Talk:Éamon de Valera

Archives
Before 2006 (except one thread) 2006 2007 2008–09 2010

Roman Catholic

Éamon de Valera was a Roman Catholic.--MFIreland • ^Talk 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was. So are something like 90-odd percent of Irish people, at least nominally. Please read the category description, though. "Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability..." The things that spring to mind when you bring up Dev are 1916, the Civil War, founding Fianna Fáil, being president and Taoiseach, and possibly "Dancing at the crossroads" - not "he was a Catholic". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Bastun. That Dev was a Catholic is not in question, but that's not what he is notable for. Snappy (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was this category added back in? Since there is no consensus to add it, I have removed again. Snappy (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording in the Emergency section

The following wording in the Emergency section looks questionable to me, and I'd like to get some other editor's opinions on this:

[S]oon afterwards de Valera had a bitter exchange of words with Winston Churchill in two famous radio addresses...

There are two problems here, as I see it. First, linking "bitter exchange of words" with that cumbersome link to the main article on The Emergency seems questionable to me. Since what that subsection in the main article discusses are the two radio broadcasts, that is what should be linked in this article. Furthermore, that subsection should probably be edited to reflect the fact that the broadcasts is the subject. As it stands, the subsection title is vague and not very informative. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is very 'bald' at the moment and should be expanded/clarified in text. RashersTierney (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that it could be classified as a violation of WP:EGG, but it does seem counterintuitive and a little POV. Is there a critic or historian who described it as a "bitter exchange of words"? Rewording is definitely in order. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem like a bitter exchange of words to me. Churchill seemingly forgot that he was a signatory of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and was for some reason very confused as to why Ireland did not want to get involved in a foreign war, de Valera corrected his error. O Fenian (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not seem particularly bitter to me, either. And without a cite saying it was called bitter, that wording is just some editor's opinion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the radio addresses were hardly a "bitter" exchange of words. However, it should be remembered that in 1939-1945 Ireland was still part of the Commonwealth with George VI as Head of State. Since Hitler's ambition was to overrun all of Europe we cannot regard World War II as a "foreign" war, since if Britain had been overrun by the Nazis then Ireland would have soon been overrun as well. (92.7.18.37 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

@92.7.18.37, Wikipedia is not a forum--MFIreland • ^Talk 17:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary Kenny article

I would have to agree with the question over the accuracy of this source. It is not even about de Valera, but has two sentences about him in an op/ed that is about another subject entirely. "De Valera's condolences on Hitler's death were not matched by his condolences on Franklin D. Roosevelt's death", quite true but not in the manner implied by the sentence. An Irish Statesman and Revolutionary by Elizabeth Keane states on page 106 that Dev adjourned the Dáil as a mark of respect for Roosevelt, and he said "personally I regard his death as a loss to the world". In contrast she notes he did not adjourn the Dáil or make any favourable comments on the death of Hitler. Strained relations: Ireland at peace and the USA at war, 1941-45 by T. Ryle Dwyer states on page 162 that American ambassador Gray describes Dev's comments on the death of Roosevelt as a "moving tribute". The point about the "Éamon de Valera Forest in Israel" is also original research, since the source does not state that the forest should not have been planted for the reason given. Other, more academic sources, also deal with the refugee situation in a more balanced and in-depth way, rather than a one sentence assessment. O Fenian (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the same article [[1]] was used in Irish neutrality during World War II - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm reversing again, for the reasons expressed by OFenian and for the reasons I expressed in the talk page of Irish neutrality during World War II - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Brace Yourself Part 2 (Helping the British fight the IRA, Evidence In)

A BBC article here suggests that de Valera actively worked with the British government to smear Seán Russell as a communist agent. Is this significant in terms of Anglo-Irish relations at the time and should it be mentioned in the article? NtheP (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

..Yup, agreed and it should most definitely be mentioned that he helped MI6 defeat the IRA for balance alone. evidence Twobells (talk)

...Hmm interesting, there was historical evidence back in '09 that de Valera worked for the British yet I cannot find the entry in the article....Twobells (talk)

Dev...the British spy. The 'historical evidence'...refuted! Just to give those interested an idea of the scale and scope of this conspiracy nonsense. RashersTierney (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is a complete fabrication (and I offer no opinion on that whatsoever) then shouldn't it still be mentioned in the article, on the basis that repeated attempts to blacken his character have been made and this is a notable aspect of his life an/or memory? NtheP (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is 'a complete fabrication' what would be achieved other than Wikipedia promoting this book in the guise of allowing mention of a fringe theory. If the theme is, in the future, widely taken up by reliable historians, that would probably change matters. RashersTierney (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't aware it was a fringe theory but then my knowledge of Irish history isn't huge, so I'll willingly defer to those who have a better understanding than me. NtheP (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

De Valera's secret correspondance with Britain has been published in full for the first time. This is worth mentioning, because if it had been known at the time he would have been blown up by the IRA. (92.20.46.8 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

"in full"? I also cannot see anywhere in the so-called evidence anything that supports the assertion "he helped MI6 defeat the IRA" mentioned above in this discussion.

To summarise the actual facts..De Valera apparently asked the British for help smearing Russel, does that sound correct to anyone else? O Fenian (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems to better reflect what the source (BBC) is actually claiming. RashersTierney (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been described by the BBC (pertaining to the official records) as well as other sources that Newly released documents suggest that the man who helped found the Irish Free State, Eamon de Valera, covertly co-operated with Britain to crush the IRA. and the article should reflect that description shouldn't it?

The description that 'De Valera helped smear Russel' doesn't put across the magnitude of this act nor the reasons why, in that De Valera was horrified by the London bombings of '39 and conspired to (as he saw it) save the Irish Free State from both the IRA and overwhelming British reprisals.Twobells (talk)

So one on the leaders who waged a war to undermine the establishment of the Irish Free State and introduced a new constitution to get rid of it is now being presented as one of its founders? Is there any end to this revisionist waffle? RashersTierney (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest the Irish press (both on and off line) are describing it as 'colluding'

Indeed RashersTierney. The article also claims Dev's "entire cabinet in the late 1930s were former IRA members", funny how Seán T. O'Kelly was in every "cabinet" during the 1930s and was never an IRA Volunteer. I will reiterate that all this document sources is that Dev apparently asked the British for help smearing Russell, nothing more. O Fenian (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more? You're kidding right? This is a huge deal, he COLLUDED with the British...the very nation he had supposedly fought against to gain independence from. So who is going to do the section and how should we title it? Twobells (talk)

You might just as well make the case that Winston Churchill 'colluded' with his former Irish republican enemies to discredit Russell as a communist. I don't see any equivalent debate at that article TP. Sovereign governments collude/cooperate when its in their mutual interest. Nothing shock/horror about that. RashersTierney (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help if editors, and indeed journalists had read Decoding the IRA by Tom Mahon and James J. Gillogly, which deals with the IRA's links with the Soviet Union in the mid-1920s. The people dealing with the Russians were not in Ireland, but were generally London based high-ranking IRA members. At various points both the Soviet handlers/spies and IRA members had difficulties with the British security services, but the same cannot really be said of Ireland because they were not in Ireland. Therefore Dev had no evidence of Russell's Communist supposed (I forget the extent of, if any, of Russell's involvement) connections, so he asked the British for some. A lot had happened since the 1916-1921 period, things like the Civil War, Dev going constitutional with Fianna Fáil, Dev "taking the oath" and entering Leinster House, Dev outlawing the IRA and so on. With all that water under the bridge, it is hardly a major surprise that he tried to appear helpful to the British and stop Ireland being re-occupied. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty to mull over too in Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, particularly the last two vols. for the period under discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We all knew he helped crush the IRA during World War II but this is the first time it has been confirmed that he did it secretly with British help. (92.20.46.8 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

..At this rate it it'll be more a case of who WASN'T helping the British (joke) Twobells (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...Radio 4 documentary tonight on revelation (28/3/11) 20:00 BST

Still no entry on the above, I'll do it but wanted advice first on a neutral approach, best wishes.Twobells (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see, so editors are going to whitewash the above out and pretend it didn't happen then?Twobells (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Started work on the section, any advise is welcome.Twobells (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed per WP:COPYVIO and WP:FRINGE and the related WP:UNDUE. In contrast to what O Fenian says above, the actual facts of the matter are even more vague. In the absence of any further documents, the evidence amounts to this where a British official of unknown standing reports that a source has informed him of the supposed position of the Irish government. From this a BBC reporter has constructed a hypothesis of what happened, without providing any other supporting evidence to support the hypothesis or even that it happened at all! de Valera isn't even named in the document. Where's the supporting evidence that de Valera did actually ask for help? Or where's the evidence that the British thought the report sufficient to act upon and provided help? Real historians would cringe at the methods employed in that article. A primary source document is a place to start research from, not to end it. From there, you look for further supporting evidence that supports the direction the primary source leads you in. There's seemingly nothing like that here, it goes primary source document-bang-hypothesis becomes fact. Until this theory of events gains academic acceptance (not that I can see at present, since Donnacha Obeachain does not actually endorse the hypothesis) it remains a fringe theory, which if it has to be covered can be done so in a sentence not a whole section with a totally biased section heading. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What copyright violations? It quite clearly states: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, I cite fair use. what's fringe and what's 'undue'? I cite giving equal validity. The fact that de Valera colluded with Britain is a huge story and certainly not 'fringe'. As for 'undue' I cannot see how mentioning such is undue, they are just the facts being given no weight at all. You also just deleted it rather than discuss what changes should be made which suggests rear brain reflex, I waited for over six months asking for the best and most neutral way to present the facts and no-one responded, yet the moment I start on the section it's deleted with an editor citing all sorts of spurious tags. You can try and hide this but even the Republic Of Ireland press are reporting this as fact, just because you don't like it doesn't give you any right to delete it, it seems to me that you are practising non-pov.Twobells (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

He "deleted it rather than discuss it"? Are you serious? This discussion has been ongoing since March, and no one wants to add this fringe material but you. Both Hackney and RashersTierney have consistently refuted your arguments, yet you continue. Consensus is clearly against you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one once mentioned not wanting to add the material, just argued its validity, it's validity is not questionable but fact and it most certainly is not 'fringe material', when you put the facts into perspective and how this radically changes how de valera is now perceived the facts must be entered. Failing consensus I'll go to mediation and cite non-pov. Twobells (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that O Fenian also responded, refuting your arguments. Let me also remind you that this article is subject to a 1RR restriction, as stated at the top of this talk page, which you have violated. Any further reverts could earn you a block. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The addition is full of factual inaccuracies, promotes a fringe viewpoint and is in addition plagiarism.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please point out any inaccuracies and/or 'plagiarism' rather than make accusations please?Twobells (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

@Twobells. You state: when you put the facts into perspective. What facts? There are none, just suggestions. No facts; therefore no need to write about it. ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The facts quite clearly show that dev colluded with London to defeat the IRA, the same IRA whose members sat in government with him.Twobells (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC). At the end of the day the reality is that dev colluded with Britain to smash the IRA whose bombings of London he felt might endanger the new republic, that certain editors do not want these facts added seems highly unusual to say the least unless editors are suggesting that the National Archive documents are false? Or that the BBC article an organisation highly regarded for citing source who placed the article on their own front page as a headline is also wrong...?Twobells (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where are these facts that you allege exist? ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well there is one fact, namely the wording of the documents. I use "wording" specifically over "content", since the latter may tend to suggest the contents of the documents are facts. Everything else is speculation based on the wording of the documents. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Offer of united Ireland

The offer of a united Ireland must have come from Churchill, since it happened in June 1940. Churchill had replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister on 10th May. (92.20.46.8 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Agreed. The page on Irish neutrality in World War II mentions this. (HantersSpade (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree. If the letter was written on 12th June then it obviously came from Churchill, since he had replaced Chamberlain as prime minister more than a month earlier. (92.7.21.19 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

The sock agrees with himself. Fancy! You're building a very good case for a community ban. RashersTierney (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be a better way to describe it:

In June 1940, following the Fall of France, the British government invited de Valera to discuss the partition of Ireland. However, de Valera declined the offer, since he felt travelling to London to negotiate would be incompatible with neutrality. In addition, de Valera knew the offer was largely illusory - Ireland would be involved in World War II and the ending of partition would be no more than a half promise over which Belfast would have the full right of veto.

This is taken directly from Longford and TP O'Neill, pages 365-368. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.26.216 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death

Is there a reason why the article doesn't mention that de Valera died from pneumonia and cardiac failure? (92.20.46.8 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Oldest elected head of state claim

The comment that de Valera was 84 at re-election and that this made, and makes, him the oldest ever elected head of state are both incorrect. His reelection came more than four months before his 84th birthday. By contrast, Paul von Hindenburg was reelected president of Weimar Germany in 1932 when he was 84 (I don't know if this is the record but it proves that de Valera never held it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.53.179 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that de Valera was the oldest head of state when he retired at the age of 90. Hindenburg died at the close of his 87th year. (HantersSpade (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Newsflash

Apparently during the civil war Dev fought against people who were previously on the same side as him when he was fighting against the British. O Fenian (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Newly Released Documents re 'How De Valera asked UK to smear IRA chief Sean Russell'

See this BBC News item - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12848272 . Can it be inserted into the article? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Certain editors are attempting to prevent it's addition although the BBC considered it's content powerful enough to use it as their headline.Twobells (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The BBC are free to write any headlines they like. Headline writers always present the banal as the latest, greatest, most important and interesting 'discovery' ever committed to print. It doesn't make it so. RashersTierney (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for a claim

On the section regarding the 1937 constitution, there's the following line:

In July 1936, de Valera as constitutionally the King's Irish Prime Minister, wrote to King Edward in London indicating that he planned to introduce a new constitution, the central part of which was to be the creation of an office de Valera provisionally intended to call President of Saorstát Éireann, which would replace the governor-generalship.

I found that line to be the only mention of the 1937 constitution with a pre-1937 date, and would be important. But, what's the source for this?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are looking for. Documents on Irish Foreign Policy Vol IV 1932 - 1936 pp446-447 Letter from Joseph P Walshe to Michael MacDunphy (Dublin) enclosing a memorandum on the draft Irish constitution (Secret) Dublin, 10 June, 1936. "...I send you herewith a copy of the Memorandum relating to the proposed new Constitution which the High Commissioner has been instructed to deliver to King Edward." Hope this helps. RashersTierney (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good enough.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, searching that database discovered several earlier discussion on drafting what eventually became the 1937 constitution, esp on the role of the King:

1. 22 October 1935: Diplomatic role of the King is convention "as long as Saorstát Éireann remains associated as a Member of the British Commonwealth of Nations," minister needs to countersign such documents.
2. 12 June 1936: Similar to the 10 June 1936 letter above, and establishing the separation of internal and external heads of state.
3. 6 September 1936: What de V wanted the External Relations Act to be should Edward VIII not abdicate, such that the law is passed after the 1937 constitution is in effect.

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Éamon de Valéra"?

I've certainly come across the spelling "Valéra" in the past, and the example of his signature in the article seems clearly to show a fada over the surname; a quick google finds other examples. Did he in fact spell/write his surname in this way, even if only for a time? I see a couple of other people in this talk page's archives have mentioned this second fada in passing. It seems a bit odd that his signature had been used in the past here to argue about "Éamon" vs. "Eamon" but "Valera" vs. "Valéra" has not been addressed. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

What's more, he sometimes used the even more Gaelicised form "Éamon de Bhailéara" See for example this signature, or this example in the Dáil "Hansard". --Kwekubo (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We can ignore your second example, as that's someone else calling him by that name. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

So we have made up Irish versions of a made up American name, curious! Snappy (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nationality field in infobox

... is linked to Irish people, an article that describes the Irish as an ethnic group and "nation" in the historical sense of a group of people. It should really be linked to the state in which he lived (for example, Britons' infoboxes are linked to United Kingdom, like so: British. However, as de Valera was born into the UK of GB & I and lived thru the Free State and into the Republic, it's best left unlinked. At any rate, it shouldn't be piped to Irish people, but I'm coming up against some opposition in changing it. Let's discuss. JonChapple^Talk 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly can't see what your problem is with linking to Irish People. If de Valera isn't an Irish Person then who is? Bjmullan (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's not an Irish person. Did you read what I wrote or just post a knee-jerk response? I'm saying linking to his ethnicity is wrong for the "nationality" field when it should be linking to a state/country, if at all. Ethnicity and nationality are two different things. Gilles Villeneuve's nationality was Canadian, not French Canadian; Van Morrison is described as Northern Irish, not an Ulster Scot, etc. JonChapple^Talk 06:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That is to take only one of the meanings of the term. The dab at Irish clearly indicates that the article Irish people is broader than just its meaning in the sense of 'citizenship'. If that is what was intended, the 'Citizenship' parameter is available for use at the 'Infobox Office holder'. In Dev's case, this would give rise to whether at various times he was a US citizen, a British subject, citizen of the Irish Free State and Ireland (and even if it makes sense to draw a distinction between the latter two). The article on 'Irish people' is not a legal or even dictionary definition, but one where the general reader can find supplemental info on the subject, broadly drawn. It would also mean that reference to de Valera's mother; "De Valera was born in New York City in 1882 to an Irish mother", would also have to be de-linked, as would all current links at pre-1937 constitution figures across the project RashersTierney (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rashers. Btw, "as de Valera was born into the UK of GB & I", User:Jonchapple - try reading the article! Snappy (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You knew what I meant. JonChapple^Talk 18:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not. I only know what people write down. I am not a mind reader. Snappy (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

De Valera was born a Hispanic American. His father was Cuban. He was a naturalized irishmanEricl (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And when exactly did this hitherto unknown naturalisation process take place? RashersTierney (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that he was born American, shouldn't it say American / Irish? I realize it might be a little shocking, but it's true, right? --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to be a an Irish citizen to be President , anything else would be incorrect . So next the arguement coming would be its nationality v citizenship , in that case it would need to be shown that at some stage he had British citzenship , which can be disproved by the article itself "the US Consulate in Dublin made representations before his trial while the full legal situation (i.e., was he actually a United States citizen and if so, how would the United States react to the execution of one of its citizens?) was clarified." So Did he hold dual Brtish/American citzenship and where is the proof of such ? I will put in Irish , most accurate I believe as it indicates what is required to be Irish as a nationality or citizen as opposed to the ethnic grouping . Murry1975 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

American-Irish he was, just like Mary McAleese is British-Irish. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:What is a troll?. --Red King (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Jordan ? Provide an ISBN to his book

I have removed this as I can't find a publishers link to the book cited as from Jordan. If any other editor has an ISBN for this book, please provide a reference to it. "In the most recent [2010] biography by Anthony J. Jordan, the author cites the film "Michael Collins " as contributing greatly to the undermining of deValera's reputation among younger people, by portraying him extremely negatively in comparison to Michael Collin . Jordan writes " It is often the case that that works of fiction, which films are, bear a stronger witness for many , than a written biographical or historical treatment". [ANTHONY J. JORDAN OP CIT. P. 293]" 83.70.253.238 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The book appears to be this one: NLI catalogue record (ISBN 9780952444794). Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC).