Talk:Sinn Féin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Socialism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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-Class article 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.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Irish Republicanism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

'European Parliament' in bar charts[edit]

We need either to reach agreement on how the European Parliament is dealt with in the bar charts, or to delete it. The situation at the moment, where one constituency (NI) is shown, is arbitrary and not especially meaningful. Previously it was done on an all-Ireland basis, but what's to stop somebody from saying it should be done on an all-UK basis? Or that they have one seat out of 736 in the Parliament? What is it meant to show, anyway? If it is meant to show voting strength, then it should show the figure for the EUL-NGL (35/736), because that's who they vote with. If it is meant to show electoral support, then it can't be shown in a single bar, because they stand in multiple constituencies in two different jurisdictions. How it's done on "other party articles" is the least useful criterion of all. Who's to say if it's done right on other articles, or whether what is appropriate for one is automatically appropriate for all? Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the EUL-NGL figure is the worst of all worlds as that's a wider coalition not the party itself. The European Parliament groups are a very long way from a single disciplined coherent party and usually when the interests of the national party conflict with the grouping, the former has the stronger pull on how the MEP votes. The infoboxes for all the other Irish or UK parties with MEPs show only the number of MEPs the party itself has, not the wider grouping. Perhaps two bars for the two jurisdictions is the best solution? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you do that? Then we can see if other editors have anything to say about it. Scolaire (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Scol. Let's get rid of the charts. Perhaps a couple of lines of text summarising the SF results would suffice? --BwB (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Woah! Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing. I said before that we should get rid of the tables in the 'Electoral Performance' sections of the article proper. I'm not proposing doing away with the bar charts in the infobox; I only said that we might have to lose the European Parliament if we couldn't agree on what it should show. Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
1/736 is technically accurate rather meaningless as SF only contests seats in the 5 EP constituencies on the island of Ireland (Dublin, East, South, North-West and Northern Ireland). 1/15 is more accurate but how many readers will know that the 15 refers the island of Ireland EP seats (maybe in a footnote). I note that for the House of Commons the figure is 5/18 not 5/646 since SF only contest seats for HoC in NI. 35/746 for EUL-NGL is meaningless here. These boxes are designed for national parties and as SF is a transnational party, it often doesn't fit. The simplest solution would be to have 'Party seats / Total seats in body', so 5/646 and 1/736 for HoC and EP respectively. Snappy (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sinn Féin is an all Ireland Party, in fact it is the only all Ireland Party so why not treat it as such. Were clarification is needed add it. --Domer48'fenian' 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In fact, Sinn Féin in NOT the only all Ireland Party. The Green Party, the Workers Party of Ireland, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, People Before Profit Alliance, Communist Party of Ireland, Irish Socialist Network, Irish Republican Socialist Party and Eirigi are all organised on an All Ireland basis. Fianna Fail is also organising in Northern Ireland. Snappy (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sinn Féin do not represent any EP constituency in Ireland, so surely 1/3 bar should remain. NB info on where Sinn Féin contested isn't necessary in the infobox - just where they were successful.--Chromenano (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think 1/3 would be best. Snappy (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as I thought, then: there is not even the beginnings of a consensus on this. All but one (the deliberately off-the-wall one) of my five options has somebody's support, and one editor is simultaneously supporting 1/736 and 1/3. The EP bar should be taken out of the infobox of this article unless and until there is some convergence of views. Scolaire (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am supporting 1/3, just to make that clear. I said 1/736 was accurate if you also had 5/646. They have 1 seat in Northern Ireland EP constituency, just as they have 5 BHoC seats of the 18 they contest. Also, there is non consensus to remove it. Snappy (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead mate! --BwB (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the EP section to 1/3 as per emerging consensus here. Snappy (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Let the emerging consensus emerge first seems to be normal. --Domer48'fenian' 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with the UK parliament bar-chart, the other N. Irish parties are shown as a proportion of the UK total, but SF is shown as a proportion of the N. Irish total FOARP (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put (Irish seats) as done for the Welsh ones in the Plaid Cymru article.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gerry McHugh[edit]

Since Gerry McHugh left the Sinn Féin and joined Fianna Fail, it now has 27 MLAs. The chart in the right-hand column needs to be adjusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Give a source to say 27. Did you get it from a newspaper or...? ~ R.T.G 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
As there are sources that McHugh quit SF and now sits as an independent it's not really necessary for the ip to do that per Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations as 28 minus 1 makes 27. Also in this case primary sources are acceptable as there isn't a dispute over it. 27 here or here for example. The main question is if we're going to update those figures every time someone defects/resigns as then we have to keep updating it for local councillors. Much easier is to just make clear in the infobox by means of a footnote or whatever that those were the results of most recent relevant election. Valenciano (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Denis Donaldson[edit]

I have begun a rewrite of the 1983 to present section of the history. I feel that, while the Denis Donaldson story is important in itself, it is not sufficiently important to merit a full paragraph in an abbreviated history of the party. I propose either to take it altogether or to mention it briefly when talking about the collapse of the Assembly (which is not currently dealt with in the history at all). Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention it briefly as you suggest. --BwB (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving content to "History of Sinn Féin"[edit]

I have partially reverted these edits of 7 July, and I think a word of explanation is warranted. First, the extra detail is more suited to History of Sinn Féin than this section, which is only a brief summary, so I have merged it in there. The phrase "extreme socialism" is also in the Bowyer Bell book, so it is not necessary to add the extra citation. In the interests of WP:NOR it is probably best not to link this phrase to either Marxism or Stalinism. Also, Hanley and Millar have the dates of the Ard Fheis wrong: Saturday was the 10th of January and Sunday the 11th. Again, Bowyer Bell has the correct dates. Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of pictures[edit]

I have started a discussion on images of pictures at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Images of pictures. --Scolaire (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seanad in info box[edit]

My understanding is that when a sitting Senator is elected to the Dáil they vacate their Seanad seat and it's eventually filled either by the Taoiseach making a new nomination or the university holding a by-election or for the panel members the Oireachtas members only voting in a by-election. Doherty's Senate seat has been vacant since he was elected to the Dáil but Seanad by-elections appear to take a age to happen - see Members of the 23rd Seanad#Changes (and also the vacancies seem to be filled one by one - look at the Agricultural Panel vacancies in 2009). Whereas Taoiseach vacancies in the lame duck period between a Dáil & Seanad seem to get filled instantly, other seats seemingly stay vacant for the last stage of that Seanad's life. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seanad seats are the same as Dáil seats: in principle they are filled promptly in the lifetime of the Oireachtas, but it can be dragged out if the government so decides. Traditionally, once the Dáil is dissolved, Seanad seats are not filled before the Seanad election, but Brian Cowen broke with that tradition while he was still Taoiseach. Personally, I hope the Seanad will be abolished in the lifetime of this government, but that is not a matter for the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the Seanad lists it seems Cowen had precedent on his side and often there have been new nominees at the end - see Members of the 20th Seanad for this happening when the government changed. But that's not a matter for this article yet. The key point here is that Sinn Féin currently have no Seanad seat. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sinn Fein have no Seanad seat at present. From Pearse Doherty's Oireachtas members database page [1] "Senator Doherty vacated his seat in the 23rd Seanad on his election to the 30th Dáil at the by-election held on 25 November 2010 consequent on the election of Deputy Pat 'the Cope' Gallagher to the European Parliament." Snappy (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

1905 or 1970?[edit]

I notice that the article is in both Category:Political parties established in 1905 and Category:Political parties established in 1970. This tends to mislead the reader, as both cannot be accurate. Which is it? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look in the archives. This is a controversial issue relating to whether or not there is continuity of identity following the official/provisional split. Current version is the agreed compromise --Snowded TALK 03:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
An agreed compromise that offers readers two pieces of information, presented as fact, that cannot possibly both be accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talkcontribs) 16:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
That's just the way it is. Conflicting sources for 1905 & 1970, brought about the compromise. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't see how having two categories "tends to mislead the reader". It may confuse the reader, if the reader doesn't want to read the article and find out what actually happened. But to mislead the reader it would have to convince him or her that the organisation was established simultaneously in two different years, and you can't do that with a category alone, you need to work a bit harder than that. Categories are not "pieces of information, presented as fact", they are systems for categorising things. Now, the opening paragraph says it all for anyone who cares to read it: "Originating in the Sinn Féin organisation founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, it took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party." Sinn Féin was established in 1905; Sinn Féin split in 1970 with one of the resulting two parties being the Sinn Féin of today. Hence, two dates for its establishment - confusing, maybe; a compromise, maybe; but perfectly reasonable. Scolaire (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, confusing and compromised. I'd say remove both categories. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense, its a good compromise and is easily understood on the most cursory of readings. --Snowded TALK 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The obvious question: why does the 1970 split count as an establishment of the party, and not the previous splits? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussed to death last time - suggest you look in the archives --Snowded TALK 04:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW when Snowded says "the archives" he means Archives 3 to 8, inclusive. Each archive is over 100kb in length. When he says "discussed to death", that is not hyperbole! Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Founding date in infobox[edit]

I just restored the agreed version of the infobox to state current party formed 1970 and original 1905, only to be reverted by Mo Ainm with the question "where was this agreed?". The answer to his question is as above - see Archives 3 to 8. This was the agreed version until it was changed by Domer48 on 14th June and it needs to be restored now. Mooretwin (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Only Mo and Domer objected at that time, though numerous editors were in favour of a two date solution. I only just noticed that that had disappeared from the infobox. Sticking a cite needed on something, then removing it the following day is very bad form, especially when you've participated in discussions where such cites were provided. Valenciano (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
How many elections have "Provisional" Sinn Féin been involved in? Is there such a Party called "Provisional" Sinn Féin, if so provide sources?--Domer48'fenian' 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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' 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you pretending to be unaware of the numerous sources provided during the previous discussion about this? And why are you citing Rafter and Feeney again, when you know that both actually say the party was formed in 1970?! Read the archives for the many, many sources that were provided. Or do you really want me to post them all again? Mooretwin (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Provide these numerous sources, and support your comments on Rafter and Feeney. As to your bad faith assumptions on me, I suggest you stop.--Domer48'fenian' 07:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here we go....

  • Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
    • Traditionalists like Mac Stiofain saw the way things were going: taking about a third of the delegates with him, the Provisionals’ Chief of Staff departed, reassembled in a pre-booked hall for another meeting, formed what became Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) and announced publicly that a Provisional Army Council had been set up to reorganize the IRA.
  • Jonathan Bardon (2005), A History of Ulster. Blackstaff Press Ltd, p. 675
    • [Sean Mac Stiofain] led the coup that split the movement in December 1969. The breakaway group, as an interim arrangement, elected a provisional executive just before Christmas, with Mac Stiofain as chief of staff and Ruari O Bradaigh as president of Provisional Sinn Féin, its political counterpart. Ten months later they stated that this temporary period was over, but the names Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA remained with them ever since.
  • Brendan O'Brien (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA: From 1916 Onwards, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.75
    • In a pre-planned move they immediately went to a Dublin city venue to form a caretaker executive of a new (Provisional) Sinn Féin.
  • Ed Moloney (2007), A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books, p.72
    • Later that evening they met to set up an Executive for their own version of Sinn Féin and elected Ruari O Bradaigh as the first Provisional Sinn Féin president.
  • S. J. Connolly (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford University Press, p. 543
    • the movement split in January 1970 into official and provisional Sinn Féin, mirroring the split within the IRA the previous month.
  • Thomas Hennessey (2005), Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles, Gill & Macmillan, p.358
    • And from this point there were two IRAs … matched by two parallel Sinn Féins – Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin.
  • Brian Feeney (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the Troubles, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.138
    • Chronology: 1970. January. Provisional Sinn Féin founded.
  • W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott (1994), Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1993, Gill & Macmillan Ltd, p. 284
    • Entry for PROVISIONAL SINN FÉIN: The political counterpart of PIRA which dates from January 1970, when the split occurred in the Republican movement.
  • CAIN Abstracts on Organisations
    • Entry for Sinn Féin (SF) [synonyms: Provisional Sinn Féin]: 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.
  • BBC Fact Files.
    • The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein, although it derives its name from an organisation founded by Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith in 1905.
  • Agnes Maillot (2007), New Sinn Féin: Irish republicanism in the twenty-first century, Taylor & Francis, p.4
    • Under the leadership of Tomas Mac Giolla and Cathal Goulding in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, there was a shift towards the left. ... Marxist distinctions based on class replaced a more traditional vision based on geography and history. To aim to unite the working class was seen as a dangerous path by those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin, since it was seen to undermine the fundamental dimension of the conflict: that of the colonial legacy which was maintained through partition and its institutions.
  • Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman (2007), Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, University of Pennsylvania Press, p.199
    • The Provisional IRA was created in December 1969 in full knowledge of these facts, its twin sister, Provisional Sinn Féin, shortly afterward.
  • Jonathan Tonge (2006), Northern Ireland, Polity, pp.132-133
    • Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) formed in 1970 pledged allegiance to the First Dail, having split from what became known as Official IRA and Official Sinn Féin, because it had voted to enter a 'partitionist parliament'.
  • Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W. White (2000), Self, Identity, and Social Movements, University of Minnesota Press, p.330
    • In January 1970, the political wing of the Republican movement, Sinn Féin, also split. Those who rejected constitutional politics walked out of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis and formed Provisional Sinn Féin. Those who supported the Official IRA were then referred to as Official Sinn Féin.
  • John Plowright (2006), The Routledge Dictionary of Modern British History, Routledge, p.276
    • The modern party dates from 1970, when Provisional Sinn Féin split from Official Sinn Féin.
  • Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan, p.96
    • MacStiofain and his supporters had prevented the constitutional change but they were in a minority. They quickly departed to form a new organisation that would shortly come to represent the traditional republican doctrines and a majority within the militant republican constituency on the island. The new movement pledged its 'allegiance to the 32-County Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 ... etc.
    • After the split in the republican movement in 1969-70, Adams sided with the newly established Provisional movement. (p.9)
    • ... nobody, and no party, has a monopoly on the legacy of 1905. (p.18) Valenciano (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL. You left out Domer's own selected source of Feeney (Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years, Brian Feeney, O'Brien Press, Dublin 2002, ISBN 0 86278 695 9!) ...
    • In early 1970 neither the Provisional IRA nor its political mouthpiece Provisional Sinn Fein, had much of an existence outside west Belfast. Its new Dublin-based leaders had almost no followers. There were of course, pockets of support around Ireland where various individuals in the republican movement, emotionally spurred by the events of August 1969, gave their backing to the breakaway group, which as yet had no organisation on the ground (p.251); Others both inside and outside the movement viewed the Provisionals as a dangerous backward looking offshoot from a republican movement that had spent the best part of ten years trying to jettison irredentist violence and rhetoric. Mooretwin (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Surely everybody can agree that the last thing this article needs is another talk page source-war going on for another 18 months and another 600kb! And all over four digits in the infobox! There was agreement reached here that there was a consensus for this version, with a compromise intro and a compromise infobox. A compromise is necessary because the sources indicating some sort of continuity and the sources indicating de novo formation in 1970 have equal claim to validity. There is no evidence that consensus has changed. We need to go back to the compromise wording, and without refs, which only muddy the waters. Scolaire (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that! Valenciano (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Tell it to Domer! He must have a bad memory, because surely he wouldn't be so disingenuous as to pretend he couldn't remember the long discussions, to which he was party. Mooretwin (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
That is a personal attack, pure and simple! It can have no possible purpose except to provoke, and thus re-ignite the word war Valenciano and I are trying to prevent. Please remain civil, and comment on edits not editors. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny that the actual provocation and the re-ignition of the war - i.e. Domer's attempts to overturn consensus - didn't prompt any words of scorn from yourself, yet the response to it did. At least try to be even-handed in your comments, please. Mooretwin (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Mo ainm's comments were directed at you. I didn't "remind him of civil" or restore any uncivil comments here. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Two Lead Paragraphs are Confusing to Novice on this topic[edit]

The first paragraph mentions Sinn Fein in the parliament of Ireland. The second paragraph is about Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. So Sinn Fein is a party which operates in two countries? Do I understand correctly? If this is the case, then this situation must be quite unique in the world. And if this is the case, I think a lead sentence should state the dual political activity more clearly. But maybe I completely misunderstood the intent? Thanks for clarifying this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right, there are elected Sinn Féin representatives in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. They would not say that they "operate in two countries": their philosophy is that Ireland is one country. It also reflects the historical fact that when the original Sinn Féin was founded in 1905 the island had not yet been divided. So you could say it's not that Sinn Féin made a decision to operate in two jurisdictions, they just never decided to stop doing so after partition. Iota (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think another example might be the Ba'ath Party who used to operate in both Syria and Iraq. They wanted the whole Arab world to become one country. As a nationalist and socialist party it has some superficial similarities to Sinn Féin. But I think it eventually split into two separate Syrian and Iraqi parties that didn't like each other very much. Iota (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Once sentence.[edit]

"The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA"- Yet I see nothing about how the party has/is continuing to distance itself from the IRA? I think this should be mentioned directly after this sentence. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, "has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA" does not mean "is no longer associated with the Provisional IRA". It may be or it may not be. To say that it is or is not, you would need to have reliable sources. Does it matter whether it is currently associated or not, given that the IRA is inactive since 2005? The historical association (which is not dealt with well in the article IMO) is what is relevant. Scolaire (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I see, thanks for explaining it to me, makes sense now. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Should Sinn Fein ideology be described as 'reunification' or 'unification'? I don't know. 'Partition' would suggest 'reunification', but I don't think the island of Ireland has ever had a single government which would suggest 'unification'. Maybe it's simply best left to how Sinn Fein choose to desribe it as its their ideology and I think most readers would get the gist from either term. --Flexdream (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed SF claim reunification of Ireland as one of their aims. Mo ainm~Talk 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but Ireland has never been united under one single political entity. To say otherwise is not adhering to the neutral point of view rules that wikipedia maintains. You guys seem to only request the 1RR rules when the article in question is written in your point of view. Also prehaps you should the change the wiki article "United Ireland" to "Reunited Ireland" if it is indeed a reunification. Alssa1 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that there was never a 32 county Ireland? Mo ainm~Talk 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that it is not correct to use the term Reunification when referring to a union with North and South Ireland. Alssa1 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a couple of sources to get you started, Irish TimesThe GuardianThe Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism By Timothy Shanahan pg.88Irish Political Studies Reader: Key Contributions By Conor McGrath pg.170Northern Ireland: Conflict and Change By Jonathan Tonge pg. 207, are you saying these sources are wrong? If so provide a reference to support your comments. --Domer48'fenian' 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Googleing the phrase "Irish reunification" and then posting the result is not evidence in support of your claims anyone can do that, especially with such a contentious topic. Here are some sources of my own: Northern Ireland and the Divided World, Northern Ireland and the Divided World, Settling Self-Determination Disputes. Are YOU saying these sources are wrong? The point that I am trying to make is that technically, Ireland has never been united under a single political unit. Therefore the term would be Unification. Alssa1 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read the sources I've quoted, i.e. context! None of which can be considered Republican POV. --Domer48'fenian' 19:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I would recommend that you read some of my sources, i.e. the context or at least nip down to a good bookshop and have a read. We are not debating Republicanism vs Unionism, do you honestly believe I would post a source that would have such political leanings? Some of the authors are from the South! I am debating whether it is correct to refer to it as Reunification when rather than Ireland being divided, the 26 counties of the South seceded from the UK. It would therefore be a unification with the North. Reunification would refer to a Reunification with Britain. Alssa1 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Well you just provide a reference to support your theory/opinion and post it here. So what your looking for is a source that says its incorrect to use the term reunification because......? --Domer48'fenian' 21:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You provide a reference that supports your opinion that is wrong to use the term Unification when you are talking of a united Ireland. What YOU will be looking for is a source that states specifically that it is incorrect to use the term "unification" for one reason or another. Do note that the page "United Ireland" is titled as "United" rather than "Re-United". Alssa1 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It is you who said that you were "debating whether it is correct to refer to it as Reunification" so provide sources to challenge its use. Plenty of sources to support its use, however I doubt you'll find many to support your opinion that "Reunification would refer to a Reunification with Britain." Good luck with that though. --Domer48'fenian' 21:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so we have established that there exist published sources that use the word "re-unification" (or "reunification") and others that use the word "unification". My guess is that if we totted them all up "re-unification" would be by far the more frequent, but that is not a good road to go down! What it comes down to is that "re-unification" has conventionally been used in this article, and there would need to be an over-riding reason for changing it. A glance at Domer's sources suggests that there is not: it is in frequent use in Irish and British media and in reputable books. As Flexdream pointed out, partition means "the division of a territory into two or more autonomous ones", and since Ireland was divided in 1920, it can be re-united. As to why "United Ireland" is titled as "United", again it is because that is how it is referred to in the literature. Nothing strange there. Scolaire (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The term Reunification is a politically biased term, which goes against one of the pillars of Wikipedia ("We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner."). Many people disagree with the term Reunification; and I am sure I am not the only person who has argued for a change to the use of term "unification" over the biased term "re-unification". To claim that a number of sources use "re-unification" and that proves your point is a total fallacy. It is our duty as Wikipedia editors to provide correct information to the general public and to make sure that contentious information is phrased in the most neutral way possible. Even if it is the simple use of words.
You guys clearly have a particular set of beliefs that are in conflict with my own, so I shall make a suggestion: Shall we all be adults and find a term that is as neutral as possible and something we can all commit to? Alssa1 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This is yet another complete change of tack! Your objection was supposedly because "reunification" was factually incorrect. When that was answered you switched to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and United Ireland. Then it was back to "the point that I am trying to make is that technically, Ireland has never been united under a single political unit." Then you said that "we are not debating Republicanism vs Unionism". Now all of a sudden "the term Reunification is a politically biased term". I suggest to you that it is you who are politically biased, and that you are disputing a term that is used alike by Irish, British and American writers purely so that you can make a political point. And, by the way, suggesting we are not behaving like adults is not cool! Your points have been answered, one by one. You have been treated respectfully when it would have been easy for us to allow ourselves to be provoked. Please stop being disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not being disruptive, I have a clear grievance for perfectly valid and fair reasons and not only that, I am not the only one who has had a problem with it. My grievance with the use of "re-unification" is for many different reasons (as you have so aptly pointed out). I still believe it is not factually correct to use the term "re-unification" when referring to a union with the south, for many reasons. But I admit that is determined by both my historical knowledge and my political beliefs. However I decided to change point by also suggesting that it is bias in favour your politics to use "re-unification" simply because it is a point of contention, and one that has arisen before. I therefore suggested that we all be adults and find a phrase that expresses both opinions and does have a bias in favour of a particular opinion. The fact is I have not been treated respectfully. You have put some complaint process up against me simply because I do not follow the accepted view of the Irish Republicanism wiki project. Alssa1 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As you say yourself that "one of the pillars of Wikipedia ("We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner.") Which means that your edits must not be based on your "historical knowledge" or your "political beliefs" but by reliable published sources. Please do accuse editors of political bias.--Domer48'fenian' 22:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, will do. You're biased! Jon C. 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Personal attacks: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.--Domer48'fenian' 16:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, what? Now you don't want me to accuse editors of political bias? Please make up your mind, this is all very confusing. Jon C. 16:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you have not been reading what I have been writing. There are quite clear sources that I have posted that use the term "unification" rather than "re-unification". Do you believe that the "re-unification" is an unbiased term? Alssa1 (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"That may be, but Ireland has never been united under one single political entity. To say otherwise is not adhering to the neutral point of view rules that wikipedia maintains. You guys seem to only request the 1RR rules when the article in question is written in your point of view. Also prehaps you should the change the wiki article "United Ireland" to "Reunited Ireland" if it is indeed a reunification. Alssa1 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)"
I'm inclined to disagree simply as Ireland was united as a single political entity as the Kingdom of Ireland and as a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland where despite becoming part of a sovereign state (the UK), it still virtually had its own government based at Leinster House. Mabuska (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
@Alssa1. I firmly believe you are barking up the wrong tree with this one. Let me try and put it in my terms. As has been pointed out; Ireland was one nation within the United KIngdom when is was "partitioned" under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act. If a partitioned country decides to merge the 2 (or more) portions together again that is "re-unification". I agree it's all in the wording but the UK and Ireland's position on the terminology would be the same. It would be unification but it would be a re-unification of a country which was previously one entity. I respectfully but strongly point out that you should drop this issue now until you discover more about editing on contentious issues and I mean that in the kindest of fashions butti. Please feel free to communicate with me for any further advice on the matter. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edits[edit]

The article has been remarkably stable for the last year or two. I would like to propose a couple of edits that I feel ought to be uncontroversial, but that might have led (and indeed did lead) to POV wars in the past. The proposals are purely for the purpose of tidying the article, not to slant it in any way:

  1. There is no need for a separate section to list "Parties with origins in Sinn Féin". Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil, Official Sinn Féin and Republican Sinn Féin are all dealt with in the "History" section. Fine Gael, The Workers' Party, 32 County Sovereignty Movement and Éirígí could be similarly dealt with, by merging the section text into the "History" section, and the list would become redundant. The Clann na Poblachta article says nothing about it having its origins in Sinn Féin (I think it would be truer to say it had its origins in the IRA), so I'm not sure it belongs here at all.
  2. For the same reason, I can't see why the "Leadership history" section needs to be periodically interrupted to say "There was a split in 19xx." Splits are adequately dealt with in the "History" section; "Leadership history" only needs to be a list of leaders. Alternatively (or additionally), where a split involved the departure of the current leader, the information could be moved to the same line as the relevant leader, e.g. "* Éamon de Valera (1917–1926) – resigned from Sinn Féin in 1926 and launched Fianna Fáil".

Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use encyclopedias etcetera. It has a number of MPs, and demands more devolution type things, so it needs to be discussed. A number of individuals in the relevant part of the United Kingdom find this group very popular, which is an issue etcetera. More on the links with the IRA, specific issues, history etcetera. I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

That's a lot of etceteras! Also, your link shows that you have a lot of posts on, but off-hand I can't see any that are relevant to Sinn Féin. Any specific suggestions you have would be welcome. FWIW, my own view is that the article would benefit from being radically reduced, rather than expanded. If all the cruft was removed, we might be in a better position to see what areas could do with more detail. Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


I don't think anybody doubts that Sinn Féin is sceptical of the EU and its institutions, but is it really true to say that its ideology is Euroscepticism? If you think Sinn Féin you think republican and you think left-wing. That's its ideology. Euroscepticism is worth a mention in the article, but I don't think it should be in the infobox. There are two citations in the infobox: one describes SF as "the only Eurosceptic party with seats in the Irish parliament" and the other says of the GUE/NGL – of which SF is a member: "Broadly Eurosceptic, the group takes a strong position on areas such as workers' rights and employment law." Neither says that Euroscepticism is the ideology of SF or the GUE/NGL, only that it's part of their policy. Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is left and right-wing euroscepticism. Most of the eurosceptic parties in the north belong to the right, but in the south of europe or in the European periphery eurospepticism comes from the left. F.e. the Greek KKE, partially SYRIZA et al... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism?[edit]

Isn't the party's ideology also left-wing nationalist?--Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A source ('nationalist', 'anti-establishment') to offer: [2]. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The infobox currently says "Irish republicanism" (i.e. nationalist) and "democratic socialism" (i.e. left-wing). There is no need for a third description that does nothing more than restate the first two. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
For a non-Irish reader like me, Republicanism and Nationalism are not synonymous terms. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Just for interest, whay would you open a new section to suggest an edit, and then add something completely different without any prior discussion? Scolaire (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
FF is labelled as populist on Wikipedia; SDLP is labelled as nationalist. In that light I can't see how SF could be classified here any other way than both populist and nationalist, too.--Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not going to start editing the Fianna Fáil or Social Democratic and Labour Party articles, but I disagree with the infoboxes on both of them as well. The Fianna Fáil one is particularly egregious. The ideology field is intended as a succinct statement of what the party stands for; it is not meant to be a laundry list of things that people have said about the party. If a number of sources (say, two) accused a Northern Ireland party of being sectarian, would you put "sectarianism" in the infobox as their ideology? Or "racism" for an American party in similar circumstances?
I don't do edit wars, so you can add as many silly "ideologies" as you want without further interference from me. I'm just going to register my total disagreement and leave it at that. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Or add extra sources. Nothing like lots of square brackets to really clutter up an infobox! Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


In the simple non-pejorative definition of populism where one adheres to the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite than yes Sinn Féin meets that definition. But the fact is those principle and the doctrine itselfs falls under Irish republicanism and socialism. ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But at any rate, as I pointed out in my edit summary of 24 June, whether Sinn Féin meets the definition of populism is not the question. It is whether that is Sinn Féin's ideology. Populism is defined as "a political doctrine where one sides with 'the people' against 'the elites'." Political doctrine clearly states, "The term political doctrine is sometimes wrongly identified with political ideology." Therefore, populism is not Sinn Féin's ideology, whether they meet the definition or not. Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Therefore, populism is not Sinn Féin's ideology, whether they meet the definition or no - pure WP:SYNTH. Per policy, we should reflect how reliable sources qualify the party. I've tried to do so and got rebuffed by you two. As it all seems to boil down to certain SF lobbyists' unwillingness to accept facts, deny the obvious and attempts to occupy the article, I think I'll leave it as it is. I've removed the article from my watchlist. Slán.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Next time engage in constructive discussion to build consensus with all parties before you decide to ignore that and edit war instead. You should practice to assume good faith of other editors, stop being civil and making accusations of people being "lobbyists".
I also advise you to stop launching malicious and unfounded sockpuppet investigation and claims of other editors just because you don't like their opinions. Slán. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A number of reliable sources connect Sinn Fein to populism. Here's one from Rueters. [3] There are many others.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Like everyone before you, you are neglecting to read what I say. "Connecting" Sinn Féin to populism does not make populism the (or an) ideology of the party. If you want to edit some section of the article proper to say that Reuters sees SF as a "mixture of left-leaning populism and nationalism", and you think that will be an encyclopaedic edit and of genuine interest to readers, then be bold and do it. But the infobox has a purpose, and that purpose is not to say what some news agencies say about the topic of the article. It's as simple as that. Scolaire (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
You really told me. Problem is I didn't suggest it was there political ideology or that it should be in the infobox. Be bold? You can't be bold in an article run by Tag team ownership.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The whole of the foregoing discussion was about the addition of "populist" to the Ideology field of the infobox. I assumed you knew what the discussion was about before you weighed in. So you don't want to be bold? You only came to the talk page to accuse us all of tag-teaming? Fair enough, but I can't see why you'd waste your time and ours with that. Scolaire (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Again you really told me!!! It doesn't matter how frame a conversation when your using that to shut down conversation. Is this what you did for everyone before me? Don't want to be bold? That's not what I said. I don't want an excercise in futility. While you may lay question "Should this be in the infobox?" The other natural question doesn't come out, "Should this be in the article?" I wonder why? I wonder if "everyone before me" that decided to Be Bold left the conversation due to the incivility? Good day and wonderful conversation old chap.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Except I did allow the question to come out. I said, "If you want to edit some section of the article proper to say that Reuters sees SF as a 'mixture of left-leaning populism and nationalism', and you think that will be an encyclopaedic edit and of genuine interest to readers, then be bold and do it." That's not shutting down a conversation. That's not incivility. It's you that's attacking me. Do it or don't do it, I don't care. But coming to the talk page for the sole purpose of getting self-righteous over nothing is pointless. Scolaire (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. You get my point. "Coming to the talk page for the sole purpose of getting self-righteous over nothing is pointless." Better yet I didn't have to say it. Good talk.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If that's an apology, I accept it. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
An apology? Why would I offer you an apology? Good luck with that and good bye.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sinn Féin name[edit]

The name probably does have at least an element of the 'alone' bit mentioned as a mistranslation, it really means both 'Ourselves alone'/ 'ourselves' (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No. "Ourselves alone" in Irish is "Sinn Féin amháin". "Sinn féin" only means "ourselves". Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Euroscepticism again[edit]

"Sinn Féin is neither Europhile nor Eurosceptic." Ref: Irish Times, 22 May 2014. This is from the Sinn Féin MEP, Lynn Boylan, so it trumps any other news source that relies on some journalist's opinion. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism again[edit]

Because of my edit summary here – which I admit was badly phrased, since I did not mean it as a suggestion – Lamedumal has added Left-wing nationalism to the infobox as an ideology. The problem with that, as I explained in the section above, is that Irish republicanism is a nationalist ideology, and democratic socialism is a left-wing ideology, so adding the third does not actually expand on the other two; it just repeats them and adds another wikilink. I disagree with adding what is effectively just clutter to the infobox, and I think it should be left as it was. Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)