sole successor to the party formed in 1905. Even if we unequivocally accepted that (and numerous sources say otherwise) there would still be no good reason for not having a history of SF article. Such an article wouldn't exclude that possibility and thus covers all POVs. Valenciano (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not then try to rename this article Provisional SF? It's a simple question.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the party is no longer known by that name! The Provisional Sinn Féin page, however, does link to here! Mooretwin (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Because not all sources agree on that. Simple answer. Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Provide just one source thats says the Party was Originally called PSF? Just one!--Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three sources cited in the text. Mooretwin (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You say above that "there is disagreement on whether the current SF party is the sole successor to the party formed in 1905." Which of the sources you have provided, allude to or suggest there is a disagreement? What you are doing is taking what they say and concluding their is a disagreement. That is called WP:SYN. Taking two sets of statements X and Y and comming up with Z. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well to answer that fully you'll need to clarify your position. If, as I understand it, you are implying that all your three books argue that the current party is the only successor to the 1905 party, then all five of my sources disagree. The BBC "The modern party was founded in 1970" or as you posted yourself "CAIN The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF" clear enough. UCD says the party split into two in 1970. Tonge "most people associate the name 'Sinn Féin' with the party formed in 1970 as Provisional SF" English "Adams’s own “Provisional” movement – formed in January 1970 in a breakaway from the existing (or “Official”) Sinn Féin."

If that isn't your position and you accept my point that there are other parties which claim that heritage then we agree and there's no reason for not having a 'history of sf' article. Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is it traces its origions from the original SF from 1905 to present day. Yes its the same Party. This is supported by all the sources I have provided, not just the subject pacific histories. The only other Party to claim that heritage is RSF. All Parties in the South of Ireland execpt Labour can trace their origions to the original SF. "Provisional SF" is just a term used to distinguish the two factions during the split. When the dust settled “Provisional” SF was the dominant faction. How else could I write that sentence unless I used that term to distinguish them from each other. You have already accepted this, and are therefore challenging the sources you have provided.

As long as all those subject pacific histories in addition to the other books are on the table the SF article will include the history of SF from 1905. Even if you provide a source, which challanges all of these sources the history will still remain. The sources you provide even contradict each other. You are taking the contradiction, and arguing on behalf of the sources, you can not do that! To do that is called WP:SYN. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, the 1905-70 history should be replicated on the OSF article, and also in the RSF article, along with a replication of the 1970-86 history from this article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused. Are you arguing about the name or about the post-1970 continuity? Mooretwin (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What do your sources actually say about 1970. Simply posting the titles is no good. Mooretwin (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and "subject pacific" - what on earth does that mean? Mooretwin (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but RSF isn't the only other party to claim that heritage as the Worker's Party does. As the section on Cathal Goulding says: "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." [8] they are supported in that by the sources I've given above which claim that PSF was either a new party formed then, a breakaway from OSF or one of two parties emerging from that split. Are they correct in that? Per WP:VERIFY, not for us to judge. But per WP:NPOV we must fairly represent *all* viewpoints. As I've already said umpteen times, a history of SF article doesn't in any way contradict your sources, none of which incidentally you've produced quotes from to back up your position, so even if we were to accept your position as the sole truth there would be nothing preventing that. The only other NPOV thing to do would be to add the pre-1970 history to *all* parties claiming that lineage (you've already accepted that numerous others do) and that seems to me to be a ridiculous duplication.

I honestly feel though that we're going round in circles here and that's wasting both of our times and so new input would be good. If you've no objection I'll ask for it on Wikiproject Ireland or a similar neutral one. Valenciano (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No IMO I've been very reasoned and clear. Try WP:3. The Worker's Party claim to be SF? You are still attempting WP:SYN. All Parties should have their origions and history up untill they left SF and formed New Parties. That includes FF, FG, and RSF etc, its not ridiculous duplication, its the history of those Parties. RSF for example up till 1986, OSF till 1969-70 etc etc.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That OSF were a new party and that PSF were the only direct successor contradicts several sources above some of which say that the party split then. On your other point, if source A says that a party was formed in 1905 and source B says it was formed in 1970 it isn't synthesis to say that sources disagree so I really don't get your point about synthesis. The ironic thing is that in the course of this thread, you've basically conceded all my points, you've said that sources contradict each other, which is precisely my point - there isn't one accepted history of what happened but several and despite repeated requests you still haven't produced any quotes from the three books you cite. So which of your sources say there is that direct continuity rather than one party splitting in two? Quote them please? You've said that all parties should have the history from 1905 included and I agree - but it isn't sensible to duplicate the same info across several articles, better to have one standalone article that covers it. Provided we link to it here from in a non-POV way there isn't a problem. Valenciano (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have said your sources contradict each other, and you contradict yourself, when you accept that there is no such party as PSF. Now you have suggested WP:3, I agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How is that a contradiction? No-one claims the party’s name is PSF – that doesn’t mean it wasn’t formed in 1970! You’re conflating two arguments – the one about the foundation and the one about the name (on both of which, you are wrong!) Mooretwin (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As already requested, can you provide the relevant quotes from your books which support your viewpoint? For your three sources to have weight we need relevant quotes to support your interpretation - although even if they are produced there's still no reason for not having a history of SF article. You've already agreed that the history section equally belongs to articles about other parties so I can't see why we're having this discussion. re:PSF I have said they were referred to as such by media commentators which doesn't contradict anything above. Valenciano (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion duly requested. Valenciano (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Correctly refererenced

"It was originally known as Provisional Sinn Féin." Unless this is correctly referenced, that is, it says that the party was originally known as Provisional Sinn Féin, it will be removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

References have been provided, which list the party under the name PSF. Mooretwin (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference which supports the information "It was originally known as Provisional Sinn Féin." As far as I'm aware, there is no such Party called Provisional Sinn Féin. References have been provided which only show the use of the term, but do not support the information. Please provide a reference to support it. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, if the party is listed as "Provisional Sinn Féin", then, by definition, it was known by that name! Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference which state that "It was originally known as Provisional Sinn Féin." When was Provisional Sinn Féin as a title for the Party first used and by who? Have the Party itself ever used the title "Provisional?" "if the party is listed as "Provisional Sinn Féin", then, by definition, it was known by that name! This is called "Synthesis," that is, taking two unrelated statements and drawing a conclusion.

It's not. If the editors of political directories listed the party as PSF then they must have known it by that name otherwise they wouldn't have listed it under the name. Mooretwin (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Now were is it listed as "Provisional Sinn Féin"? Reference the information or it will be removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Click on the references and you'll find two political directories listing the party as PSF! Mooretwin (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you genuinely not know that the party was known as PSF or are you just being awkward? Mooretwin (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the party call themselves PSF? No. The term PSF is used by commentators to differentiate between them and OSF in 1969-70. Very much the same as when Unionists call the Party Sinn Féin-IRA, your not suggesting that there is such a Party, even though you could reference the term? There is not, and never has been a Party called PSF. Now your references do not support the text you have added, so I will give you the oppertunity to address it or remove it. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question - do you genuinely not know that the party was known as PSF or are you just being awkward?

We don't know whether the party called itself PSF or not - that hasn't been established. We do know, however, that the party was called PSF by others, including to the extent of being listed under that name in political directories. It is not "very much the same as unionists saying SF-IRA", since (a) that was a label applied only by unionists and not universally, and (b) that was intended as a derogatory/political label, whereas everyone used the term PSF, including objective commentators, and it was not a derogatory/political label. :::The references do support the text. The text says the party was known as PSF, and the references demonstrate this. Mooretwin (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The best way would be a compromise wording something along the lines of "the party was originally referred to as PSF by media commentators" Valenciano (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Valenciano we have both already offered this solution and they have rejected it? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Domer content with the reference in the main article, but not in the intro? Mooretwin (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three citations, so no need for the insert. Enough of your games: please remove it. Mooretwin (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked by two editors both on this tread and above to change the wording to reflect the sources. Please assume good faith, and if you are unable to do so, I'll do it for who. I have a look at it during the week. Thanks. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer/Moore just so we're clear, would you be happy enough with the following wording "the party was originally referred to as PSF by media commentators (cite), although they never contested elections under that label [9]" if not could you please propose an alternative wording? Valenciano (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To take account of Domer's and BigDunc's sensitivites, I've changed "known as" to "dubbed", to make it clear that the label was probably an external one (although it's still possible that the party used the label itself - we just don't have any source for that at present). I also realised that someone censored the reference to the PIRA connection (Hmmm ... I wonder does that tell us anything), so I added it in by way of explanation for the name. This is backed up by the citation(s). Mooretwin (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mooretwin, much better. However it was both Valenciano and myself who raised the issue and not BigDunc. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised that we've achieved consensus on this bit at least, although I disagree with your edit re OIRA - the Provos split from the Irish Republican Army (1922-1969), the rump of which then became the known as the Official IRA. Therefore it doesn't make sense to say the Provos split from the Officials. What happened was the Provos split from the IRA, and the remainder of the IRA became known as the Officials. Mooretwin (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

However you may disagree with my edit, I would rather we discuss it here than revert each other. You have now reverted this twice both here and here. As you may be aware, there is now a 1RR on this article. This resrticts us all to only 1RR. Might I suggest you revert yourself, and between the two of us we can reach a decision on this together through discussion and agreement. Thanks in advance. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The first "revert" was a correction to my own edit. You changed it without discussing first! It's now correct. Mooretwin (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion question

Although there are more than two editors involved ...

What is happening with this? Mooretwin (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a message with Fr33kman a few days ago to ask the very same. He's been offline recently so let's wait at least another week and see what happens. There's no mad rush. Valenciano (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As it's been six weeks since we asked for the 3O and Fr33kman hasn't delivered, I've relisted this. Valenciano (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion offered

Fr33kman (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Valenciano (talk · contribs)

The basis of this dispute concerns the events of 1970 and the split which occurred in the Irish Republican movement then, how it affected the different parties and which party(s) can claim the legacy of the original Sinn Fein party formed in 1905 which I’ll call SF1905 for dab purposes. The first of the two main parties involved were the current Sinn Féin, led by Gerry Adams which this article is about – I’ll call them PSF hereafter as a dab. The second was Official Sinn Féin later called Workers Party of Ireland who I’ll refer to as OSF hereafter.

Generally speaking there are at least three viewpoints on what happened in 1970, the first is that PSF broke away from SF1905 and formed a new party, with SF1905 continuing as OSF. CAIN[10] , one of the most widely used sources on NI politics, says of the split: "A majority of delegates (although not the two-thirds required under the party's rules to change policy) were in favour of ending the abstentionist policy. Those opposed to the move, 257 supporters of the 'Provisional Army Council', walked out of the meeting thus leaving the organisation and established offices in Kevin Street, Dublin. This new grouping became known as 'Provisional Sinn Féin' (PSF)."

Other sources include the BBC [11] which says of PSF “The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein,” There are other sources [12] [13] which also support this viewpoint.

The second interpretation of the 1970 events is that SF1905 split into two separate parties in 1970 [14] OSF and PSF.

The third interpretation favoured by PSF and supporters is that OSF ‘betrayed’ real republicanism and thus they alone are the true successors of SF1905.

Which of those viewpoints is correct? Not for us to say. But the problem which sparked all this is that the history prior to 1970 is in this article alone – implicity supporting the third POV - that of PSF and supporters to the exclusion of other POVs. Per WP:NPOV we can’t do that. I believe the only fair solution is to move the pre-1970 history to the History of Sinn Féin article and link to that from both the PSF and OSF articles. The beauty of that solution is that it avoids such arguments over which party is the true successor and covers *all* POVs including that of PSF.

Domer48 has challenged this on the grounds that the party was never called PSF – whether true or not this is covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability which states “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.” The name question is also irrelevant to this discussion. He has also failed to produce relevant quotes to back up his position, despite several requests and even if they do appear, moving the pre-1970 history would not contradict them anyway.

It is notable that in the comparable situation with the organisation’s paramilitary wings, we do have separate articles covering the period up to 1969/1970.

Furthermore, as another editor pointed out above, at various points in the past ten other editors (Gramscis cousin, zoney, Damac, gaillimh, padraig3uk, Alai, Mooretwin, jnestorius, 137.146.173.252, and Red King) have supported this change while only two editors (BigDunc and Domer48) have opposed it, thus it is a change more likely to find wider agreement than the current status quo.

Domer, to be honest my first reaction every time I read each of your response is " did he read or take on board *anything* which I typed?" The problem is that you are still wasting your time basing your responses on "truth" or at least your interpretation of it. Your objection for example to the BBC and CAIN sources seems to be that *you* don't believe them to be true. As I have pointed out numerous times WP:VERIFY is your friend: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Now the material I have cited above undoubtedly meets that criteria. You on the other hand despite umpteen requests to produce direct relevant quotes from the books you mention have been unable to do so, which does suggest the possibility that those books do not contain your interpretation of a direct continuum from 1905 to present. But if they do simple - produce the relevant quotes. The onus remains on you to do that. Until you do they're worthless. As you have already acknowledged that several parties claim the history of SF or the legacy, then a book titled "100 years of SF" no more supports your viewpoint that it's the same party than a "100 years of British government" would prove that the same party ruled for that century. You have also wasted a long time in a long winded interpretation of events of 1970, all of it unsourced, which would be undoubtedly removed or tagged if it were added to an article.

Regarding your point about Kevin Street, this comes back to my initial point that I must question whether you read any of my responses, CAIN above says nothing whatsoever about them going into a hall on Kevin Street it says they "established offices in Kevin Street, Dublin" in your conclusion above you say "One section was referred to as Sinn Fein (Kevin Street) ... this came from the location of the opposing offices." Spot the difference in views? No neither do I, so in other words you accept that part of CAIN's interpretation.

You say above that sources disagree on what happened in 1970. Voila, the penny drops. That's what I've been saying all along - that there isn't a single accepted view on what happened then.

As for having separate histories 1905-1926, 1926-1970, 1970-1986, 1986-present, I'd be perfectly happy to accept that as a solution and indeed other editors have already proposed that. Having the same material duplicated across several different articles is totally pointless. Valenciano (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Domer has finally produced a list of sources to support his view - this after having to be asked at least six times. Conveniently enough, none of those books are online and he still refuses to produce relevant quotes from those books so that we can see if they support his interpretation. We are told by another editor (setanta below) that the books cited do not contain the information that Domer claims so I'm afraid that I remain sceptical that they do support that viewpoint. Regardless of that, we still have five reliable sources which give different viewpoints on the events of 1970 and thus the point remains that the only way to balance all viewpoints is a separate history article. Valenciano (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Domer48):

Provisional Sinn Fein

The first point I would make is that there is no Party called Provisional Sinn Fein. There never has been, and this is conceded by Valenciano here and reluctantly by Mooretwin, reflected in this edit here. The question this raises is what was the section of the Party dubbed Provisional Sinn Fein called? Sinn Féin.

There was an alternative disambiguation used at the time which may help in answering this question. One section was referred to as Sinn Fein (Gardiner Place) and the other as Sinn Fein (Kevin Street), this came from the location of the opposing offices. Sinn Fein are still, to this day in 44 Parnell Square. The building is named Kevin Barry Hall.

During the split, both sections were called Sinn Fein, and disambiguation was needed to distinguish them by commentators both past and present.

The Split

The second point I’d make is, that there were two splits in the Republican Movement. One in 1969 in the IRA, and the other in Sinn Fein in 1970.

IRA

The split in the IRA was not about abstentionism alone, though it played a part. The split arose over the playing down of the role of the Army and its inability in defending the Nationalist population in the north of Ireland. One section of the Army Council wanted to take them down a purely political (Marxist) road, and abandon armed struggle. The other section accused them of rigging the Army convention, (December 1969) and the vote on abandoning the policy of abstentionism and abandoning the Nationalists. An indication of this was literally the writing on the wall. IRA was dabbed on the walls over the north. However it was used to disparage the army, by writing “I Ran Away.” Disgusted by this attempted Marxist coup, they established a “provisional” Army Council and set about acquiring arms and defending the Nationalist people. Joe Cahill one of the members never accepted the use of the term Provisional IRA, by commentators and the members referred to themselves as the IRA.

Sinn Fein

The policy of abandoning abstentionism now had to be passed by Sinn Fein at its Parties Ard Fheis to be held in January 1970. Unlike the Army, a two thirds majority was required to change the Party’s constitution. In an attempt to secure this, the Leadership had refused delegate status (voting rights) to a number of Sinn Fein Cummann (branch) particularly in the north were they knew them to be opposed. When the vote was taken the result was 153 to 104 in favour. The leadership had failed to achieve the two thirds majority. This did not lead to any members leaving the conference. The members left, when the Leadership attempted to propose a motion in support of the IRA Army Council. This motion would only have required a simple majority. As the Army had already agreed to drop abstentionism, this was seen by members as an attempt to subvert the Parties Constitution, and refused to vote and withdrew from the meeting. Pre-empting this move they had booked a hall in 44 Parnell square, were they established a “caretaker executive” of Sinn Fein. They did not form a new Party. To them the Leadership had attempted to subvert the Party prompting for want of a better word a Leadership challenge. Sinn Fein was now split into opposing factions. (Enter the disambiguation)

The Party was now in a state of flux, both sides challenging for control. People began to flock to join the “Provos” as they were called (again disambiguation). In an effort to assert its authority one section began to call its self “Official IRA” and “Official Sinn Fein,” but to no avail. Within two years the “Provos” had secured control of the Republican Movement, both military and political.

Conclusions:

Valenciano has used a couple of web based references to support their view. Each and every one contradict each other. The BBC for example suggest that PSF split from OSF. However OSF did not come into existence until after the split. CAIN if Valenciano quotes it correctly have PSF going to the wrong street (Kevin Street) they went to 44 Parnell square (Kevin Barry Hall). Likewise the additional references “most people now associate the name ‘Sinn Fein’…” If that was used in an article a tag would be placed on it. Like the BBC we have the additional reference again having PSF breaking away from OSF, with the article header being “Sinn Fein’s hundredth birthday.” Now the references Valenciano has used are noting short of Press Releases, small snippets of information. My contribution above can be sourced and referenced to a number of books I’ve outlined in my previous discussion above and linked to here. Including three histories of the Party. As far as sources go, we are not comparing like with like here.

Now Valenciano concern also centres on the fact that the history of Sinn Fein is in this article alone. I’ve suggested that they include the history of the Party into the other articles. For example Fianna Fáil from 1905 till 23 March 1926. Republican Sinn Fein from 1905 till 1986, etc, etc. What I can not understand is why they just want a history 1905 to 1970? Should they not be asking for 1905 – 1926 another 1905- 1986 etc?

Now I have addressed the verifiability issue, and Dunc has addressed the opinions of the previous editors, (I’m surprised to see them raised here again), and I have given what I hope is a rational and detailed account of the issue. If any supplementary information is required please ask. Thanks.

Addendum: The has been some comments on the “Majority” at the Ard Fheis in 1970. The point I would make is this, the leadership failed to get the two thirds majority they needed. Not for the want of trying I might add. They refused delegate status to a number of Sinn Fein Cumann, they knew to be opposed to their policy. Delegate status as you know is the ability to vote. So when we use the word majority, we are talking about the majority of delegates, not Sinn Fein members, and they could not get enough delegates to support their motion. Having failed, they tried to circumvent the Parties Constitution, with a vote of confidence in the Army Council, who had already split on the issue. This made the vote of confidence null and void. After the Ard Fheis, the Sinn Fein members, came over to the side of the “caretaker executive” which had been established at a meeting held in 44 Parnell Square. The leadership became marginalised and watched their support dwindle, in 1972 calling of their military campaign before changing their name to Official Sinn Fein. The “caretaker executive” had ousted the leadership, with the overwhelming support of the membership of both Sinn Fein and the IRA. So when we us the word “majority” we must use it in its proper context. I hope that lends some clarity to the discussion. If editors have an alternative view, please put it forward, with supporting diff’s from books on the subject, and not press releases.

Viewpoint by (Setanta747):

I've not been following this discussion and I have, as I write this, no idea what it is about (presumably the name of the article?). I do feel I should point out something in regard to one of the references you have used though, Domer. The pages in Bell & Gillespie's book that you refer to do not explicitly state that there was no such party as Provisional Sinn Féin. In fact, if you look at the index, p. 334-5, you'll see that there is an entry specifically for "Provisional Sinn Féin", which says "see also Sinn Féin". Skipping to the Sinn Féin entry in the index, there are only exactly two page references (pages 10 and 25).

If this discussion is about the name of the political party, then I would suggest that the Sinn Féin of which Gerry Adams is currently the president, probably owns the name. This incarnation may have been known as "Provisional Sinn Féin" for a time, in line with the paramilitary wing, the Provisional IRA... but the "Provisional" tag was at some point dropped (not always from the latter, but more often than not from the political body). Certainly after the Officials changed their name, there was no need for any disambiguation.

The pre-split, or pre-1970 party were a reasonably different organisation than the post-1970 one, and I can only suggest that perhaps there is enough material in this article to warrant the creation of another article (Sinn Féin (original) or Sinn Féin (pre-1970 or something). Last time I looked, the article was certainly lengthy enough. Certainly, the two parties that existed after the split became very different, with Adams' SF leaning toward Socialism (and violence) and the Workers' Party maintaining Marxist roots (and eventually desisting from any violent campaign).

I don't know if this helps any, some or all of those involved in this discussion.. hopefully what I have said can lead to some sort of solution if this is the reason for the conflict. If the issue is something to do with merely the existence of the name "Provisional Sinn Féin", then I have found this article in CAIN which specifically states that the party had initially been called that. On top of that, the .org version of Sinn Féin's Internet space also uses the title here. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Mooretwin):

I support all that Valenciano has said.

Re. Domer's points:

• It is irrelevant whether the party currently using the name SF every called itself "Provisional Sinn Fein" (we have as yet no conclusive proof as to whether it did). The fact is that it split from the original SF in 1970 - its name (official or otherwise) is irrelevant, except for disambiguation purposes. The exact same argument could be used about Official SF.
• It is verifiably the case that the party was known (at least by others) as Provisional SF.
• Most of the rest of Domer48's points are irrelevant - they merely put forward the (P)SF POV - which, as Valenciano has articulated - is only one of three POVs.
• It is irrelevant to point out that, ultimately, (P)SF had "secured control" of the republican movement, because that is imposing retrospectively an interpretation on events prior to said "securing of control". The Provos may have become the dominant faction within republicanism relatively quickly, but they did so following a split from (what became known as) the Officials.
• For the record, however, it is incongruous to, on the one hand, admit that those forming (P)SF were a minority, had walked out of a party convention and established a new HQ, while at the same time arguing that the minority walking out and establishing their new party apparatus were, in fact, NOT splitting from the main party.
• Pointing out the Valenciano's references contradict each other merely supports Valenciano's argument that there are different POVs and that Wikipedia should not adopt the (P)SF POV.

The current "Sinn Féin" article should not include anything other than a cursory history section, and should not give the impression that the current party known as Sinn Féin is the sole continuation of the party founded in 1905. Essentially, it should begin in 1970.

• My personal view is that the "Official Sinn Féin" article should include the pre-1970 history currently included in this article, since it was the Provos who broke away from SF in 1970, with the majority-SF-party then attracting the name "Official" (which, in itself, tells us something). Indeed, the "Official SF" article should point to the "Workers Party" article - which should really be an article about SF/Workers Party.
• Having said that, my second-favoured solution would be to have a "History of SF" article dealing with the period up to 1970.
• The "Republican Sinn Féin" article should begin in 1986.

Third opinion by Fr33kman

....

Hi all, sorry it's been a while, I've had to do some reading around this subject. My first question would be about the reader; What do editors feel the reader of this article wants? What did the average reader (school kid, interested woman, etc.) come here for? fr33kman -s- 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts. Accuracy. Mooretwin (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fourth(!) opinion

Having skimmed through some of the comments, I now realise that, instead of vaguely supporting Domer's position as I had initially thought, it seems I actually support an opposing position.

Unless I'm mistaken, the discussion seems to be about the 'ownership', by the modern Sinn Féin, of the full history of the organisation from its roots circa Griffith et al, 1905. In reality, both of the organisations involved have a shared history of the original Sinn Féin of 1905. There is no reason to keep the history of the organisation limited to just the one current descendant.

In response to a comment by Domer on where the two post-1970 organisations were headquartered, the Bell & Gillespie book, on page 25, suggests that the Provisional faction moved to Kevin Street, while the Official faction remained in Gardiner Place:

“ Consequently, 257 delegates of the 'Provisional Army Council' walk out of the ard fheis and set up their headquarters at Kevin Street, Dublin while the Officials maintain their headquarters at Gardiner Place, Dublin. ”

The article has been expanded immensely since January of last year, particularly by members of the IRA WikiProject, increasing by a hefty seven kilobytes or so since mid-April, 2007. This is just another reason why I would support a split in the articles. The fact is though, that the Workers' Party equally 'owns' the history of the Sinn Féin of 1905. Of Sinn Féin itself (notably, the modern incarnation), CAIN says this: The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF. It also says, in that entry, that "Provisional Sinn Féin" is a synonym for "Sinn Féin". So there we have it: Gerry Adams' Sinn Féin (or Provisional Sinn Féin) is descendant from Griffith's Sinn Féin and Official Sinn Féin (now the Workers' Party) is also descended from Griffith's Sinn Féin.

The pre-1970 history of the organisation should be placed into a new article and linked to from all the articles about the post-1970 Sinn Féin descendants, using the {{main}} template. I really can't see where the problem with that might lie. --Setanta747 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to the third opinion request.

I endorse Setanta747's "Fourth (!) opinion" above, on the grounds that it is the most informed and sensible solution which will achieve the best result for readers of the encyclopedia. — Athaenara ✉ 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you not see how these quotes are being contradicted by Setanta747? "The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF." So the party is split. The "Provisional" SF (a name never adopted by the Party) did not split from Official Sinn Féin. Please read it again and see if you can spot the difference between original and Official? Informed opinion, is still opinion, unless we base them on sources which are both WP:V and WP:RS. The history of Official Sinn Féin extends from 1905 to 1972 and should be on there article, and based on the sources provided Sinn Féin (there never was a Party called Provisional SF) extends from 1905 to present day. This is also supported by three histories of the Party. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In reality, though, the Provos split from SF (which was then tagged "Official SF" for the very reason that it was the original organisation from which the Provos split. ("Official") SF eventually changed its name to the Workers Party, effectively leaving the Provos with the SF name (hence Domer's confusion). Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, you've made that point umpteen times and it has in turn been rebutted umpteen times (see above.) Now we have had a 3rd opinion and that did not support your view. Four recent editors plus the third opinion plus at least six other editors in the past disagree with you so I think it's time you stopped obstructing progress on this article. I don't propose to debate the same old same old here with you ad nauseam so for me the only thing that now needs to be discussed is what we leave in this article and what we move to the history of sf article. Valenciano (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CON, it dose not matter how many editors agree, its based on the arguements put forward. I've provided more than enough sources to support my view. Now the only alternative we have is to seek a request for comment. Your misrepresentations of the discussion, lend nothing to resolving the issue, in fact I’d tend towards describing them as obstructive. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Having looked over the article I have to admit it is in a sorry state. Therefore I would suggest stripping out any and all un-referenced text, and reducing it down to the bones of the article and rebuilding from there. Quite a while back I placed section tags on the article, and nothing was done. Some of the history sections are far to detailed, and could be trimmed down. If this suggestion is acceptable, I would then suggest that all future additions must be sourced and referenced. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we not waiting for the third-party opinion? 212.250.165.11 (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Different thing altoghter. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Best await the 3rd-party intervention before making major article changes. Mooretwin (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop referencing or removing unreferenced text from the article? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the fundamental shape sorted and then work on the detail. Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above WP:3 is about weather to include the history section, or move it. Regardless of the outcome, the information will have to be referenced or removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think better would be if you give us an idea of which statements you propose to remove, we could then have a go at sourcing them or rewording them (as I've just done with the one you added). Valenciano (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, stripping out any and all un-referenced text. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed another section (none of it referenced) which just needs additional references now. I'd like to suggest creating another page for "Elected Sinn Féin representatives" including the "Latest developments" section and removing them from this article, opinions welcome, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Colin Wallace and the claimed oath

Colin Wallace produced a briefing document titled "Land Operations Volume III-Counter Revolutionary Operations," Ministry of defence, 29 August 1969 in which this oath appeared. A copy of it then appeared in Spectator, 15 May 1971, in responce to this Tim Pat Coogan, editor of The Irish Press and author of the book IRA wrote to George Gale in Spectator pointing out that it was a forgery. Gale apologised, saying he had "gullibly" took it "from an Army document." For more details on it read Ireland: The Propaganda War, The British Media and the Battle for the Hearts and Minds, Liz Curtis, Pluto Press, ISBN 0 86104 757 5, pg.231-32. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What is happening?

I thought we were getting a 3rd/4th opinion on the request to reconfigure this article and move the pre-1970 stuff to History of Sinn Féin? Have we all wasted our time on this - is anything happening? How do we proceed? Mooretwin (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we proceed, maybe a RfC might be needed? I was going to suggest we do a breif history on each SF related article and then have a main SF history article. However when I noticed you again mention pre-1970 stuff, I have to admit, I can't see any reason for it. I've provided more than enough sources, I've placed text into the article and none of it has been challanged. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As the hatnote says "This article is about the present-day Sinn Féin party led by Gerry Adams", so the pre-1970 stuff needs to go the history article. Any changes you have made will go with it. Mooretwin (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, my preferred solution would be to have separate articles for time periods between each split. Say SF 1905-1922, SF 1922-1970 for example. Domer, what would be your proposed wording for the brief history you propose to include? Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How would you treat the post-70 period when there were two parties calling themselves SF? You could have PSF and OSF up to 1977(?) when OSF became Workers Party - after that PSF could be referred to simply as SF. Mooretwin (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Hi, could not not all discuss the issue of the Lead here and address any concerns editors have. On the issue of "Provisional" we all agree that it was a lable placed on them and that there never was such a party as "Provisional" Sinn Féin. I though I covered it fairly ok in the article and explained how and why it came about. Having said that, it is not such a big deal that it warrents inclusion in the Lead. I could think of a number of things that should go into the Lead, but it just would not work to include everything. Lets keep it simple, shall we. Opinions are welcome, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It deserves a mention but I'm not really that bothered whether it goes in the lead or not. The lead overall needs expansion anyway. By the way, I'm planning to put in a request for comment on the 'history of sf' controversy above in the hope that we can put it to bed. Just too busy with other stuff now, but I'll put a notice here when I get round to it. Valenciano (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree re the Lead. I don't think the controversy over the 'history of sf' all we need to do is put a breif history in front of each article which has a common history. That is, up untill they parted ways with SF. I'll just keep referencing the different sections, but if editors would like to lend a hand, just pick a section, help is more than welcome, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you could hold off on making any changes to the sections dealing with electoral performances from 1980s onwards, I'll add the necessary refs to those parts when I get a chance. I think ultimately if we get it all referenced we could go for GAN. Valenciano (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip over the electoral performances from 1980s onwards and leave it to you. What do you think about adding a breif history to each of the SF related articles? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Valenciano I'll reference the "First elections" over the coming days, and would like your opinions on the "2004 - 2007" and "Political views" sections"? On the "2004 - 2007" section it reads like a newspaper (tabloid) and full of filler. The "Political views" sections" is like a campaign poster, out of date and unreferenced. Is there any good political party articles we could use as a template for this one? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned above issues I have and in the edit summary only putting in a criticism of their policies rather than a balanced analysis isn't neutral is exactly the point I'm making. Now before I try to address this, do you have any opinions? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Provisional

It appears that Moortwin is not willing to take part in this discussion, or accept the rational we have offered. While it is becoming common now, I hope the accept discussion is better than simply reverting. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The current lead is the result of discussion - quite a long discussion at that. There's no need to alter it by removing relevant, notable and referenced material that suits your POV desire to hide the fact that the current SF is the Provisional version of that party (regardless of whether that was ever its official name). Unquestionably and objectively, however, that is an important and notable fact that merits being recorded in the lead. Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The current Lead is not the result of quite a long discussion. It was your inability to correctly reference the information that took a long time, which you still have not done, and I have had decided to over looked till now. Since you don't know what my POV is, and the fact that I don't add my POV to articles your comments should form no part of this discussion. Now, provide a quoted reference from the sources that you have used which supports the current text or remove it. Now there are two editors who agree that it is of little or no importance to the subject, and is cover well enough in the article. With that in mind, it dose not merit inclusion in the Lead, when other much more relevant information is absent. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The references are there, and were there from quite early into your edit-warring. Your POV is rather obvious - it is that of a Provisional republican - as evidenced by your attempts on this page to impose a Provosional republican interpretation of history on to WP. The references show the party being "dubbed" as PSF. Valenciano also had loads of references which you chose to ignore. To be honest, I simply don't believe that you don't know that the party was known as PSF in its early years: I don't think you're that naive. As for the fact that the current SF is the Provo element in the 1970 split not being important - that is an incredulous position to take. The lead is fine as it is. Mooretwin (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Provide a quote from the sources which support "It was originally dubbed Provisional Sinn Féin[2][3][4] in recognition of its affiliation with the Provisional Army Council of the IRA, which had split from the IRA in the previous month" or words to that effect. The information is being challanged, and the onus is now on you to to support your revert. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the information being removed as unsourced, which it is. I'd still like the quoted text which supports the above statement. In addition, I like it explained why it is considered notable enough to be in the Lead. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You know it's true that the party was dubbed PSF: you're just being obstructive in attempt to downplay the fact in order to suit your POV. Would you prefer "known as" or "called" or "described as"? Because the sources list the party under the name "Provisional Sinn Féin". "Dubbed" was a compromise on my part, which you previously agreed to before you went back on yourself. Mooretwin (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone unhelpfully reverted text in an attempt to continue the tedious attempts to censor the term "Provisional" from the lead. He argued that "since SF has never recognised the "provisional" term, it doesn't need to be in the article" - but this is not a Provo propaganda piece - it is an objective article, and therefore the article doesn't need to articulate (P)SF's own historical analysis. The current lead was agreed by all, Domer included, and shouldn't be reverted. I've taken off bold to appease him. Mooretwin (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide rational and reasonable reasons for your changes. I do not agree with your proposed text, and this is a view shared by an additional three Editors. Please address the issues raised above. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me who changed it. I restored it. How come you don't agree with it now, when you agreed to it on 7th October, following a rare example of constructive discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Note yet again, Domer48's refusal to engage in discussion. He agreed to compromise text on 7th October, but has since reverted, refusing to discuss this volte-face. I await an explanation.Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Still no explanation as to why Domer48 has gone from supporting the text on 7th October to rejecting it now. Interestingly, one of the sources used by Domer48 elsewhere uses the term "Provisional Sinn Féin": Brian Feeney (2002) Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years O'Brien Press, p. 251 - "Neither the Provisional IRA nor its political mouthpiece, Provisional Sinn Féin, had much of an existence outside west Belfast." The Oxford Companion to Irish History also records the term "Provisional Sinn Féin" in its entry under "Sinn Féin". The reversion of the 7th October text - as well as removing the reference to the name Provisional Sinn Féin also removes reference to the connection between the party and the Provisional IRA: something that is undoubtedly notable. It would be useful if other editors would engage in discussion about this. Mooretwin (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin could you please modify your tone on the talk page, it is not conducive to having a reasonable discussion. Please read talk page guidlines and try to remain civil. Confine your comments to the edits and not to the Editors. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 19:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ourselves alone"

Since you can't so much as fart in here without persons of a certain interest reverting your edits, I've decided to provide a section on this talk page for the person who reverted this extremely well known translation of the name of Sinn Féin to offer his rationale behind removing mention of it from the article.

Now, as a person who has lived in Northern Ireland for well over thirty years, I can assure you that this is the single most common translation for the name - whether it is considered technically "correct", linguistically speaking, or not. This is the reason I asked, in my edit summary, whether the editor had ever been to Northern Ireland. I have spoken with many people on this subject in the past, from all shades and colours. I can't quite say the same with regard to the Republic of Ireland, as I've not really spoken much on this subject down there.

So, considering it is a very common translation (if not THE most common explanation given), might I ask the editor what the problem is with including it in the article? --Setanta 00:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you accept that it is not a correct translation, and no matter how common the incorrect translation is used its still incorrect. The references which have now been used now, simply reference its use, and do not mention that it is both incorrect or common. I have placed a reference now which is correct. It states clearly that it is an incorrect translation, but dose not mention that it is a common mistake. The sentence is now referenced correctly. We as Sirfozzie has mentioned, here to inform the reader. So now readers will know that it is an incorrect translation. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As SirFozzie mentioned, we are here to inform the reader - which is exactly the principle I had been working on when I made my initial addition back in October. I have made some comments which specifically relate to the issue on the phrase in the recent arbitration case you made against me. I will probably copy the relevant comments across to here, and possibly expand on them, for your delectation. --Setanta 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When we inform the reader, we insure the information is correct. You knew the information was not correct and added it any way. Now no matter how common incorrect information is, its up to us to insure that it dose not end up in articles. Common sense really don't you think? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"dubious source removed see talk" There is nothing on the talk page, and the information which was added is not supported by the references. No where in the references dose it say that it is common, or that the translation is incorrect. The source I have used is not dubious and correctly sources the text. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Domer, firstly it would greatly help if you gave me time to type - patience is a virtue you know. You are still ignoring policy, specifically WP:VERIFY which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This has been pointed out to you on countless occasions on this page yet you continue to ignore it in order to push your own version of "truth" aka POV. Nowhere above has Setanta stated that he believes the info to be untrue, instead he says "whether true or not" indicating he doesn't know. Now you have today, without any discussion, removed reliable sources from the BBC and Time magazine in favour of a research paper. Not acceptable. Eoin O’Malley may be many things but he is not a linguist and therefore citing a political scientist on a key point of linguistics is as ridiculous as quoting a theologist as the definitive source on an important point of economics. As my earlier sources show, "ourselves alone" has been used as an English translation of SF since at least 1937. Now we can deal if you like with the correctness of that particular translation however the lead is not the place for it. I suggest you create a separate section on the name or add a footnote for that. Valenciano (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First I would suggest that you post on the talk page first and don't post an edit summary of "dubious source removed see talk" having posted nothing on the talk page. The second thing I will say again, the references do not support the text. Please point to the part of the references were it says it being the common translation? The source I've used correctly supports the text, and I quote "While Sinn Féin (variously translated as ‘Ourselves’, inelegantly as ‘We Ourselves’ or incorrectly as ‘Ourselves Alone’)." I hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in my edit did I say it was a common translation. Secondly you are now in breach of 1RR and I recommend you self revert immediately. Valenciano (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not breeched the 1RR please check again my edits. Your references did not support the text you re-inserted. Could you possibly provide quotes from the references which support the text you added, because I may be wrong, but I don't think so? Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 20:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"The party's name translates into English as Ourselves Alone" and "Ourselves Alone... whose title is a free translation of the Gaelic Sinn Fein". do support the text I added. Valenciano (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And like the source says, that is incorrect. Now were is the "and is commonly translated as" bit? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose to answer the same qs twice. Replies are above at 20:38 and 20:50 ;) Valenciano (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put it this way, dose the sourse you use say it is correctly translated as etc? The source I use says it is incorrectly translated. Do you have a sourse which contradicts this? Could you explain why the sourse I use is dubious, you said it was in your edit summary? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy and paste from above since you seem unable to read it whether through PC problems or whatever. "Eoin O’Malley may be many things but he is not a linguist and therefore citing a political scientist on a key point of linguistics is as ridiculous as quoting a theologist as the definitive source on an important point of economics. As my earlier sources show, "ourselves alone" has been used as an English translation of SF since at least 1937. Now we can deal if you like with the correctness of that particular translation however the lead is not the place for it. I suggest you create a separate section on the name or add a footnote for that." Valenciano (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So "Eoin O’Malley" from the SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY IRELAND is not good enough but the BBC is? From English to Irish here and from Irish to English here. Please provide a sourse which says the Eoin O’Malley is incorrect. In addition, you said I breeched the 1RR, could you again, please provide the Diff's? thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the school of law and government isn't a translations agency so they are hardly the first source I would turn to on a point of linguistics. The BBC, Time, and Encyclopedia Britannica as well as countless others give the translation as ourselves alone. Remember WP:VERIFY.

irishdictionary.ie gives the translation as "we herself" by the way. Valenciano (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

irishdictionary.ie actually gives >>Ourselves<<

TRANSLATION: Ourselves = pron (reflexive) muid féin Ourselves = sinn féin Ourselves = sinne féin Ourselves = muidne féin

USAGE: tormenting yourselves = do bhur gcrá féin; vt: to ally ourselves with = dul i bpáirt le; we are tormenting ourselves = táimid dár gcrá féin;

Your correct Remember WP:VERIFY. Now one more time and I'll leave it as tormenting ourselves, provide a sourse which contradicts Eoin O’Malley, and an online dictionary. Do you now agree that I did not breech the 1RR? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Translating Sinn gives "we" and translating Fein gives "herself" or "himself" but I believe WP:OR is what you're looking for. You could also have a read here: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed collumns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

For example on page 7 of the source that you gave, O'Malley says "Sinn Féin may call for respect of other races but it has little respect for another major tradition on the island of Ireland. That it is essentially a sectarian party can also be seen in its peace strategy" he compares it to the BNP and the British far right on the same page.

So it's a simple question: Why should we include his opinion on linguistic translations, something he isn't qualified to give, but ignore his opinion on politics, something which he is qualified to give? Valenciano (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just type in "Ourselves." Féin not Fein. Now provived the sourse and the diff's I have ask for, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep and when you try it the other way it comes out differently, although both of them translate as WP:OR. I don't understand the rest of your question, could you ask it again in clear English please? Valenciano (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1)Provide the diff's for the breech of 1RR. 2)Provide a sourse which contradicts "While Sinn Féin (variously translated as ‘Ourselves’, inelegantly as ‘We Ourselves’ or incorrectly as ‘Ourselves Alone’)." I suggest you read WP:OR, and WP:SYNT which is what your trying to do with the sources. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"The party's name translates into English as Ourselves Alone" and "Ourselves Alone... whose title is a free translation of the Gaelic Sinn Fein" Original research? Yeah right. I don't propose to repeat myself on this any more so I'm off to open a request for comment. Valenciano (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that "ourselves alone" is an "incorrect" translation is at this point, I feel, subjective. Certainly, in Northern Ireland at least, the translation of "ourselves alone" is commonly accepted (and accepted by people of all ideological persuasions). The word "inelegant" was applied above to the translation "we ourselves", and it may be the case that "ourselves alone" is merely another 'inelegant' translation. By the looks of it, another 'inelegant' or possibly 'incorrect' translation might be "own ourselves". I have not ever noticed that being used though, unlike the common usage of "ourselves alone". It seems to me that "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" mean pretty much the same thing in any case, given the context. "Ourselves alone" is particularly relevant given the political objective of the organisation in question.

There are two things that might possibly support Domer48's claim that could be relied upon as a verifiable source: the first is if there were any record for Mary Butler and Arthur Griffith's original intent when naming the organisation. The second is if a linguistics expert specifically suggested that the "ourselves alone" is technically incorrect. Neither of these nullifies the need to include "ourselves alone" as a variation - 'correct' or not - of the meaning of "sinn féin".

Another thing, which I have suggested, is that the phrase "ourselves alone" is commonly used. Now I'm aware that this has been, at least until recent years if not still, the most common explanation for what "sinn féin" means in English. Me being aware of this though is very probably not going to be accepted by Domer48. However, there are many entries throughout the Internet. A Google search with the string "sinn féin" +"ourselves alone" turns up 6,060 results. A Google search for the string "we ourselves" +"sinn féin" turns up 5,660 results. A Google search for "ourselves" +"sinn féin", which necessarily includes both of the previous results, turns up 55,800. Unfortunately, in the case of the last search string, ourselves is probably a common enough word which may or may not relate to the meaning of the phrase in any of the given results. A search for "ourselves" +"sinn féin" -"ourselves alone" -"we ourselves" turns up 49,400 results, though obviously doesn't address the problem of the use of the word ourselves in unrelated context. What we can possibly surmise from the searches though is that it's very likely that, on the Internet at least, the usage of "ourselves alone" is at least as common as the translation as "we ourselves". I think this supports my personal knowledge and a proposal that the sentence should include the word "common" or "often" in relation to the (mis-?)translation "ourselves alone". --Setanta 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue can be very simply resolved - we can state in the appropriate section, not in the lead, that one commentator alleges that the translation of the name is wrong. What we cannot do is take one guy's opinion and present it as fact on the article which is what domer wishes to do. Valenciano (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"The name is Irish for "ourselves"[2] or "we ourselves"[3] and is incorrectly translated as "ourselves alone [4]" is supported by three references not one. Valenciano if you want to open another RfC please do, andSetanta, you are correct I would not accept your personal opinions as being a WP:RS or WP:V no more than you'd accept mine. If you want, there is another discussion starting here on the same subject. If you would both like I can add additional sourses, so I hope that helps, Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 10:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Provided you 1) note that it's a frequent translation in English 2) note that the translation (per the Time reference) goes back to at least 1937 and 3) find a better source than O'Malley, then I could probably go with that. We are here to inform the reader what the sources say not impose our own version of "truth." Also since you've no problem with O'Malley as a source then I'm sure you'll have no problem with adding his criticism of their policies to the article. The policy section currently looks like a SF election ad. Valenciano (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The sourse says its incorrectly translated, no sourse has been provided to say it's a frequent translation. O'Malley is supported by the other two sourses, because neither of which use the translation. I've no problem with O'Malley as a source I have with the whole section as mentioned. Now this discussion is moot, open a RfC if you must only use sourses and not opinion. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 11:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"O'Malley is supported by the other two sourses, because neither of which use the translation." By which logic he's opposed by countless sources which *do* use that translation! Valenciano (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ó Dónaill, Niall (1977). (advisory ed. Tomás de Bhaldraithe). ed. (in Irish). Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Dublin: An Gúm. pp. 533, 1095. ISBN 1-85791-037-0 is an Irish dictionary. Please provide the sourses you have been asked for. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources already provided. Valenciano (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"though it has been argued" who has argued? It is becoming obvious now that you simply wish to make a point. Your WP:OR will be removed, because WP:SYN is a against policy. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been argued by Eoin O'Malley - the source is in there and *you* added it only yesterday (!)

From WP:UNDUE "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can... Bold textWhen we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone Bold text" Now as for WP:point I suggest you remember WP:AGF. Valenciano (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified the term. No please stop with the introduction of WP:OR. Now it is a fact that Eoin O'Malley argued with no one. Its a fact the Shin Fain-ourselves alone dates back to 1882. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Its a fact the Shin Fain-ourselves alone dates back to 1882." Errr ... I never disputed it since that's the first time it's been mentioned. Bizarre. Am I missing something? In fact that directly contradicts your previous points about the translation being wrong and supports my point that the "ourselves alone" translation dates back to at least 1937 (per my Time magazine reference.) It goes back even earlier. Great, thanks. Case closed. Valenciano (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC say "The modern party developed following the split in the republican movement in 1971", if they cannot even get the year of formation correct what does that say about their reliability? TIME is a review of a film titled "Ourselves Alone", are TIME's film reviewers qualified on Irish translation? Tellingly, they also state that it is a "free" translation as opposed to a "literal" translsation. O Fenian (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that O Fenian. Valenciano if can not even notice the difference in spelling well we are not going to get very far are we? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OFenian, If you wish to argue that the BBC shouldn't be used as a reliable source then I suggest you go here. Good luck with that one though. Domer, no offence but if I want an expert on differences in spelling then you'll probably be the last Wikipedian I'll turn to as phrases like "if can not even", "is a against policy", "sourses", "what your trying to do", "Now provived the sourse and the diff's I have ask for" hardly suggest an expert knowledge of English grammar now do they? Now if you've nothing worthwhile to add I've wasted enough time here as this issue is closed. Valenciano (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to go anywhere. I proved whoever wrote that BBC article cannot even get a well publicised date correct, so what qualifies the author to provide a correct translation? You played that exact card earlier, yet now you backtrack and prevaricate how utterly childish. After further research there are countless sources that dispute the "translation", many of them even attribute the original mistranslsation to the Gaumont-British film/play. O Fenian (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Valenciano what can I say, I'm not English. Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice is not very nice. Since you have resorted to commenting on the editor and not the edits I suggest you have nothing left to offer this discussion. Please read the talk page guidlines and try to remain calm. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 12:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit break part 1

Dppowell since you did not feel the need to join the discussion, simply reverting you may like to join it now. Could you explain your edit to the Lead first please. "or "ourselves alone." [4][5]" is not supported by the references I provided. This is obvious from the above discussion, so please explain it to us, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 13:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, thanks, I've too many things to do these days to regularly spend 8+ hours on Wikipedia in circular wikilaw discussions that are intended to undermine the spirit (if not the letter) of Wikipedia policies. But I can, without discussion, still revert deletions of properly cited material from reliable sources when I see such activity pop up on my watchlist. And I will, as time permits. If you've a quarrel with that, I'm sure you've learned the proper channels by now. As for the edit...when multiple reliable sources conflict and editors can't agree which source should be represented, the best approach is to represent and cite all of them (without taking it upon yourself to label the one you don't like as "incorrect" in the lead). You're welcome! Dppowell (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Blind Reverts undermine the spirit of Wikipedia policies. You say you can, without discussion, revert deletions of properly cited material from reliable sources when you see such activity pop up on my watchlist. Would it not be better to read the talk page first, instead of ending up with your foot in your mouth? You reverted properly cited material from reliable sources, and are using the same sourses to introduce WP:OR into the article? The information you removed was supported by multiple reliable sources, and your an Admin? Please correct your mistakes, and use the talk page before you revert blindly. Thaks, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"without taking it upon yourself to label the one you don't like as "incorrect" in the lead" where did Domer do that? Your edits and rationale are a total disgrace. If you do not intend to discuss them, I suggest you do not make them in future. How do I complain about this farce? O Fenian (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My regrets, gents. I've taken the article off my watchlist. Carry on. Dppowell (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OFenian, if you believe it'll do you any good then this is the place to complain about someone adding referenced information. Valenciano (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a simple matter to get the correct translation and a big deal is being made of it the term cant mean 3 different things lets sort this here please. BigDunc^Talk 21:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A comment which shows, forgive me, an incredible ignorance of linguistics. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but based on your comments you have obviously never translated anything in your life. Terms can easily have multiple meanings in a different language. For example the Latvian word recepte per here translates variously as "recipe", "formula", "prescription" or "receipt." Similarly the Latvian word "laiks", Catalan word "temps" or Spanish word "tiempo" translate alternatively as "weather" or "time" (two totally different concepts in English.) Multiple languages e.g Russian, Latvian, Spanish, Catalan etc have no difference between the words for kitchen and cuisine, watch/clock, do/make, stay/live... I could cite numerous such examples. These are just examples (consult the relevant online dictionaries if you need a source) which illustrate the point that there is often no such thing as a single translation, so the idea that there must be a single definitive translation is an incredibly flawed one. I strongly suggest that you do further reading for example here and here before making further ill informed remarks. All the best, Valenciano (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to question the idea that there are "three different things" being said here, Dunc. To my mind, all three mean more or less the same thing... "ourselves", "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone". If they differ significantly enough that you have objection, perhaps you (and Domer) might want to explain exactly what the objection is to including this common translation: in what way does the commonly used translation differ significantly from the other two, more 'correct', translations?

I don't see that it has ever been offensive to anyone to start with, so may we rule that out as a reason to single "ourselves alone" out in the lead? It is, to my knowledge, the single most common translation of the phrase in Northern Ireland - like I suggested above - by both nationalist and unionist people. Indeed, until recent years, I had not known of any other translation of it. Of course, that I am not aware of X, Y or Z, that doesn't mean that X, Y or Z doesn't exist and I am not objecting to the other translations that have been provided and sourced in the article.

Until recently, the "ourselves alone" translation hasn't been included in the article, so far as I'm aware (or had possibly been added and removed). I found this odd, considering how common this version of the translation is used in everyday life in Northern Ireland. Now, that is not to say that it is technically correct. I do think it might be important to state the degree of correctness though, instead of merely saying it is incorrect. This should also be cited by some linguistics experts. I also agree with Valenciano when he suggests it should possibly be discussed further down in the article (or maybe in a footnote), rather than in the lead section.

I have asserted in this discussion that it ("ourselves alone") is commonly used, and it's fair enough that it's up to me to provide a citation for that assertion if it is to go into the article. I do think that is trying to assert that the sky is blue though, but I shall perhaps endeavour to find such a citation. Sometimes this is hard to do, as finding citations for the obvious often is. I'd like to ask you this though, Domer: do you not believe me when I tell you that this is the most common translation (or mis-translation, if you will), or at least a common translation for the phrase in Northern Ireland?

Lastly, is there anything in what I have said that we can all agree on, before we continue with the other fine points in our debate?

One more thing.. in case I don't get the opportunity to edit here over the next couple of days, merry Christmas to you Domer, and Dunc and Valenciano and everyone else reading this! Have a good one. --Setanta 02:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel like the first person to suggest that the world is round, and not flat. I have no objection to including this translation, only that we clarify that it is incorrect. Now "ourselves alone" is included in the article so why is there an objection to us informing the reader that this is an incorrect translation? It is all well and good if you find a sourse that says its commonly used, it dose not change the fact that it is incorrect. I know its incorrect because Niall Ó Dónaill (1977), (advisory ed. Tomás de Bhaldraithe). ed. (in Irish). Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla [Irish-English Dictionary]. Dublin: An Gúm. pp. 533, 1095. ISBN 1-85791-037-0 gives the correct translation. So we agree that it is used, agree that it is incorrect and agree that it should be in the article. Is there anything else? Thanks, Have a good one.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel it is necessary to include the word "incorrect", particularly in the lead, alongside the most frequently used translation for the phrase? Why has the sentence now changed from suggesting that both "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" are incorrect (if memory serves) to now suggesting that only "ourselves alone" is incorrect?

You ask why there is objection to calling it an "incorrect translation" and I say to you that "ourselves alone" isn't incorrect. Perhaps it is not precise or technically correct (I do not know this to be the case). However, the meaning remains the same as the other translations provided. I also provided context and assured you that it was the most commonly used explanation here. There is a level of subtlety and semantics here. I remind you that we are living in a world where the word "bad" had, for a period of time, actually meant "good". Context is important.

You providing a source that gives one version of a translation does not necessarily prove that another version is "incorrect". All it proves is that the version provided (and sourced) is correct. So, we agree that all three versions are used and we appear to agree that at least one of them is 'correct'.

Fortunately, I appear to have stumbled across a source published by the Royal Irish Academy that asserts "ourselves alone" as being a "literal translation" of "sinn féin". That being the case the text in the lead should be 'flattened' to one that suggests none of the versions are 'incorrect' or rather, one that doesn't suggest that any of the versions are 'incorrect'. I intend now to do just that. --Setanta 09:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"You providing a source that gives one version of a translation does not necessarily prove that another version is "incorrect". All it proves is that the version provided (and sourced) is correct. "...I guess that proves you do not even bother to read what the sources say before edit warring to the version which suits your point of view. O Fenian (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish Language

Is Sinn Féin pressing for compulsory Irish in schools, as applies in the Republic? And would this compulsion cover Protestants? Also, would towns with a very high percentage of Protestants be expected to display bi-lingual street names, etc., or would some local discretion be allowed? 86.46.99.55 (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the connection between Protestantism and the Irish language? Many people of all religions and none speak Irish. Why would professing a particular faith preclude someone from speaking or reading a language?

Ideology in lead

I'd suggest that in the lead "left wing" and "Irish Nationalist" (or maybe "Irish Republican") would accurately cover the party's ideology - it should be easy to cite that. Thanks and Happy New Year all. Valenciano (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware them being left wing was seriously in dispute, it would be like disputing water was wet. O Fenian (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian you are correct, them being left wing is not seriously disputed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Left wing" is incredibly vague being capable of being applied to movements as diverse as the British Labour Party and various communist parties, in contrast "Irish Nationalist" is pretty clear. This source points out the following "In the Republic, Sinn Féin won't, for now, be tested on its principles in government, but the party does hold two of the most powerful ministries in the north... So, has it been using its political strength there "to bring about equality, to end poverty"? No, is the straight answer, according to the author of an authoritative new study of the party, Brian Feeney. "You can't see the difference between the Sinn Féin ministers and the Ulster Unionists, " he said. "When I was doing my research, nobody mentioned the word socialist.... Ed Moloney, author of a forthcoming book about the IRA, is equally blunt. "If you put Sinn Féin on a political spectrum of left and right, I think you would just call them populist now, " he said. Moloney said he could see the day when Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil would merge. "There's fundamentally very little difference between them, " he said."

So mention of left wing is NPOV and needs to be balanced by counter viewpoints. In particular since Domer is happy to use Feeney as a source for practically everything else and as Feeney is widely cited in the article as a source (14 out of 95 cites to date) it certainly seems reasonable to include his counter viewpoint. Irish Labour in the past have also accused them of being right wing.

I would expect someone editing a political article to know the difference between political position and ideology. O Fenian (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You've also reverted the good faith edits of user:Tree333 citing vandalism when this clearly doesn't apply. It would be helpful if you could remember WP:BITE when dealing with new editors. Valenciano (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What good faith edits? "Sinn Fein's suppport is almost exclusively from the Catholic population, undermining its left wing credentials"? "Traditionally Sinn Fein rejected the Republic's parliament as illegitimate but as part of its abandonment of traditional republican values it has not only accepted but entered what was once known as the "free state parliament"? "meaning its vote was not necessarily exactly representative of the popular feeling"? All I see is someone with an axe to grind adding unsourced negative commentary, so you can stick your alphabet soup. O Fenian (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A newcomer adding an uncited POV to an already biased article is covered by WP:BITE. Newcomers need to learn the ropes not be driven away from those who have their own POV upset by additions. Apart from the "abandonment of traditional republican values" and the "undermining" bit, what the newbie added is factual. Oh and WP:CIVIL is part of the alphabet soup that you refer to. Valenciano (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Factual my arse, it is opinion at best. As for your addition, it is improperly sourced and a violation of alphabet soup. Moloney calls them populist in relation to their position on the political spectrum, ie their position in relation to other parties. He does not dispute their ideology is left wing. What makes Ruairi Quinn's view a "significant" view? Unless evidence is provided that this view is a significant view among academics, it is merely the ramblings of a political opponent. You seem to selectively apply whatever policy suits you best in order to perform a hatchet job on this article inserting every bit of tittle tattle you can find, your agenda is clear to everyone. O Fenian (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So it is opinion that "Traditionally Sinn Fein rejected the Republic's parliament as illegitimate" or that it has "entered what was once known as the "free state parliament"?" Whatever was that split of 1986 about then? Also let's get this clear, according to you, I have an agenda but people calling themselves O_Fenian or other editors who self identify as Irish republicans don't? That's the best laugh I've had this year. Parts of the article as it currently stands could have been written by Connolly House, adding sourced criticism is what happens on WP. Get used to it. This source originally added by your friend Domer lest we forget also disputes SF's left wing credentials by the way. Valenciano (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Valenciano comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. O Fenian is correct, your addition, it is improperly sourced. Ruairi Quinn's view is merely the ramblings of a political opponent and noted in the same reference, "Mr Quinn’s broadside was being interpreted by some observers last night as a sign of the increasing unease among the bigger political parties in the Republic at the growth south of the border of Sinn Fein." Brian Feeney dose not support you inclusion at all and is a common case of WP:SYN. Now I suggest you moderate your tone, and address your concerns in a more congenial manner if you want to be taken serious on the talk page. Now I removed your recent addition, and suggest you address the issues in the article bearing in mind its relevance. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Association with PIRA

The ever-vigilant guardians of this article appear not to want to mention the fact that SF is associated with PIRA in the lead. This is clearly a very notable fact, yet the guardians appear to disagree. One wonders why. Maybe an explanation would be helpful? Mooretwin (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin I suggest you remain civil and follow the talk page guidlines. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. You have been warned already about this type of conduct, so stop now. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I note - yet again - your failure to engage in discussion. Sticking up another "warning" rather than explaining why you reverted the text - I don't think that is within the spirit of Wikipedia. We are supposed to seek consensus, not simply revert contributions and refuse to discuss them. As you are always keen to refer to WP guidelines, have a read of WP:OWNERSHIP. Please allow other editors to contribute. Mooretwin (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please comment on content and not the editor. BigDunc^Talk 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Care to follow your own advice and explain the reversion? Mooretwin (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can editors explain why the party's links to the IRA should be omitted from the lead? Valenciano (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. Mooretwin (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)So do you want to add how this claim has been denied and Adams has asked to be charged with membership of the IRA, it is covered in the article and a one line sentence can not cover such a disputed claim. BigDunc^Talk 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other than SF itself, what other sources deny that SF is associated with PIRA? Adams' own PIRA membership is irrelevant. SF's association with PIRA is not dependent on Adams being or having been a PIRA member! Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "SF supports the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and is viewed as the political wing of the IRA." from CAIN? http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/sorgan.htm Mooretwin (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the relationship between the IRA and Sinn Féin cannot easily be explained in a seven word sentence, without either over or under emphasising the relationship. Perhaps the usual suspect would like to suggest an extended version, rather than crying wolf and attacking other editors? O Fenian (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no attempt to explain the relationship: merely to note an association. Any explanation is best done in the article itself rather than the lead. If you don't like the proposed text, why not suggest an alternative rather than merely reverting? Mooretwin (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When did I revert? I have just said, I do not agree with the text added as it does not explain things properly and is misleading. Therefore if you want to add something about the relationship, I suggest you provide a better sentence or sentences. O Fenian (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I assumed wrongly that you had reverted like BigDunc and Domer48. Yes, I note that you don't agree with the proposed text: I'm asking you to suggest an improvement to it. What don't you like about noting that the party is associated with the PIRA? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Solution is very simple, we add something along the lines of "critics/commentators have alleged that the party is linked to the PIRA, although the party itself denies this" with appropriate cites in the lead and explain in more detail later. Where's the problem? Valenciano (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it either under or over emphasises the relationship, depending on your perspective. During the 1970s and 1980s you would be hard pressed to find a member of Sinn Féin who would deny they were the political wing/political representatives of the IRA whereas today the opposite is true. I would suggest a sentence or two that covers the relationship between the two organisations over a period of time would be better. O Fenian (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about: The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA? Mooretwin (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We now have three suggestions - could we move this forward, please?

• "SF supports the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and is viewed as the political wing of the IRA." (from CAIN? http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/sorgan.htm)
• "critics/commentators have alleged that the party is linked to the PIRA, although the party itself denies this"
• The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA

My own preference is for the third. Mooretwin (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The third is the lesser of three evils. O Fenian (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, O Fenian. You made not an unreasonable point, given that the status of PIRA today is somewhat of an unknown, but there can be no doubt of PSF's links with PIRA in the past. I'll add in the revised text now. Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

AS long as its referenced. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• One could introduce the Official Unionists as being historically linked to the UVF. There is no direct linkage, and therefore should not be in the introductory paragraph, as it's mere political scoring and pov. Many members of Sinn Fein have had no association with the PIRA whatsoever, and the latter is in existence since about 1970, so "historically" is not correct. Therefore, the edits should be removed from first paragraph. PurpleA (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you being serious? PIRA was formed in December 1969, and PSF in direct response in January 1970. As O Fenian has said, there was no question about the two "wings" of the Provisional republican movement being in association for the 1970s and most of the 1980s. Only when (P)SF decided to enter the electoral arena did the denials begin. In recent years, the party's associations with PIRA were the reason why governments refused to speak to it, it was banned from the US, it was banned from the airwaves, political parties refused to negotiate with it, etc. The party's association with PIRA was the reason why the PIRA ceasefire was the gateway to its participation in normal politics, and why decommissioning of PIRA weapons became a stumbling block to the party's participation in government. The party negotiated on behalf of PIRA in respect of prisoner releases and decommissioning. O Fenian has pointed out, however, that now the PIRA's status/existence is in question and so the party's current association with PIRA is unknown. Hence the insertion of "historically" to indicate that the association is not necessarily in the present, but for most of the party's existence. Mooretwin (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm alluding to the Sinn Fein that was founded by Arthur Griffith, and not Provisional Sinn Fein. PIRA is only active since c 1970, and was not around in Griffith's time. It's important that all info should go into article, but putting that in the intro makes Sinn Fein only connect to PIRA. SF had a much broader history. PurpleA (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the current SF party, not the Griffith party. Mooretwin (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

PurpleA, this confusion is precisely why I've made the suggestion above to reorganise the articles according to time periods. Valenciano (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it is confusing to a new reader. It should be chronographically laid out afresh. PurpleA (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Moorertwin, this is a false assertion designed to promote your viewpoint in another dispute. The note at the top reads "This article is about the present-day party led by Gerry Adams". The second sentence of the article reads "The current party, led by Gerry Adams, was formed following a split in January 1970 and traces its origins back to the original Sinn Féin party formed in 1905". If by the fourth sentence of "The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA" they believe it is about the Griffith version of Sinn Féin, then they are beyond any help. O Fenian (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, O Fenian, but I don't follow. Maybe I have misunderstood, but what you have said appears to support what I have said. Where exactly are we in disagreement? Mooretwin (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That the Party traces its origins back to the original Sinn Féin party formed in 1905 is beyond question. I agree with PurpleA that the article should be chronographically laid out afresh and correctly referenced. If we accept that the Party traces its origins back to the original Sinn Féin party, then the article should reflect that. Books on the history of the IRA, all drop the "Provisional" tag after 1972, so the use of "Provisional" IRA in the Lead is wrong. It should be IRA, and this is covered in the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As you know, lots of parties "trace their origins back to SF 1905" - FF, FG, (P)SF, WP, IRSP, RSF, etc. That doesn't mean the articles about them should read as though they are actually the same 1905 party. We have pretty good consensus on this talk page - notwithstanding your valiant efforts to resist - that the pre-1970 stuff should be stripped out of here and moved into a History of SF article. Keeping the pre-1970 stuff here is POV. Also, policy is that a first reference is to PIRA, with subsequent references to IRA. And PIRA has been called PIRA long since 1972. Mooretwin (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We have pretty good consensus on this talk page? Were? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the page history and you'll find up to ten editors supporting a split or the History of SF article, we've also had a 3rd opinion and a request for comment which have supported making the necessary changes to the article. You didn't see those? Oh wait, yes you did, so apologies if I find your "wen did dat happen?" (sic) memory lapses hard to swallow. So, having exhausted all other options, it may be a case of arbitration. Valenciano (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You will be ask once more to remain civil and I suggest you lose the tone and attitude. You link to a discussion for 2007, and there are not ten editors in that section. The third opinion went no where, with no consensus. The request for comment, has still not reached any sort of consensus. Rather than suggesting that we have exhausted all other options, it’s my view that there has been no real engagement on the above remedies. Feel free to suggest arbitration, bear in mind though, they expect more than just comment and opinion, and diff’s should support the points your trying to make.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The third opinion supported the points that myself and Mooretwin had made. You promptly ignored it. The request for comment has also suggested an article split, an alternative option which I'd be happy to go with. Again though you've ignored it. Since you refuse to even contribute to the request for comment and are apparently unwilling to contribute anything more than "no" then yes, arbitration is really the only way round the veto that you seem to believe that you wield on this article. Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you show where the third opinion and the RfC said that the article should be split please. BigDunc^Talk 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Above on this page.

>>>The pre-1970 history of the organisation should be placed into a new article and linked to from all the articles about the post-1970 Sinn Féin descendants, using the template. I really can't see where the problem with that might lie.<<< --Setanta747 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

>>>Third opinion I am responding to the third opinion request.

I endorse Setanta747's "Fourth (!) opinion" above, on the grounds that it is the most informed and sensible solution which will achieve the best result for readers of the encyclopedia.<<< — Athaenara ✉ 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: >>>Can I suggest a disambigulation page such as is used here Communist Party of Russia to get over different parties who share the same name. The problem in the Sinn Féin case is that at many times (1922, 1933, 1970) the party has split and it was the minority who ended up continuing to use the name. Though in 1970 this is further confused by both sides continuing to use the name for a while. Indeed there is now also the Republican Sinn Féin split to be considered.<<< -- Gramscis cousin (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what's unclear about that but I'll ask Gramscis cousin for clarification. Valenciano (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but we had two offers of a third opinion one and with no disrespect to Setanta747 but he is heavily involved in Troubles related articles and would not be seen as impartial no more than if I quoted what Domer said. I doubt you would consider his views as impartial. But saying that he was given backing by a neutral admin. And the other never IMO really offered an opinion. As for Gramscis cousin they have suggested a disambag page and not a split of the article. If I have got that wrong could you correct my understanding of what has gone on above thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's my current reading of the situation. The third opinion is Athaenaras not Setantas. I've asked Gramscis cousin to clarify what he meant. Fair point about the request for comment, I'd assumed that Gramcis had given it but if not and he was only pitching in with his viewpoint then it'll be a simple matter of relisting it since I see it's gone from the RFC page. Just out of interest what would you propose for the article - moving the history section, disambig or no change? Valenciano (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I thought, no consensus to split the article. I have also suggested that each Party which traces it's origions to Sinn Féin in 1905 have a brief history up untill the left? Still no rational for splitting the article either? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Per earlier discussions, it is POV that "they left" as the party currently bearing the name represents the minority that walked out as Mooretwin has said on many occasions in the past, so that will not work. The rationale for splitting the article has also been given to you countless times in the past. Start at the beginning of the talk page and work down, pay special attention to the request for comment section as this will prevent you repeating questions which have already been dealt with. Try reading what's previously been written and then we may get somewhere as until that point you're only wasting my time and your own. Valenciano (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the attitude I see. What you and Mooretwin say and think is irrelevant so that will not work. We need referenced sources which support the comments, and you can't provide them. The rational to date is based on your opinions so that will not work. You said there was consensus to split the article, until you were asked to back this up. We then discover there was none, so yes I do pay special attention. I also support everything I say with sources, when you do the same we may get somewhere. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Afraid not, we've already quoted RS above. I said in the previous message to go and read the previous talk comments. This might help you find them since you appear to be struggling to do so. Although you now appear to completely forget doing it, you replied at the time but your view was rejected by the third opinion which unfortunately for you, judged your viewpoint to be irrelevant in that case. This, your reply from only three months ago, might help jog your memory. Happy reading! Valenciano (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Come back when you have something. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about that Domer. Gramcis will hopefully clarify, then that'll either be followed by a renewed Request for Comment or a Request for Arbitration. I'll remind you about that when the appropriate time comes. Happy reading. Valenciano (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't worry, and the page is watch listed. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Statement by Valenciano (talk · contribs)

I'll repeat my previous comments from above: "The basis of this dispute concerns the events of 1970 and the split which occurred in the Irish Republican movement then, how it affected the different parties and which party(s) can claim the legacy of the original Sinn Fein party formed in 1905 which I’ll call SF1905 for dab purposes. The first of the two main parties involved were the current Sinn Féin, led by Gerry Adams which this article is about – I’ll call them PSF hereafter as a dab. The second was Official Sinn Féin later called Workers Party of Ireland who I’ll refer to as OSF hereafter.

Generally speaking there are at least three viewpoints on what happened in 1970, the first is that PSF broke away from SF1905 and formed a new party, with SF1905 continuing as OSF. CAIN[15] , one of the most widely used sources on NI politics, says of the split: "A majority of delegates (although not the two-thirds required under the party's rules to change policy) were in favour of ending the abstentionist policy. Those opposed to the move, 257 supporters of the 'Provisional Army Council', walked out of the meeting thus leaving the organisation and established offices in Kevin Street, Dublin. This new grouping became known as 'Provisional Sinn Féin' (PSF)."

Other sources include the BBC [16] which says of PSF “The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein,” There are other sources [17] [18] which also support this viewpoint.

The second interpretation of the 1970 events is that SF1905 split into two separate parties in 1970 [19] OSF and PSF.

The third interpretation favoured by PSF and supporters is that OSF ‘betrayed’ real republicanism and thus they alone are the true successors of SF1905.

Which of those viewpoints is correct? Not for us to say. But the problem which sparked all this is that the history prior to 1970 is in this article alone – implicity supporting the third POV - that of PSF and supporters to the exclusion of other POVs. Per WP:NPOV we can’t do that. I believe the only fair solution is to move the pre-1970 history to the History of Sinn Féin article and link to that from both the PSF and OSF articles. The beauty of that solution is that it avoids such arguments over which party is the true successor and covers *all* POVs including that of PSF.

Domer48 has challenged this on the grounds that the party was never called PSF – whether true or not this is covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability which states “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.” The name question is also irrelevant to this discussion. He has also failed to produce relevant quotes to back up his position, despite several requests and even if they do appear, moving the pre-1970 history would not contradict them anyway.

It is notable that in the comparable situation with the organisation’s paramilitary wings, we do have separate articles covering the period up to 1969/1970.

Furthermore, as another editor pointed out above, at various points in the past ten other editors (Gramscis cousin, zoney, Damac, gaillimh, padraig3uk, Alai, Mooretwin, jnestorius, 137.146.173.252, and Red King) have supported this change while only two editors (BigDunc and Domer48) have opposed it, thus it is a change more likely to find wider agreement than the current status quo."

Since I made those comments we have had a third opinion which supported the move of the history section to its own article (which already exists) and a further editor, setanta, supported the move. This is as close to consensus as I believe to be likely to happen on such a controversial article. Valenciano (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest a disambigulation page such as is used here Communist Party of Russia to get over different parties who share the same name. The problem in the Sinn Féin case is that at many times (1922, 1933, 1970) the party has split and it was the minority who ended up continuing to use the name. Though in 1970 this is further confused by both sides continuing to use the name for a while. Indeed there is now also the Republican Sinn Féin split to be considered. -- Gramscis cousin (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tnis is surely a no-brainer. How exactly can we get a decision formalised to reorganise this article. The disambiguation page is a good idea, too? Mooretwin (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What articles do you propose putting on this disambiguation page? O Fenian (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd really need to ask Gramscis Cousin - it's his proposal. But since you ask, I'd have: 19th Century Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin (1905-70), (Provisional) Sinn Féin (i.e. the current party using the SF name), (Official) Sinn Féin (i.e. now the Workers Party) and Republican Sinn Féin. Plus the History of Sinn Féin article. Mooretwin (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The dab page idea is a good one. I'd rename the History of Sinn Féin article as Sinn Féin (1905-1926), have a Sinn Féin (1926-1970) and rename this article as Sinn Féin (1970-). The beauty of that solution is that it does not take any imlicit POV on the controversial question of which Sinn Féin, if any, is the legitimate successor to the one founded in 1905 and thus is as NPOV as it gets. Valenciano (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sensible ideas. Mooretwin (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Valenciano & Mooretwin your suggestions above is exactly what I had in mind it breaks the history into logical chunks and separates the independence era Sinn Féin from the present party which though there are continuities is substantially a different party operating in a different political context. As regards the specific article breakup I'd lean to Valenciano's idea of three sections but I'm willing to defer to others on this. -- Gramscis cousin (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gramscis cousin for your views and opinions, however I have placed referenced information here which has not been challanged, and remains part of the article. SF was not founded in 1970. There was no new party founded. There was a split, which resulted in a new leadership. If editors wish to challange this please do. All I ask is that it is sourced based and not just opinions. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the rational for such a move? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Referenced comments by Domer48

I have again asked for a rational for such a move, and all I've recived is the same comment that it is basiclly a new party which was established in 1970. I have with references shown this not to be the case. We have an article titled History of Sinn Féin and it could be hardly described as a history, but dose extend up to the present date. Is it the suggestion that we have a number of articles on SF. One for example which begins 1905 to 1917 then 1917 to 1922 then 1922–1926 and then 1926-1970 and finally 1970 - Prestent? The rational is flawed and incorrect. All I can do is reproduce the referenced supported contrabution I have already presented which supports my comments. Could editors possibly support their comments with references and not just one line comments linked to a web cite. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Sinn Fein

The first point I would make is that there is no Party called Provisional Sinn Fein. There never has been, and this is conceded by Valenciano here and reluctantly by Mooretwin, reflected in this edit here. The question this raises is what was the section of the Party dubbed Provisional Sinn Fein called? Sinn Féin.

There was an alternative disambiguation used at the time which may help in answering this question. One section was referred to as Sinn Fein (Gardiner Place) and the other as Sinn Fein (Kevin Street), this came from the location of the opposing offices. Sinn Fein are still, to this day in 44 Parnell Square. The building is named Kevin Barry Hall.

During the split, both sections were called Sinn Fein, and disambiguation was needed to distinguish them by commentators both past and present.

The Split

The second point I’d make is, that there were two splits in the Republican Movement. One in 1969 in the IRA, and the other in Sinn Fein in 1970.

IRA

The split in the IRA was not about abstentionism alone, though it played a part. The split arose over the playing down of the role of the Army and its inability in defending the Nationalist population in the north of Ireland. One section of the Army Council wanted to take them down a purely political (Marxist) road, and abandon armed struggle. The other section accused them of rigging the Army convention, (December 1969) and the vote on abandoning the policy of abstentionism and abandoning the Nationalists. An indication of this was literally the writing on the wall. IRA was dabbed on the walls over the north. However it was used to disparage the army, by writing “I Ran Away.” Disgusted by this attempted Marxist coup, they established a “provisional” Army Council and set about acquiring arms and defending the Nationalist people. Joe Cahill one of the members never accepted the use of the term Provisional IRA, by commentators and the members referred to themselves as the IRA.

Sinn Fein

The policy of abandoning abstentionism now had to be passed by Sinn Fein at its Parties Ard Fheis to be held in January 1970. Unlike the Army, a two thirds majority was required to change the Party’s constitution. In an attempt to secure this, the Leadership had refused delegate status (voting rights) to a number of Sinn Fein Cummann (branch) particularly in the north were they knew them to be opposed. When the vote was taken the result was 153 to 104 in favour. The leadership had failed to achieve the two thirds majority. This did not lead to any members leaving the conference. The members left, when the Leadership attempted to propose a motion in support of the IRA Army Council. This motion would only have required a simple majority. As the Army had already agreed to drop abstentionism, this was seen by members as an attempt to subvert the Parties Constitution, and refused to vote and withdrew from the meeting. Pre-empting this move they had booked a hall in 44 Parnell square, were they established a “caretaker executive” of Sinn Fein. They did not form a new Party. To them the Leadership had attempted to subvert the Party prompting for want of a better word a Leadership challenge. Sinn Fein was now split into opposing factions. (Enter the disambiguation)

The Party was now in a state of flux, both sides challenging for control. People began to flock to join the “Provos” as they were called (again disambiguation). In an effort to assert its authority one section began to call its self “Official IRA” and “Official Sinn Fein,” but to no avail. Within two years the “Provos” had secured control of the Republican Movement, both military and political.

Conclusions:

Valenciano has used a couple of web based references to support their view. Each and every one contradict each other. The BBC for example suggest that PSF split from OSF. However OSF did not come into existence until after the split. CAIN if Valenciano quotes it correctly have PSF going to the wrong street (Kevin Street) they went to 44 Parnell square (Kevin Barry Hall). Likewise the additional references “most people now associate the name ‘Sinn Fein’…” If that was used in an article a tag would be placed on it. Like the BBC we have the additional reference again having PSF breaking away from OSF, with the article header being “Sinn Fein’s hundredth birthday.” Now the references Valenciano has used are noting short of Press Releases, small snippets of information. My contribution above can be sourced and referenced to a number of books I’ve outlined in my previous discussion above and linked to here. Including three histories of the Party. As far as sources go, we are not comparing like with like here.

Now Valenciano concern also centres on the fact that the history of Sinn Fein is in this article alone. I’ve suggested that they include the history of the Party into the other articles. For example Fianna Fáil from 1905 till 23 March 1926. Republican Sinn Fein from 1905 till 1986, etc, etc. What I can not understand is why they just want a history 1905 to 1970? Should they not be asking for 1905 – 1926 another 1905- 1986 etc?

Now I have addressed the verifiability issue, and Dunc has addressed the opinions of the previous editors, (I’m surprised to see them raised here again), and I have given what I hope is a rational and detailed account of the issue. If any supplementary information is required please ask. Thanks.

Addendum: The has been some comments on the “Majority” at the Ard Fheis in 1970. The point I would make is this, the leadership failed to get the two thirds majority they needed. Not for the want of trying I might add. They refused delegate status to a number of Sinn Fein Cumann, they knew to be opposed to their policy. Delegate status as you know is the ability to vote. So when we use the word majority, we are talking about the majority of delegates, not Sinn Fein members, and they could not get enough delegates to support their motion. Having failed, they tried to circumvent the Parties Constitution, with a vote of confidence in the Army Council, who had already split on the issue. This made the vote of confidence null and void. After the Ard Fheis, the Sinn Fein members, came over to the side of the “caretaker executive” which had been established at a meeting held in 44 Parnell Square. The leadership became marginalised and watched their support dwindle, in 1972 calling of their military campaign before changing their name to Official Sinn Fein. The “caretaker executive” had ousted the leadership, with the overwhelming support of the membership of both Sinn Fein and the IRA. So when we us the word “majority” we must use it in its proper context. I hope that lends some clarity to the discussion. If editors have an alternative view, please put it forward, with supporting diff’s from books on the subject, and not press releases.

Mooretwin

• You concede that the party split in 1970, and that the current SF party (described at the time as Provisional SF, although you dispute this) is one branch of that split.
• By definition, therefore, there is another branch of that split. That branch was originally described as Official SF (which you do not appear to dispute) and is now called the Workers Party of Ireland.
• You argue that one branch (the party currently using the name SF) is, in fact, the same SF party that existed before 1970. The logical consequence of this is that you do not consider the other branch to be the same party. To do that, however, it to “take sides” in the split in favour of the Provisionals and against the Officials. That is POV.
• You ask whether there should be several articles on SF: 1905-1917, 1917-1922, 1922-1926, 1926-1970 and 1970 to present. My answer is “no”. The pre-1970 history should either be included in (1) the current Workers Party article – since constitutionally that is the same party; or – acknowledging the dispute about the post-1970 legacy, (2) a single article Sinn Fein (1905- 1970), since there is no dispute prior to that date about the constitutional/ideological integrity of the party bearing the SF name.
• Your technical point that there was or is no party called Provisional SF is not relevant. Whatever the party officially called itself, it still split from the original SF party, and was still described (at least by others) as Provisional SF, do disambiguate with the remaining party, which was described as Official SF.
• Thanks for your history lessons about the IRA and SF splits in 1969 and 1970. This is a useful reminder that the two splits within the republican movement were “inextricably linked” to use a more recent phrase. The treatment of the IRA on Wikipedia, is therefore relevant. The article on the Provisional IRA begins, not in 1919, but in 1969. Wikipedia’s own precedent, therefore suggests that this article should begin in 1970.
• You say in response to Valenciano that it is contradictory for the BBC to suggest that PSF split from OSF because “OSF did not come into existence until after the split”. This is not, however, contradictory, if one understands that the term OSF is used to describe the party that was in existence before the split and continued in existence after the split (albeit minus those members who had formed PSF). That is the reason the party was called “Official”: the word “official” relates to its status as being, well, the official party from which the Provos had split. Constitutionally, it was the same party: but after 1970 it was described as “Official” to disambiguate it from the party formed by the members who had left.
• You also appear to emphasise that, by 1972, the Provisionals were the larger and stronger party, as though that were some kind of evidence that they must therefore have been the true and only successor of the pre-1970 party. All that demonstrates, however, is that the Provisionals were more successful than the Officials. It does not demonstrate that the Provisionals were the “original” SF and it was actually the Officials who split from the original party.
• Finally, it’s worth reminding ourselves of what actually happened in 1970.

1. A minority of delegates opposed the proposed policy of ending abstention. 2. “Disgusted” by the leadership’s attempts to get the policy agreed, they walked out of the party conference. 3. They established a new party HQ. 4. They remained outside the structures of the original party and created their own leadership and structures independently, while the leadership and structures of the original party continued as before.

• Objectively, based on the actual events and in constitutional terms, therefore, the obvious interpretation is that it was the Provisionals who left the original SF party and formed their own party. The more generous (to the Provisionals) objective interpretation would be to acknowledge that the party split into two factions, each with its own claim to be the original party, but to say that the Provisionals’ claim is legitimate and the Officials’ is not is POV.

Mooretwin (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

1. There was a split in the Republican movement in 1969 and 1970. One part of the split was termed ‘Provisional’ and the other 'Official’ to distinguish between the sides. I’ve never disputed this! This addresses point two also.
2. Yes, SF is the same SF party that existed before 1970. Provide sources that say SF dissolved in 1970? ‘P’SF came out on top in the dispute, and took complete control of the Party. Can you not understand that they did not set up two different organisations? That the terms were just used to describe the two factions within SF and that the group termed the ‘Provisional’s’ took control. That the faction who lost out were the group termed ‘Officials’ and that having lost control went on to adopt the formal title of Official Sinn Fein, before changing the name to Sinn Fein the Workers Party. The group that assumed the leadership, replacing the other group continued to use the Party name Sinn Fein. That any book written on the Party use the term ‘Provisional’ Sinn Fein and ‘Provisional’ IRA, but after 1972 they drop the term ‘Provisional’ as its no longer necessary.
3. The above answers your next point, and explains why the article should be 1905-present. Even the History of Sinn Fein Illustrates this.
4. The above also answers the next point you make.
5. I agree with you about the IRA article, we should not have a Provisional IRA article.
6. As mentioned above, you say “OSF is used to describe the party that was in existence before the split.” There was no Party called OSF before the dispute, OSF was used during the dispute to distinguish between the sides, and the group termed OSF after the dispute formally adopted the title OSF.
7. As explained above
8. The following points are all addressed above. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

1. As noted, you acknowledge that SF split into Provos and Officials, yet you argue that the Provos are the same SF as before, but the Officials aren't. That is POV.

2. No-one has claimed SF dissolved in 1970. It continued as Official SF, less those who split off to form the Provos. You claim the PRovos "took control" - what you mean is that they became the dominant and larger of the two parties. But there were (and still are) two parties. Your views seem to be influenced too much by the fact that the Provos retained the SF name, whereas the Officials changed it.

6. I know there was no party called OSF before the dispute. Nor was there such a party immediately after. The term was used to distinguish the official party from the Provos, and applied retrospectively by the BBC in that article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin I'll explain it to you just one more time. There was a leadership dispute within the party on policy. One section of the Party was refered to as "Provisional" and the other section as "Official." The "Provisional" section took control and ousted the old leadership, the "Official" section. The "Official" section went on to form Official Sinn Féin, and Official Sinn Féin became their formal title. When I say the "Provos" "took control" - what I'm saying is that they became the dominant and larger of the two sections within Party. The Provos as the dominant and larger of the two sections within Party retained the SF name, whereas the Officials left the Party and formed Official Sinn Féin.

Now I'm not just saying this, because I've supported it with quite a number of references. You are saying there were (and still are) two parties. Your views seem to be influenced too much by the term split in my opinion. Can you explain how the Provos retained the SF name, whereas the Officials changed theirs? Cite sources if you can, it always helps. I hope that explains it well enough for you. So please, if you do still not get it, provide the sources to support your opinion that "It [Sinn Féin] continued as Official SF, less those who split off to form the Provos. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's one interpretation. But not the only one. It's POV.

Why did PSF retain the SF name? Because they wanted to. The Officials changed because they were shifting away from nationalism to a more overt socialism and wanted to ditch the baggage. Mooretwin (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll ask, support this with references, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty if you read through the above - see Valenciano, for example. It's common knowledge that the party split into two - hardly needs referenced anyway. Mooretwin (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Provide the references to support your comments. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you genuinely want to avoid circular discussions then I respectfully suggest that you stop repeatedly asking for citations after you've been told several times that they've been given above. Other than that, as you've acknowledged below, it's obvious that neither of us has anything fresh to add to the discussion and as you and two other involved editors are currently blocked I would suggest that we wait for the RFC and take it from there. Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

The discussion is just going around in circles, and repeating all the same arguments and should be brought to a close. Now like I’ve suggested already, each party which traces its origins to SF should have a history included in their articles up until the time they left and formed new parties. It dose not have to be a major history, an abridged version will do. The History of Sinn Fein article can be built up and a link placed on the applicable articles. I can’t see what the problem is with that? The Sinn Fein article will obviously go from 1905 and focus primarily on the present day. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Won't work. As Mooretwin has pointed out, it is POV that the current party is the same as the one founded in 1905. Per WP:NPOV we need to find a way to cover all POV's including that of the current Sinn Féin party. Valenciano (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Per NPOV, we either need to include the pre-1970 history in all relevant articles OSF, PSF, RSF or else in none of them." As a compromise I suggested each party which traces its origins to SF should have a history included in their articles up until the time they left and formed new parties. It dose not have to be a major history, an abridged version will do. To remove the pre-1970 history from this article, according to you, would be POV. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. As I've said before, we'd have a section in this article acknowledging that there are disputes per the sources on when the current party was formed and then link to the pre-1970 history. The reader could then make up his/her own mind. Totally in accordance with policy particularly WP:NPOV and WP:V. Valenciano (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If there were disputes per the sources, they would have been added by now and they have not. In my opening line, I quoted you, so it's totally in accordance with policy particularly WP:NPOV and WP:V. So you have now changed your mind? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They have been added see my comments at the RFC above. No I haven't changed my mind particularly about this part of WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." As I say all we need to do is remove the pre-1970 history and note in this article and the OSF article (both of which would start at 1970) that there is a dispute per the sources, then have a line saying something along the lines of "for the history of sf before 1970 see the history of sf article." That would I do it I believe. Valenciano (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If there were disputes per the sources, they would have been added by now and they have not. That they should represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. To remove the pre-1970 history, as you said yourself "we either need to include the pre-1970 history in all relevant articles OSF, PSF, RSF or else in none of them." --Domer48_'fenian' 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They have been added at the RFC above as you've been told several times. Given that you continue to refuse to read them I'm forced to conclude that you are simply wasting my time here so until you've something new to add, this is my final reply to you. I'll wait for the RFC. Valenciano (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats grand then, when I see them added to the article it might become clear to editors what your actually looking for, and are the sources you have offered good enough to appear in the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Domer48's suggestion is an excellent compromise, and that dismissing it is simply an attempt to force through a preferred version without attempting to find any consensus.

It is indisputed that Sinn Féin split in 1970, and that both factions claimed to be the successors. Sinn Féin did not cease to exist in 1970, they split in two. Cut the pre-1970 material to say a third of its current size, and have a main article link to the history article. That is acceptable summary style. Obviously it needs to be included in the OSF article as well. O Fenian (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Domer on this one. While SF split it did not cease to exist. All the other groups such as RSF, 32CSM and OSF left SF and created new organisations.--MarkyMarkDCU (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

THat's pure Provo POV. OSF did not leave. Ironically, it was the Provos who walked out and set up their own separate HQ! Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to this compromise in 1970 as stated above SF did not cease to exist. BigDunc^Talk 22:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You would! But there is no "compromise" - he's arguing that this article about the current SF party should start at 1905, thus supporting the Provisional POV that the current SF party is the only post-1970 successor to the Griffith party. That's not true, since the WP have as much right to be so considered as the Provo party. Mooretwin (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No he is not. He said "each party which traces its origins to SF should have a history included in their articles up until the time they left and formed new parties", so an abridged history would go in both this and the OSF article. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but you missed this bit - The Sinn Fein article [i.e. this article about the current Adams-led party] will obviously go from 1905 .... Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you are going on about? The current SF party is the only post-1970 successor to the Griffith party? Who said that? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is that you want this article to support the Provo POV that the current SF (i.e. Provo SF) is the only legitimate successor to the pre-1970 SF, that OSF/WP was a breakaway group, and therefore that the Provo article should begin in 1905. Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Show me the Provo POV sources I've used or stop wasting my time. No sources = no responce. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting "responce": Are you suggesting (a) that the Provos accept that the current party known as SF was founded in 1970, and therefore it is NOT a Provo position to consider the party to be the true successor of the pre-1970 party; or (b) that you do NOT want this article to imply that the current party known as SF is the only legitimate successor to the pre-1970 SF, that OSF/WP was a breakaway group, and therefore that this article should begin in 1905? Mooretwin (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone feels I'm just dipping into this controvesy but for what its worth I've noticed that List of IRAs takes a similar approach to the inter-related topic of the IRA. The splits in both organisations parallel each other so I suggest it would be logical to use a consistent approach in Wikipedia. --Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the way to go. Mooretwin (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the suggestion of the four editors above? What's wrong with their suggestion? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As already advised: it retains the current article as is (i.e. starting in 1905 instead of 1970). Mooretwin (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Political views

I would suggest removing this list for a number of reasons. The first is that is subject to change and updating on a regular basis. For example, this month SF will be holding their Ard Fheis, which will discuss and debate a number of policies and motions which may or may not become policies, should we add them all? I think not. What about previous policies? I think not. It's just a never ending list without any analysis, or reasons offered why one policy is more notable than another. Comments welcome, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be substantially trimmed and wikified a bit. Some of the stuff is not really notable for example I believe there is already a minister for children so it's not that big a deal that they support something already in existence. However the support for Irish language for example sets them apart from most other parties in NI. Mention of their historic policy stances also wouldn't be a bad thing e.g. on Europe they are generally one of the only parties who have campaigned against though that policy seems to have softened recently. Valenciano (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

About the infobox

Is there any real difference between European affiliation and European Parliament group? If yes then what does the first refer to? Since it's blank I'd propose removing it as it provides no meaningful info. Valenciano (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

European affiliation would be a europarty - a European wide federation, but SF isn't affiliated to one. The groupings in the Parliament often mirror the groups, but additional individuals and parties also sit in them. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

SF is affiliated to one, I'll dig it out later. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

De Valera Pic

That pic is too big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.117.182 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Political Ideology

I think the use of the term Socialist Nationalism would be fair, I've heard them described as both Socialist and Nationalist (No written source, it was a radio debate with Matt Cooper).

Of course the term is avoided, it has connotations of Nazism, but that does not make it an unfair term to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.26.96 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

Can I ask where the sense is in adding two IPA pronunciations for the term "Sinn Féin"? Surely one pronunciation, ie., an Irish one, is all that is necessary since it is an Irish term? I would suggest removing the English pronunciation as I believe there should be no encouragement of an English approximation of the original Irish term. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.74.116 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree! Would you not consider creating an account? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to "encourage" particular pronunciations, but rather to record whatever pronunciations are widely used and/or considered to be acceptable. Out of interest, what is the difference in the two pronunciations. I am only aware of one (which sounds like Shin Fane). Mooretwin (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Manual of style is pretty clear on this: "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first." Valenciano (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor coverage of southern politics

Just glancing through this article, it seems to be almost entirely concerned with Northern Ireland. In particular the "electoral performance" sections are almost exclusively about N.I. There is a passing mention of the 2002 (ROI) general election, no mention of the 2007 (when a seat was lost), no mention of Mary Lou McDonald who gained a European seat in 2004 and lost it in 2009, no mention of the return of the party to Dáil Éireann in 1997 when Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin was elected, no mention of the ups and downs of local government representation, defection of Christy Burke etcetera, etcetera...

Maybe those mainly involved in editing are north of the border, but from the article you would hardly know thay are an "All Ireland" party. Anyone want to have a go at adding some material, or will I have to dive in myself (not really my field)? Lozleader (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Media Ban

I don't see mention of the ban on Gerry Adams et al here. I've just given the article a cursory glance, so I could have missed it, but if not, it seems like something that should be included. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)