Talk:Irish republicanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irish republicanism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Irish Republicanism

(Rated Start-Class, Top-importance)

	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ireland

(Rated Start-Class, Top-importance)

Ireland portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history WikiProject (Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	British military history task force

WikiProject Politics

(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)

Politics portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Garbage?

This article is basically garbage - full of factual inaccuracies (for instance claiming DeV was Taoiseach when the position didn't even exist) and POV nonsense. I've tried to tidy it up a bit, but I think it should be dumped and started again. I have subedited the first half of this article, but it still needs to be fully wikified. I do see some problems with the Northern Ireland sections, but as I am no expert in the field I dont want to make any changes it. It is certainly POV rather than fact and some of it is plain wrong. --Sideshow 04:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Emegency

"Irish sentiment was so Anti-British that during World War II, although the Irish government supported the Allied war effort with economic assistance, officially the Irish Free State was neutral and stayed out of the war." Did DeValera not state that the reasons for staying out of World War II was because Ireland was, at the time, a small country with a weak economy who did not have the manpower to take part in World War II --grasshopa

- Anti-British sentiment was also high, many of Ireland's prominant politicians as well as political leaders also support nuetrality because they did not want to enter into any military alliance with th United Kingdom; which did and still does posses Northern Ireland. this was the same reason for Ireland declining to join NATO in the 1970s.

I agree, I wrote this article based on information from other Irish historical websites, but I obviously got a few things wrong. I was able to succesfully write other articles on Irish history, but if this one is innacurate than I hope that others will come along and clean it up as much as possible. I've read over it lately and realized that a few parts are wrong, so for the sake of historical factualness I hope that somebody can edit this long article - Chris Gilmore

I've deleted that para. It is completely irrelevant to the topic as well as being garbage. Please read The Emergency before going much further.

[edit] Fianna Fáil liberal?

Does FF really describe its economic outlook as 'liberal'? It might be so in the US sense of the term, but even there I'm sceptical. Furthermore, I doubt the applicability of US political terminology to the Irish context in any case. Would a formula such as "socially conservative, economically populist" do them more justice? QuartierLatin 1968 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably just plain "socialist". Despite the inclusion of conservative devout Catholic nationalists in the movement, the non-sectarian/economically egalitarian outlook of Sinn Fein and other such parties doesn't really fit "social conservatism" in any way that I can see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.61.200.145 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] NPOV rewrite

I started by correcting the really basic errors in the first half, but by the time I got the second half, I lost the will to live. It is just a sectarian polemic. It is beyond editing, it needs to be completely rewritten. I've tagged the article as {{NPOV}} - maybe hardier souls than I can tackle it. --Red King 11:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I've continued - though you may not agree with all my edits! - I agree that it needs a real rewrite but I am neither enthusiastic nor particularly qualified either. In the meantime, I think I've tweaked it in a couple of places where that was badly needed. Palmiro 15:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fine Gael?

Does Fine Gael describe itself as republican? I think this is the defining question. If it does, it should be included. D'o for the PDs.Palmiro 20:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael McDowell: "This Party, the Progressive Democrats, is a genuine party of the Republic. Our values are republican, our vision is republican, our methods are republican. In our political history, we have never deviated from our republican values" [1]

Enda Kenny: "Today I want to offer Young Fine Gael the challenge to lead a debate about finding a new republican model. I want Young Fine Gael to ask the question: can we move the term republic away from the bomb and the bullet and link it to community? Can we move towards a civil republic? One that upholds and practises true republican traditions - freedom, pluralism, justice, equality, brotherhood." [2] Demiurge 11:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes... It's possible to overstate this case, but let's not forget two things: First, the pro-Treaty faction were themselves Sinn Féiners willing to accept a political compromise (as DeValera would do in the decades to come). Collins, for example, accepted partition and dominion status only with the understanding that these would be temporary arrangements. Second, Southern Ireland was declared a Republic under a Fine Gael government. And during the last few decades, Fine Gael has of course operated the within the institutions of that Republic. QuartierLatin 1968 19:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine Gael does describe itself as republican but on the other hand there are few (if any) political parties in the Republic which dont. Even the PD's claim to be republican. There are people who would dispute this but then again there those who dispute that (Provisional) SF are republican. At the end of the day the term has come to mean pretty much what one wants it to mean and I dont recall any politician in Ireland ever calling for the (re)establishment of an Irish monarchy ??? 80.229.222.48 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

Let me just re-emphasise how controvertial this topic can be. My name is Adam, I come from Northern Ireland. Ok, I'm a protestant, but I am quite used to the political situation here. You must beware that anything you say about catholics or protestants - even if it is plain fact - can be very offensive. Recently, a catholic woman refused a "woman of the year award" because it would mean sharing a stage with Baroness Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the UK. She claimed that Thatcher had inflicted "injustices" on her country (Ireland) and could not share a stage with her. Similarly, the Orange Order openly supported riots all over Ulster Province just because the government wouldn't let them march down a certain road! The ONLY safe thing to do is to provide BOTH sides. Even if you talk about "Northern Ireland", you will offend Sinn Fein who deny the simple fact that the state of that name exists. For example, "Sinn Fein are widely accused of knowing about the Northern Bank robbery in advance, but they deny the charges". Such issues are extremely controvertial. The Irish President even ended up cancelling part of an official visit, after she compared protestant treatment of catholics to Nazi treatment of Jews. Personally, I was offended, so were major protestant political parties. And rightly so, there could never have been worse a comparison! I do not deny they WERE badly treated, I DO deny that it was anything like Nazi treatment of Jews. I can only caution foreigners to please be sensitive to the situation. I don't expect you to know everything, just emphasise the fact that it may only be one side of the story. - posted by "Adam" at 19:20, 10 November 2005 from 217.51.144.253

Adam, what you say is very valuable. As you can see, the article does seriously need reworking to make it neutral - the current tag at the beginning is a recognition that it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, but nobody really has the time to sort it out. If you can help, please do so. But you need to get your facts right and you need to refrain from descending to the same level as the work you want to improve. You might see that I removed the changes you made, because you made it worse. You confused Republican Sinn Fein with Provisional Sinn Fein. Western, not eastern, counties tend to be nationalist. The "violence and extremism has been said already". The credibility of the Provisional IRA "decommissioning" (possibly even that event itself) is outside the reasonable scope of an article such as this. But do try again. Though you might want to learn the ropes on some less controversial articles first, because this is a minefield! Precise, reliable, references are critical. --Red King 20:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read through this article, and to be honest it is pure rubbish, it is full of errors, it, some of the information is totaly incorrect, for instance the SDLP or Social Democratic and Labour Party are not a Republican party they are a Nationalist party, RSF or Republican Sinn Fein don't regard themselfs as a political party, they call themselfs a political organisation, and those are just minor some of the errors. I think this article should be deleted and started from scratch.--Padraig3uk 06:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Some articles are so bad that they are beyond repair. This is one. If you have the time and energy to start again, please do. If you prefer, put the new draft hear for comment first and then copy it over the old one. --Red King 23:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If I get a chance over the next week I will have ago at it, the major problem about the existing article is it is very lacking in detail on the origins of Irish Republicanism, and little mention of Theobald Wolfe Tone who is regarded as the Father of Irish Republicanism.--Padraig3uk 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It may be the case that there is no "neutral" point of view in the six counties/northern ireland/ulster/british appendage/colony/hole in the ground, and as you can tell from many of the foregoing comments, the protagonists themselves have run out of issues of substance to quarrel over and are forced to squabble endlessly over words. How can you dismiss something as "pure rubbish", just because the author does not bother to split each hair over Republican v Nationalist or Unionist v Loyalist? From a distance the differences blur, until it is even hard to tell the green from the orange or from the people who just don't care. You are all united in three things; stubborn irrationality, lack of imagination and incompetence. Stop squabbling, and get on with it, you are holding the country back.

Adam says that the British treatment of the Irish was nothing like the Nazi treatment of the Jews. No, it wasn't. It was worse! The f***ing English forced us off our own lands so they could claim them, made it a crime to worship as we wished, sold Irish civilans into slavery and massacred whole cities (thank you Cromwell!), treated us as third class citizens in our own country (because the Scots who moved in were the second class citizens), forced farmers to pay ludicrous rents on lands their families used to OWN, and evicted people by the thousands. And then there's Black '47. The people of Ireland starved while massive stockpiles of beef and grain sat in warehouses in Dublin and rotted because the English wouldn't buy it, but they also refused to let the starving people have it. This was the British Empire in 1847!!! The "Greatest and most civilized Empire ever". And it was the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. They let their own citizens starve to death when they could have easily been saved, just because they were Irish. And we were oppressed in our own country for HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!! So no, the treatment of the Irish by England and the Protestants was nothing like how the Nazis treated the Jews. Hitler could have learned a thing or two from Queen Elizabeth, and Oliver Cromwell, and David Lloyd George. - 131.50.151.8 (talk)

Good God. Listen to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.159.36 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

131.50.151.8, you're from the United States, not Ireland, so whats with all this Che Guevara cliche nonsense? You clearly know f**k all about English history if you think Oliver Cromwell is representative of its populance, either historically or today, its not like the country fought a civil war over his peverted proto-Robespierre/Marxist ideas or anything like that is it? England is not a Puritan country, if you knew anything about the fouding of your native county, the United States, you'd know the history of that. Stick to writing about the current War in Iraq since your IP address seems to be from a military base. Ironic for somebody with such a huge victim complex to make a living out of shooting exotic people in a foreign land eh?- True as Blue (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fightin' words, mate, but since you posted it half-way up the page nobody except me will ever read it. Sad or what? Scolaire (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Republicanism

Hate to say it, but this article is quite unsatisfactory, at least to me. I do appreciate that the topic is quite a difficult one, but I think it has to be rewritten from scratch.

Example: "In late July 2005, the Provisional IRA announced that the war was over and that their weapons were to be put out of use."

Uh. I mean lads, we're talking something like switching from "not a bullet not an ounce" to documented decommissioning. Do you really want to limit all of that to a single line? I mean, the news was monopolizing the papers for days in Ireland, I think a single line doesn't do justice to the significance of that very event.

Just my 0.02 euros :D

AOC

One sentence is as much as is appropriate in this article - there is a skipful of it in Provisional IRA. Although Provisional Sinn Féin would like to claim the exclusive patent on it, there is a great deal more to the Irish republican tradition than the provos - they are not much more than a footnote to the full story. --Red King 18:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What a tragedy this article represents for republicanism and the history of republicanism on this island of Ireland! - that is, for republicanism in its true, original and broadest sense. If you read the wikipedia article on 'Republicanism' there is no mention of Ireland at all except in the 'See also' section where a link is provided to THIS awful page! I baulk at putting my oar in and venturing to try and 'improve' it. Oz MH 18:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1921 partition

I replaced references to "slight majorities" and "substantial majorities" in each of the counties at 1921 (which are purely POV) with the raw electoral figures from that year. As this was one of the few elections in the Stormont era that Republicans did not boycott it gives a reasonably accurate picture of the situation then. I was only able to find census figures online for County Tyrone so if anyone else could add figures for the other counties that would be useful. Valenciano 12:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] County nationalist/unionist breakdowns now??

Does anyone know the breakdowns of each county along those lines at the minute, so they could be inserted in the atricle?

I notice Derry and Armagh had slight unionist majorities in 1921, but I'm nearly sure they've both now got nationalist majorities now (well defiently Derry anyway) . Would that be correct and by how mcuh?

I realise its hard to get these figures becasue counties arn't the way constituencies and councils arn't drawn up any more.

In the absence of nationalist/unionist figures....I would be happy enough with Catholic/Protestant figures as they're a FAIRLY decent indication.

I don't think that this is the right article for that. The Troubles article would be a better place.

Jdorney

Demographics of Northern Ireland would be an even better place. Camillus (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to find updated demographics at the CAIN website http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ I disagree that this article, regarless of its conditions, belongs under the heading Troubles due to the fact that Republican ideology and dogma predate what is considered the beginning of the modern troubles in Northern Ireland. vulvabogwadins 14.06.2006

Derry (or Londonderry) city may be said to have a nationalist majoritiy but I dont think the same can be said of the county 213.40.252.2 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the county defiently does have a nationalist majoroty. Sure Derry City Council, Limavady Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council all have nationalist majoirites, with only Coleraine Borough Council being majority unionist (and a lot of those unionists in the Antrim side of the council). The part of Cookstown District Council in Derry would also be nearly all nationalist. Derry Boi (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideology

There should really be section here on ideology, ie what is Irish republicanism? Points to include are:

Belief in Irish independence and a united Ireland
Belief in the validity of the Irish Republic declared in 1919 and still existing in the eyes of some republicans
The use of force, and why it is legitimate, the IRA traditionally believed that they were entitled to use force as they were the legitimate army of the republic, as above.
Martyrology - a very strong current in republican tradition - the executed 1916 leaders, Kevin Barry, the republicans executed in the civil war , Sean South, Bobby Sands, the Loughall Martyrs etc etc

Jdorney 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I defiently agree with the above points.

Socialism also tends to be strongly tied to Republicanism since the 20th century. It wouldn't necessarily be considered a part of Republican ideology, but it is almost universally viewed by Republicans as the fulfillment of the dream of a 32-county Irish Republic. The AOH and many Irish-Americans would probably not agree, but nearly all of the major Republican documents and philosophers are grounded in socialist principles. There's a good reason that the Eastern Rising is often considered the first socialist revolution in Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.227.49 (talk) 16:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Read Paris Commune and Russian Revolution (1905) and you may be enlightened about the "first socialist revolution in Europe". Have-nots were drawn in for the fighting by those who wanted the republic to be propertied and Catholic, and were then put back to work.86.42.208.131 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of Interest

Writing an article an a topic of this magnitude and sensitivity is a daunting task. Though I have not the time (or the patience) to edit this article at the moment, I would like to offer some possible resources for those who would. Some are specific to Republicanism, others cover broader issues in the north, and others are of a more comparative political nature but may guide the interested reader to still further sources.

Breen, Richard; Hayes, Bernadette C. Religious Mobility and Party Support in Northern Ireland.European Sociological Review, Vol. 13, No. 3. (Dec., 1997), pp. 225-239

Boyle, Kevin; Haden, Tom. The Peace Process in Northern Ireland.International Affairs (Royal Institure of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 71, No. 2. (Apr., 1995), pp. 269-283

Cox, Michael.Bringing in the 'International': The IRA Ceasefire and the End of the Cold War.International Affairs (Royal Institure of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 73, No. 4. (Oct., 1997), pp. 671-693

Garrett, J. Brian. Ten Years of British Troops in Northern Ireland.International Security, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Winter, 1979, 1979-1980), pp. 80-104

Garvin, Tom.The Anatomy of a Nationalist Revolution: Ireland, 1858-1928.Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 28, No. 3. (Jul., 1986), pp. 468-501

Guelke, Adrian.The United States, Irish Americans and the Northern Ireland Peace Process.International Affairs (Royal Institure of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 72, No. 3, Ethnicity and International Relations. (Jul., 1996), pp. 521-536

Smooha, Sammy. Control of Minorities in Israel and Northern Ireland.Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 22, No. 2. (Apr.,1980), pp. 256-280

It is key in the opening of the article to either discuss the impact of the war between James II and William III or at the vary least link to an appropriate article. The facts and myths surrounding this historical event have affected the development of not only Unionist/Loyalist thought but also, by proxy, the Republican ethos we find ourselves in such a quandry to define. Vulvabogwadins 05:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a duplicate sig for Vulvabogwadins here as I have split the post's final paragraph into the next subsection (for which I have just added the title) jnestorius^(talk) 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of related articles

In addition, Physical force Irish republicanism should be merged with this article - if and when it is wikified - since, by definition, it is a branch of Irish Republicanism. Vulvabogwadins 05:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't and no it isn't in one way. Physical force Irish republicans operate on a fundamentally different view of Irish history and both Irish republicanism and physical force Irish republicanism seek to claim that it is they who are the real the republicans. So Sinn Féin calls itself Irish republican but dismisses the claim to the tag of most other parties, while those parties regard it as being as dubious to count physical force Irish republicanism in its modern variant as it would be to include National Socialism in an article on Socialism. Physical force Irish republicanism is a subset of Irish republicanism whose links with classic Irish republicanism are a source of major scholarly dispute. It makes more sense to explain the different concepts in linked articles than to try to bug everything in together in one mis-mash of an article, where, as is all too often the problem with Wikipedia, one side or other will try to highjack this article to push one view and ignore the other. This article embodies the farce. Modern Sinn Féin gets a longer blurb than Fianna Fáil, even though the latter is at least 10 times bigger. And the main opposition party gets 2 lines, smaller than each of the Workers' Party (which hasn't a single TD for a decade), not to mention Republican Sinn Féin and the IRSP neither of whom have had a TD. It is ridiculous. That is what happens when one tries a bung everything in together article. Interlinked studies allow a greater analysis with the main article possessing a summary paragraph. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems the current articles' taxonomy is:

Irish nationalism
- Irish Republicanism (BTW why the different capitalisation?)
  - Physical force Irish republicanism

Currently there is a huge amount of overlap between all 3 articles, especially in the History sections; some is inevitable of course, but it needs to be reduced, and of course POV forking stamped on. What would be helpful would be to add some extra contrastive articles:

Irish nationalism
- Non-republican nationalism — Anti-anti-Irishism, cultural nationalism, Home Rule, dual monarchy, Dominion/Commonwealth. The current Irish nationalism article covers this pretty well IMO, but needs to refer and link to republicanism in a manner consitent with however the republicanism-related articles are to be arranged. (e.g. this is debatable: "The parties widely recognized as representing the moderate nationalist tradition include Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the SDLP. The main party currently representing Irish republicanism is Sinn Féin.")
- Irish republicanism — I suggest this article should deal with the history up to the Civil War, and then discuss the dispute over who upholds this tradition.
  - Physical force republicanism — When was the term "physical force republicanism" coined? The earliest in Google books has it from T.P. O'Mahoney in 1977. Was the term borrowed from "Physical Force Chartism", which was contrasted with "Moral Force Chartism" much earlier than 1977, perhaps during the Chartist period itself? Perhaps the term originated with academics, but politicans have latched onto the idea to allow them to reclaim the base term from SF. How FF/FG/PD/etc politicians define their purported Republicanism may not always be very precise or scholarly. Is it inconsistent to distance oneself from current Physical force republicanism while claiming succession from pre-independence Physical force republicanism?
  - Constitutional republicanism — that's just my working title. Whatever it's called, distinguish from the generic "Irish republicanism". Were there any constitutional republicans before FF banned the IRA? Anyone in the First Dáil who condemned the IRA? jnestorius^(talk) 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Ulster Unionists were members of the first Dail but decided not to attend. It would be hard to imagine them supporting the IRA. The First Dail never declared war anyway, but in March 1921 accepted that there was a "state of war", so it is all very ambivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.204.93 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I suggest merging Volunteer (Irish republican), given that is a honorific used only by these types of organisations, and avoids the POV bias a seperate article implies. Astrotrain 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree - this is just an attempt to whitewash the term Volunteer, see here for further details its not an honourific title, it is more akin to a rank - if you looked at the talk page on the Volunteer (Irish republican) you would have known that. You have campaign to have that page and this, and this, this, this, this whitewashed and deleted. I suggest that you should add and expand the Volunteer (Irish republican) page.--Vintagekits 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree with Astrotrain suggestion on this.--padraig3uk 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the consensus is that it's notable enough to have its own article, even though use of the term "Volunteer" elsewhere, and indeed its definition, are disputed. Logoistic 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Irish Republicanism existed for many years before the Irish Volunteers were founded, let alone the modern day pretenders to the title. --Red King 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irish Republicanism → Irish republicanism — There seems to be no linguistic or grammatical reason for the capitalization of the second word. It is not a proper noun. Spylab 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

Support It's inconsistent with Irish nationalism and Physical force Irish republicanism. However the WikiProject is an entirely different kettle of fish, that requires another discussion entirely. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Irish Republicanism to Irish republicanism as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Ideology

I really think there ought to be a section on the political ideology of Irish Republicanism. Exiledone (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There was more than one, and they evolved over time.86.42.204.93 (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Republicanism page

Could someone help with the Republicanism page. There is what seems to be nonsense there about Irish Republicanism and maybe someone with some historical background could help work out what it is about. I have marked it with the 'fact' tag. --Dlatimer (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Dlatimer - even if it took 10 weeks for someone to notice ;-) Even putting it under the heading of "British Empire" was looking for trouble, so I just took it out altogether. Maybe somebody will write a proper section for Ireland some day. Scolaire (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Ireland Forum Report

Why is republicanism described in the intro as a belief that "all of Ireland should be a single independent republic, whether as a unitary state, a federal state or as a confederal arrangement", with the New Ireland Forum cited as the source? The Forum wasn't a republican assembly, and the report wasn't a republican document. Republicans believe that Ireland should be united, and a republic, full stop. Scolaire (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fine gael/Sidebar

Why are Fine Gael (United Ireland party) being removed from the Irish Republican sidebar?

Speaking even as a FFer, they very much are a Republican party and belong on the list, Republican ideals are at the heart of both parties and while FG is less strident on the North and less inclined to support the IRA or Sinn Fein I don't see what justification there is for removing them.

FG's strategy is more geared toward pluralism, and recognising that the Irish nation needs to be reunited in hearts and minds as well as territory.

A different branch of republicanism to FF doubtlessly, but it IS still Irish republicanism.

ConorOhare (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poor quality

The article is very poor quality at the moment, it rattles on about Normans in the Middle Ages and all this stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with republicans or republicanism. The first republicans in Ireland were Cromwell and the New Model Army. The movement covered in the article derives from events in the 18th century, when a small cabal of bourgeoise rebels in the north imported from France the ideology of Jacobinism (related to the Grand Orient of France). It needs to better explain in the article how it is ideologically different to various forms of Irish nationalism (a wider house), like the Blueshirts, Maria Duce and other less communist orientated Irish movements. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you do not understand what Irish republicanism actually is then? O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you do not know what Irish Confederates were then? Or what Jacobites were then? Republicanism, as this specific movement, didn't exist in Ireland up until the late 1700s, certainly not in Norman times. All of the dubious misrepresenation and white washing of history in the section about the Norman conquest up the 18th century has nothing to do with the topic of this article; the republican movement. I realise that republicans themselves attempt to manipulate distant history to argue their case, but this doesn't belong in a cronology of the republican movement itself, but rather a section on ideology. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you never learnt not to answer a question with a question? The background of English rule in Ireland has everything to do with this topic. O Fenian (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A background section, separate from the cronology of the republican movement itself, documenting how mismanagement by the British state created a breeding ground for such a movement to take hold is relevent to the topic of the article. A confused, misrepresented section rattling on about Norman feudal lords and Irish monarchists (like the O'Neills and Confederates of 1642) which has absolutely nothing to do with communism in Ireland is completely off topic. This isn't an article on the "general history of rebellions in Ireland" - its specifically about the republican movement and its ideology. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You may find the section is called "History", not "Ideology". And if you maintain 1169 is not relevant to either of those anyway, I can only assume you are trolling. O Fenian (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have identified anybody expousing the cause of republicanism in 1169, then you must be trolling or at the very least WP:SYNTHing to suggest it belongs in an article about republicanism. Its a character assasination and misrepresentation, when viewing the actual demands of the Confederates and their constitution (aristocratic, traditional, monarchist, Catholic) to suggest their restoration movement in the 1600s, had anything at all to do with the values of Wolfe Tone who was influenced by the French Revolution's anti-aristocratic, anti-traditional ideology via Danton. Or James Connolly a Marxist who was a member of the Second International with Lenin and Trotsky. Ideologically these groups come from a completely different worldviews, the former (pre-18th century) were not republicans at all and so do not belong in the article; the thing they have in common is they're Irish and aquired weapons. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republicans: An Oral and Interpretive History by Robert W White (Greenwood Press, 1993) deals with pre-20th century republicanism and dates it from 1169 to 1915, and Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA by Richard English (Oxford University Press, 2005) quotes a Republican Movement document dating the struggle from 1169. That's just two of many that disagree with your ignorance. O Fenian (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to name specific names and documents of 12th century republicans. Funny how theres a complete lack of any republicans between 1169 and the 18th century when it was introduced from France? And the only documented armed risings recorded during that time are either general monarchist (Confederates, Jacobitism) or ones which were fighting protect the sovereignty of Gaelic kingdoms with monarchs which continued to exist until the 16th century (like Thomond, Desmond and others). But I'm willing to be awakened from this ignorance to be presented with these 12th century republicans names; it would surely be a welcome addition to the article.- Yorkshirian (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You asked for sources saying 1169 is relevant, you got them. I am done feeding the troll now, goodbye. O Fenian (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's another self-proclaimed, Anglophobic activist! Hey "Fenian", meet User:HighKing, User:Sarah777, User:MusicInTheHouse and User:Tfz. OMG that was so funny. How many other tricks can you perform? Oh, a single dead horse, kicked into smithereens? Brigitte Bardot would freak! A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, here`s a reliable source

It shows that Sean Russell, who was a prominent Irish republican supported Nazi Germany and consequently it cannot be asserted that Irish republicanism is a purely Left-wing movement.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article411647.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.255.99 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how the actions of one man can be used to draw such a conclusion, and neither does it source the text you added to the article. O Fenian (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article asserts that Irish republicanism is a left-wing movement but that cannot be asserted when the former leader of the IRA supported Nazi Germany when they were persecuting Communists.--65.92.255.99 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is your conclusion, please provide a source that agrees with that conclusion. Not a source that simply says Russell had links with Germany, as that is not disputed. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Your source clearly states that one motivation may be anti-english. The Scots and Welsh allied with France to oppose the English, that does not make them French. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but it means that they had ideological symathies with them. Roosevelt could just as easily have sided with Nazi Germany against the USSR but he didn`t because he had more sympathies for Communism than Nazism. Sean Russell, the former leader of the IRA, had the opposite inclination.

So we've gone from providing sources to making assumptions, tremendous. O Fenian (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a gross and inaccurate simplification of Roosevelt's motivations. --Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because Roosevelt supported the British against Nazi Germany even before the war but never supported any country against the USSR when they engaged in imperialism. Furthermore, There are no references backing up the claim that Irish repuclicans have generally been left-wing so if you dislike assumptions so much then you should not want to keep that bit in until it can be referenced.--65.92.255.99 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest some basic reading in 20th C History, I've never heard anyone challenge the left wing nature of Irish republicanism before - many of its founders wrote books that were the staple of many a communist bookstore. --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you feel confident enough to pompously assert that nobody can challenge tthe claim that Irish republicanism is left-wing then you should not have a problem referencing such a claim.--65.92.255.99 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Frriter in "The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000) makes the point in multiple places, starting on p212 and elsewhere. Any Irish history book will say the same. It really doesn't need citation. --Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stalin allied with Nazi Germany so if we follow those arguments to their logical conclusion then he wasn't left wing or a communist. Sounds like faulty logic to me. There are cases in politics when you ally with the enemy of your enemy, it doesn't change your underlying ideology so you'd need stronger sources than the Russell case to make this assertion. The case of Frank Ryan, who fought against the fascists in Spain but later was involved in planning operations against Britain sponsored by the Nazi regime does tend to suggest that the primary motive was fighting the British rather than supporting nazism. Valenciano (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How can Irish republicanism be considered left-wing?

"Against the Red Flag of Communism...we raise the flag of an Irish nation. Under that flag will be protection, safety and freedom for all." - (Sinn Fein: Sept. 30th 1911)

Although Sinn Fein may now be somewhat leftist, that is only a recent phenomenon and for this reason Irish republicanism cannot be stereotyped as a left-wing movemet.--Caoilte (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable and notable sources, add that information to the article. But, do not remove cited information simply because you do not agree with it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a reliable source that contradicts what the reference in the article asserts and that goes into far more detail into the topic.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/cc1913/flag.html

"While James Connolly declared the indivisibility of the of the struggle for Irish independence from the fight for socialism he was essentially a lone voice whose ideology, based on the application of Marxist principles to the Irish situation"

Hence while some prominent Irish republicans have promoted Marxism or leftwing socialism, Irish republicanism can by no means be accurately presented as an overwhelmingly Left-Wing/Marxist movement.--Caoilte (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source, and does not even source the addition you made to the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting that you used an essay by a left-wing Republican who, throughout the essay, denounces those who opposed socialism as enemies of the working class and a detriment to the Republican movement. For 90+ years, the Republican movement has been overwhelmingly left-wing. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that's not the case. The Independence movement of the 1920s was not especially left wing. It had some left wing elements but was on the whole rather centrist. In the 30s the IRA came under the influence of far-left thinking and again in the 60s. In between, in the 40s and 50s the leadership were actually rather on the right. The Provisional movement have espoused left-wing thinking since the late 70s but not before.

Basically Irish republicanism is a nationalist movement which takes a number of politcal influences from elsewhere, sometimes left wing sometimes not. Jdorney (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"That is not a reliable source, and does not even source the addition you made to the article."

It asserts that James Conolly was a lone voice for Marxism in the Irish republican movement, so it actually asserts that Irish republicanism was overwhelmingly none Marxist. I already made a concession by saying that some rather than most Irish republicans have opposed left-wing politics.

"For 90+ years, the Republican movement has been overwhelmingly left-wing"

As Jdorney stated that is simply not the case and even if it was, this article deals with the Irish republican movement as a whole and not just what it has been in recent history.--Caoilte (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion of what the source says, and it is not a reliable source either. Neither is the Prophet of Doom website, please stop edit warring and discuss proposed edits before making them. O Fenian (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Caoilte, you have a point, but go, do some research, come back with some sources and then make your edits. It's better for everyone that way. Jdorney (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading edit summary

An editor has just made a significant and substantial change to this article under the cover of a misleading edit summary ("copy edit"). He appears to have transported en masse disputed material from the Sinn Féin article. Perhaps he may wish to consider self-reverting, and bringing any suggested changes to the Talk page? Mooretwin (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political Parties

Isn't there a strong case for the SDLP to be included here? Technically, they are a republican party as they have the ultimate political goal of a reunified Ireland under a republican government. Even the SDLP's senior members can be sourced as describing their party as republican. They should be included in this article with an explanation of the distinction between them and the other Irish nationalist parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WastedTourist (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)