Talk:Fenian Brotherhood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

William O'Brien[edit]

Who was William Smith O'Brien and where was his attempted rising in 1848? Ireland? Rmhermen 15:38, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

The 1848 rising, which William Smith O'Brien led, was organised by the Young Ireland movement. It was in Ballingarry in Tipperary.El Gringo 02:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger[edit]

This proposed merger is a bad idea. Fenian is a broad, general term, used both by Irish nationalists to describe themselves (at one point in time), as well as by their English and Unionist opponents as a term of insult. The Fenian Brotherhood, on the other hand, was a specific organization of Irish nationalists, dedicated to removing English power and influence over Ireland. One could argue that all members of the Fenian Brotherhood were Fenians, but one could not argue that all Fenians were members of the Fenian Brotherhood. ---Charles 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This was my understanding too. Fenianism was/is a movement. At certain times that movement spawned certain organisations such as the Fenian Brotherhood and the Irish Republican Brotherhood, members of which were also referred to as Fenians. But the movement was more than the organisations that it spawned. Snottygobble 04:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the merge tag due to the bad link on James Stephens page 'was an Irish nationalist who founded the Fenian Movement" I have changed the link, and removed tag.Ghostieguide 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The name Fenian was not used until the founding of the Fenian Brotherhood. The IRB is sometimes referred to as the Fenian Brotherhood, but officially there was only one organization so named (though it had in two major factions beginning in 1867). The nickname for Irish republicans stems from that organization. The War for Independence was covertly led by the IRB though the IRA, many of whose leaders were also IRB, was the military arm. According to IRB rules, and those of the CnG at the time, Collins as President of IRB was also President of the Irish Republic, which is major reason republicans on both sides of the water were upset when Dev began using the title "President" when he was touring the USA (his actual legal title at the time was Priomh Aire, or Prime Minister). As a result of the Dev-Collins split, the CnG also split, with the Devoy faction recognizing the Treaty as the foundation of an Irish Republic and voting to disband, as did the IRB. The McGarrity wing of CnG carried on, however, and recognized the reorganized IRA as its partner in 1926, thus christening IRA members as "Fenian". The CnG, like the IRA, was split into three factions after WW II, and the surviving faction supported the group later known as the Officials until 1970. Afterwards, the overwhelming majority supported the "Reorganized IRA" under the "Provisional Army Council". The dominant Michael Flannery-George Harrison faction of CnG maintained support for the O'Bradaigh wing of the movement (RSF-CIRA) after the Adams-MacGuinness coup in 1986, founding the National Irish Freedom Committee to replace NORAID (though the latter continued to exist until around 2001). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

article very weak full of factual inaccuracies and imbalanced[edit]

This article needs complete revision. I will add some of the basic facts as soon as I have the time.opiumjones 23 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I need to get a handle and revamp this page. Missing out on so much, almost more harm than good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) (00:46, 17 November 2007)
It is all well and good to make claims that this article is in bad shape, but can you please be more specific? What are its faults? What improvements need to be made? Are you here to simply complain, or do you have suggestions for improvement? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

An example: "The blight that destroyed the potato harvest between 1845 and 1849 was an unprecedented human tragedy." Tragic though it was, it was not unprecedented, even in Irish history. Indeed, the Revolutions of 1848 are due to the widespread famine across Europe at the time, and although more Irish died in this famine than any previously, a far higher proportion of the population had died in previous famines. As well as that, "unprecedented human tragedy" is highly emotive and hardly the language of an encyclopaedia; it reads like a romantic tragedy.

Secondly, the article complains about a "laissez-faire" policy, which is indeed true, and the British gov't responded poorly and slowly. But blame can also be laid upon the step of those who took the decisions in Ireland (the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish landlords, among others) that led to a nationwide monoculture vulnerable to just such a pathogen; one cannot demand independence from someone whilst simultaneously claming that they should have intervened more in your affairs. Wee Jimmy (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot more that could be improved - it's a poor article about an important topic Hohenloh 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As RepublicanJacobite has already said above, can you please be more specific? What are its faults? What improvements need to be made? I'm more than willing to help reference and source text if I know what editors are looking for. --Domer48'fenian' 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned before that the Background section is not relevant to the article. This information can be found in numerous other place on Wikipedia. It diverts from the main topic (please read WP:TOPIC). Even Leon Ó Broin's book, which deals well with the period that should be addressed in this article, doesn't contain a fraction of this irrelevant material in its 258 pages. Once that padding is removed, one can concentrate on further improvements. An encyclopaedia article doesn't have to be long to be good, it has to be succint, to the point, factually correct and cover the topic with only the necessary detail. This is mentioned in all the Wiki guidelines Hohenloh + 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The background section is not relevant to the article? Is it your opinion that they just popped up out of no where? The information is linked to numerous other articles on Wikipedia, and no it does not divert from the main topic. The main topic needs to be expanded. --Domer48'fenian' 09:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


What supporting evidence is there for the statement that "Despite the use of petitions and public meetings that attracted vast popular support, the government thought the Union was more important than Irish public opinion"?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fenian Brotherhood/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

For starters, this article's major weakness is that it seems to presume that all readers know a great deal about Irish history, especially during the 1800's, and are familiar with the somewhat bewildering parade of characters in the article. Another weakness of the article is that it does not tell the reader just what the purpose of the Fenian movement was ( other than citing the well-known Keystone Kops venture into Canada). And why did it fail and pass out of existence by 1880?

Last edited at 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)