Talk:Éamon de Valera

I would like to propose the creation of a stand-alone 'Honours' section within the Eamon de Valera article, to help streamline the article a bit more.

Dear all,

I would like to propose the creation of a stand-alone 'Honours' section within the Eamon de Valera article. The purpose of this would be to create a more clearly defined 'Legacy' section of the article, by having the honours that Mr de Valera received during his lifetime to be contained within a single 'Honours' section (as if often done with the subjects of other Wikipedia articles), instead of being mixed in with points about Mr de Valera's general legacy in the political, economic and cultural spheres.

This 'Honours' section would take the information regarding Mr de Valera's chancellorship of the National University of Ireland, his various honorary doctorates, his papal knighthoods, his membership of the Royal Society, etc, out of the current 'Legacy' section and placed in a new, subsequent section. I feel that this would help to streamline the article somewhat more.

I also propose improving the top of the template within the article. The current template photograph of Eamon de Valera is excellent and I would not suggest changing it. I would however like to include his post-nominal letters for the information of the reader, as an honorific suffix. For example, the letters denoting his dignity as a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Pius IX (GCPO) and those of his membership of the prestigious, learned Royal Society (FRS). I would propose including his post-nominal letters not at the beginning of the main article itself, but only in the template section on the right-hand side of the article.

Looking forward to your views Editor'sEye (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for opening this thread. It is a much more constructive approach to editing (and consistent with the guidelines on consensus-based editing) than other recent contra-guideline approaches (warring). In terms of the proposal, personally I don't support it. As:

1. It's unclear what problem we are trying to solve. The legacy section reads "OK" to me as it is. I'm not seeing large blocks of text or sub-topics that need to be separated.
2. You mention that having a separate section for "honours" would be consistent with "the subjects of other Wikipedia articles". What other similar articles would those be? I'm not sure I've seen an article on a president containing a table or list of every honour they were afforded? (I don't see anything for Hyde or Lincoln or Roosevelt or others. On the De Gaulle article (an article notably tagged for containing too much crud as it is) the "honours" section lists military honours. Not honorary doctorates or what have you. Even on the Gandhi article, the "awards" section is a concise sub-section of "legacy". Not a standalone/exhaustive table or whatever.)
3. Awards held and offered to holders of high-office (honorary degrees, honorary titles, memberships of associations, leadership of boards, etc) are often extensive. When holders of high office "show up" to places (universities, societies and even countries) they are often afforded honorary titles. Any list would therefore be extensive and, in all honesty and in many cases, not especially noteworthy/special.
4. De Valera didn't put much stock in titles. His own first Fianna Fáil government, notably, was "strongly opposed to the establishment of any decoration or order". And, despite pressure to do so, did not "invent" an honour (and change policy or law) or give Lauri an honorary Irish title when he arrived for the Eucharistic Congress. Ireland (even today) remains a republic - without an honours system. (As the first government(s) were aware that titles and honours had been used by the Dublin Castle administration as part-"bribe" part-"golden-handcuff".)
5. WP:USEPROSE and WP:NOTSTATS advises against excessive and "exhaustive detail on everything - presented as a table". Convention is to summarise key points in prose. Not disrupt articles with extensive tables and lists.

Personally I don't see it. Guliolopez (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Guliolopez, thank you for your points. And I apologise for undoing your editing of my first edit to the Eamon de Valera page (a week or so ago), without first having a discussion with you about it. That action was due to my inexperience as an editor, but I want to do better. I really am not interested in edit wars, but rather in having a constructive relationship with other editors.

I am mindful that the Eamon de Valera article, in its current form and as it is currently presented, is rated as only a 'B-Class' article, meaning that "a few aspects of content and style need to be addressed". I would like to help it to become a good article, and maybe even a "featured article" some day. That said, if you are strongly opposed to my suggestion of creating a new section in the way I have proposed, then of course I will not do it.

I agree with you that Eamon de Valera arguably did not put much stock in titles. This is largely because of how the British had used them in the way that you have outlined. However, we have to accept that Eamon de Valera did accept two papal knighthoods, and even travelled to Rome to receive them. He, like any other proposed recipient, would have had the option to decline the offer of membership of those orders of knighthood (the Pontifical Order of Pius IX and the Supreme Order of Christ) if he had so chosen.

Would you be very much opposed to me simply adding the post-nominal letters G.C.P.O. (denoting his papal knighthood) and the letters F.R.S. (denoting his membership of the learned Royal Society) underneath his name in the template (not at the beginning of the article itself)? Editor'sEye (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be opposed. WP:POSTNOM applies: When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. Neither clause applies in this case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The Holy See is a "widely recognized organization". I have also cited two reliable sources which have attributed these honours to Eamon de Valera. Any reputable, professional historian on the subject of Eamon de Valera would also confirm that Mr de Valera accepted membership of these aforementioned orders of knighthood from the Holy See and also accepted a fellowship of the Royal Society, therefore entitling Eamon de Valera to the use of the post-nominal letters: 'F.R.S.' (Fellow of the Royal Society). The Royal Society is, of course, a "widely recognized organization", being one of the pre-eminent learned, scientific societies in the English-speaking world. Mr de Valera's membership of the Royal Society is, indeed, referenced in the main Wikipedia article on Eamon de Valera. Editor'sEye (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No need to put your signature on a separate line, you're not writing a letter to the Irish Times. ;-) Yes, the Vatican is a widely recognised organisation. It is not, however, one widely associated with De Valera. Nor is the Royal Society. Yes, they awarded him their honours. Are they what "reliable sources regularly associate with the subject"? No. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi both. In all honesty I think I've lost track of what is being proposed. The original proposal/discussion was (to my read) about creating a section and/or table of "honours" (incl. positions on boards, honorary doctorates, membership of societies, etc). But we also seem to be discussing on whether and what post-nominal letters to include in the lead. For my part, in terms of the:

• Lead; I do not see how the guidelines support something like "Éamon de Valera, GCPO, FRS, was a prominent statesman and political leader in Ireland". Considering that no other sources (that I can find) lamp those post-nominals onto the subject's name. As if they form part of his common name. And, as Bastun notes, WP:POSTNOM states that "When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state [..]), they should be omitted from the lead". In a way that would seem to completely and directly apply here.
• Body; I do not see what a "table of board representations, honorary degrees, society memberships, etc" would add. Likely being or becoming an unbounded and distracting (CV-style) table of everything and anything. In a way that doesn't seem to fit with related guidelines. If someone's membership of a board or participation in a society is substantively relevant to their life and legacy, then it should be covered in the body. Rather than as a random entry in a broad "matrix of miscellany".

Anyway. perhaps I'm overlooking something (as I'm not even sure I'm following the argument being made or the specific change actually proposed), but if either of the above are what's being proposed (post-nominals to lead and/or table to body), then I wouldn't personally support either. Guliolopez (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guliolopez, thankfully I am not proposing either of those two things that you say you wouldn't personally support (post-nominals to lead and/or table to body).

In my initial post on this thread, I proposed creating a new, additional section within the body of the article. This new section would be positioned between the existing 'Legacy' and 'In Popular Culture' sections (it would not replace any existing sections). My idea was for this new section to be written with sentences (not with a table/list of things), in the same way that most of the other sections within the body of the article are written. This new section (entitled: 'Honours') would mention the honours that Eamon de Valera received throughout his lifetime and would mention the context in which he received them. It would mention the honours that are relevant to his life and legacy. However, I am not wedded to this proposal of creating a new section, and I am happy to stick with the current approach of mentioning Eamon de Valera's honours in the existing 'Legacy' section (as is currently done), without the need for a new section.

In regard to the post-nominal letters, I think that I should have written my first post on this thread with a bit more clarity. The only thing that I am still proposing is for Eamon de Valera's post-nominal letters (GCPO, FRS) to be included in the infobox parameter for post-nominals, not in the lead sentence of the body of the article itself. I previously used the words "template within the article", which I think has led to confusion. I should have, instead, written: "infobox outside of the body of the article". Editor'sEye (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Civil War - wrong dates

As a close watch is (correctly) kept on this article, can someone fix the 'Civil War' section, para. 4? Perhaps the foll. text would do: On 30 April 1922 ... a ceasefire. This was followed on 24 May by an order for volunteers to "dump arms". Billsmith60 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Little Museum of Dublin

Hi guys, what do you think about this new element:

The original version of the decree signed by the hand of Eamon de Valera that secured Ireland's independence in 1921 is currently in the Little Museum of Dublin, located in the centre of the capital opposite St. Stephen's Green . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Léa Di Francesco (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Object This is spam by an editor with a Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 16:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Not done. I, for one, will not make the proposed edit on the behalf of the connected editor. And would not support others doing so either. This is another in a long line of attempts to "mention the subject with which I have a connection in otherwise unrelated articles". With a goal to promote that organisation/museum (the Little Museum of Dublin) rather than to actually improve this project or the reader's understanding of the subject here (Éamon de Valera). Guliolopez (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hi Léa Di Francesco. Before we would even consider this, you would need to actually engage with the editors on your own talk page, declaring your conflict of interest, as requested by several people now. Really, though, the Little Museum of Dublin needs to stop trying to insert WP:LINKSPAM on Wikipedia. As to the actual change? No! The "decree" you're talking about doesn't exist! The Anglo-Irish Treaty secured Ireland's independence, and that wasn't signed by de Valera. Judging by linkspam removed elsewhere, what you're actually talking about is a decree appointing plenipotentiaries to the treaty negotiations. That isn't WP:DUE for inclusion here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Views on religious discrimination

I edited the page to include the following:-

In 1931 he said in the Dáil that "if I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic. Let us be clear and let us know where we are."

User:FDW777 reverted this on the following basis "He said a lof of things in Dáil Éireann, what's the significance of that one?"

I will answer in the words of Dwyer, Ryle (2 February 2008). "Political hypocrisy has long history, but Bertie is guilty of much worse". Irish Examiner. Retrieved 26 December 2021.

"If those were his honest views, one could also say without hesitation that the Long Fellow was a bigot. But, in fact, he was just playing the role of a political hypocrite."

And Mohr, Thomas (8 November 2021). "Religious Minorities under the Constitution of the Irish Free State, 1922–1937". American Journal of Legal History. 61 (2). doi:10.1093/ajlh/njab002. Retrieved 26 December 2021.

"the Irish government’s argument that the Protestant minority did not require external safeguards, such as the Privy Council appeal, in order to uphold its rights ... Unfortunately, this stand was undermined when Eamon de Valera threw the support of the main opposition party behind Mayo county council. De Valera maintained a similar stance with respect to the appointment of non-Catholic dispensary doctors in Catholic areas."

The article on James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon rightly quotes his reference in the Northern Ireland Parliament to "a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State." I suggest that De Valera's article should also quote his statement in the Dáil which I quoted." Alekksandr (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the basis of partition was largely influenced by religious difference - a "Catholic and nationalist" Republic and a "Protestant and Unionist" NI - I'd certainly think this was WP:DUE for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now reinstated the quotation and added the sources given above.Alekksandr (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Still cherry picking, the Examiner article makes it clear the quote is part of a much wider context which you are not attempting to explain. See WP:ONUS. FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)