Talk:Sinn Féin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] stuff

Text added to to fill in a lot of important historical facts missed and also to correct spellings (particular gaelic spellings, a lot of which were wrong, grammar, etc.

This article is rather weak on the history of Sinn Fein between the time Dev left in the 1920s and the start of the Troubles in the 60s, isn't it? john 07:40 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it was rather insignificant in that period. But the article doesn't make that quite clear. Maybe it should mention the names of the leaders which kept it alive during those years (Margaret Buckley etc.). --Wik 08:01, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

As it was an underground organisation with a miniscule profile at the time, detailed information is hard to come by. In fact for most of the time it was a mickey mouse organisation, closer to a military Fawlty Towers than a serious revolutionary organisation. FearÉIREANN

This is a fine article, but the ending, in regards to the GFA and current decommisioning, strikes me as a little anti-Sinn Fein. There are several references to concern over IRA decommissioning, and the Comission overseeing the decomissioning have not said that IRA is moving too slowly as of late.

It is important, I believe, that it is refelcted that this is apopular tactic amongst unionists, as it has been for years, to accuse the IRA of things so they do not have to allow Sinn Fein any shot at power. The IRA has done horrible things, this is true; but the Unionists often specifically use this as a reason to exclude Sinn Fein from Power Sharing, especially since their recent up surge in support. It should in some way be freflected that that there are multiple contentions as to the status of decomissioning, and also that Sinn Fein only has so much control over that issue. The article perpetuates the refuted belief that Sinn Fein is the "political wing" of the IRA. Though associated via members and goals, there is no definite connection, according to Sinn Fein policy, and they deserve to at least have that contention put into words.

Nonetheless, a fine article, but I fear the ending may demonize Sinn Fein a little too much, making them appear far more resisitant than they truly are.- Luke A.F.

[edit] first past the post NPOV

(The election also was under Britain's unproportional 'first past the post' electoral system which can create massive majorities under minority vote levels (eg, Thatcher in 1983, 1987, Blair in 1997, 2001), again adding an additional distortion that would not have occurred under a more accurate and proportional electoral system.)

The earlier part of the 1918 Election paragraph has already suggested that Sinn Fein's 70% of the seats corresponds to 45-53% of the votes. The technical discussion of the demerits of FPTP is unnecessary detail and couched in POV language Joestynes

How do you pronounce the name of this organization? An entry in IPA would be extremely helpful.

How do you pronounce the name of this organization? An IPA entry would be extremely helpful.

It's pronounced Shin Fayne

I disagree with the idea of it being a political party, it is more a terrorist group.

Re the above comment (by someone who did not sign their name) - Sinn Féin is 100% a political party. A political party is a structured organisation, with decision-making properties, a leadership, a body of rules and a structured participation in the political process. Unlike the rest of the parties on the island, however, it does have its own so-called army that breaks the law, commits crimes and kills people. Because it follows special rules vis-a-vis its own armed wing, it cannot be treated just as any other normal political party. But notwithstanding the extra bits to its armoury (if you'll pardon the expression) it is a legal and legitimate political party. 159.134.137.114 07:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


In the aftermath of the row over the robbery, a further controversy erupted when, on RTE's Questions and Answers programme, the chairman of Sinn Fein, Mitchel McLoughlin, insisted that the IRA's controversial killing of a mother of ten young children, Jean McConville, in the early 1970s though "wrong", was not a "crime", because it took place in the middle of a political conflict, with no independent police force.

The piece in bold is completely wrong. Under republican theory the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916 and declared by the First Dáil continues to exist. According to its belief the remnants of the Second Dáil in I think it was 1938 'voted' to vest executive, legislative and justicial power in the Army Council of the IRA. In republican theory the Army Council is the real government of Ireland. The reason why republicans cannot say McConville's murder was a crime was because as it was done at the behest and on the authorisation of the Army Council in republican theory it was an act of state and by definition could not be a crime. According to republican theory any thing the IRA does is legitimate, as the Army Council is the real government of Ireland. So in theory it could kill everyone here on wikipedia and still not commit a crime if the Army Council (aka the Government) had sanctioned it. The stuff about a political conflict and the police force is complete bunkum, I'm afraid. Sinn Féin theory is a lot more complicated than that. 159.134.137.114 07:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the benefit of other readers, the anon above is entirely correct. IRA/Sinn Féin live in an alternate reality - one they wish to usher in both North and South of the border. zoney ♣ talk 10:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've done some editing of the article. It had quite a few problems.

  • The start repeated stuff already in the main body of the text in too much detail. (How many times was Griffith's monarchist orientation of the main party repeated in the text? It only needed to be put in once.)
  • Calling SF the third biggest party in Ireland is completely misleading. There are two electoral markets in Ireland, not one. SF is the only main party to contest both (curiously the British Conservative Party is also in both!). It is very strong in the Six Counties and much less so in the South. It is important to draw that distinction, and to enable people to grasp it it is worth explaining their number of seats in relation to the overall number. Saying they have an MEP in both areas, for example, downplays the achievement of winning one seat out of three in the North, while overplays the achievement of winning 1 out of 13 (or is it 12. Anyone remember. I think the south lost two seats from the old 15 this time, and will lose another 1 later) in the south. The original wording suggested they were a major player in the South. 5 TDs out of 166 ain't major. The Greens have more. Fine Gael at its weakest was still 6 times bigger and Fianna Fáil is around 16 times bigger. The way the article was written all perspective was lost.
  • Remarkably the article never mentioned the First Dáil. That is like writing an article on the pope and forgetting to mention the Roman Catholic Church, or mentioning Bill Clinton and forgetting the impeachment saga!
  • Some clever spin words keep cropping up, thanks to some republican supporters. Calling the estimate of 65% support for SF in reality in 1918 "conservative" is blatently POV.
  • Not mentioning Bertie Ahern's claim that SF and the PIRA are two sides of the same coin is a major ommission. It may be right or be wrong, but if a prime minister of a country says that it cannot be left out.
  • Not mentioning that Bush and Kennedy snubbed Adams is also remarkable. Irrespective of whether one thinks they were right or wrong to do what they did, it is a fact that requires mentioning.
  • Not mentioning that the McCartney family have urged people to give witness statements to the PSNI is also wrong. It is an important fact that cannot be edited out without distorting the picture given. FearÉIREANN 03:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] Article length

This article seems to me very long, whereas the article Provisional Sinn Fein which seems intended to cover the modern-day Sinn Fein is extremely short. Would it make sense for someone to move much of the relevant material from this article over to Provisional Sinn Fein? (I'm not qualified to do it.) Ben Finn 19:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] current event tag

Why is this article tagged as "current event"? It doesn't seem like there's a lot of editing going on on a frequent basis... --Taramul 11:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Current event doesn't mean that a lot of editing is/should be going on, it means the article's subject is in the news and so the information might be out of date. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

I somehow got it into my head that I was inserting rather than removing the claim that Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA. Silly me. Cadr 00:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd largest party in Ireland

Could someone supply data to back up the claim that SF are the third largest party in Ireland. I've been having difficulty comparing NI to ROI results. According to some of my calculations the DUP or Labour are the 3rd largest parties in Ireland.

Using figures from RoI 2002 general election and United Kingdom general election, 2005, it seems to be true. I make it FF 770846, FG 417653, SF 295569 (121039 RoI + 174530 NI) , DUP 241856, Lab 200138. Demiurge 10:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah but this makes little sense given that there is no single political entity for the island of Ireland. One could say the "largest political party in Europe" is the one that gets the most votes, presumably an electorally strong party in one of the largest countries (anyone know which this is?), but it's an utterly meaningless out of context description. Timrollpickering 09:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point, Tim, but I disagree – first of all, this is a claim Sinn Féin and their supporters keep making, so it may as well be included and nuanced, rebutted, etc as Wikipedians see fit. Second, it is politically relevant in that most of the political establishment in the Republic, along with the ruling party in Great Britain and the nationalist parties in the North, both desire and intend a United Ireland in the fullness of time. (And of course Sinn Féin, following their own logic, actually contest elections on both sides of the border.) Third, even if Ireland were merely a geographic expression, devoid of political meaning to anybody, I don't think it would irrelevant to make this point. If the UK Labour Party is the biggest in the British Isles, or the SPD the biggest in the EU (pending next month's elections!), it's at least an interesting bit of trivia. The Congress Party of India is the world's largest subscription-based organization, while the Chinese Communist Party is the world's largest membership organization of any kind. Might not be terribly important facts, but you can bring them up at cocktail parties! ;-) QuartierLatin 1968 00:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably stating the obvious but don't they make the claim to be the largest party in Ireland to emphsise that they don't recognise the border? While i'm herecan i just add theat the article doiesn't seem to make any mention of the most recent declarations that the war was over and the decommissioning of what both governments feel was they remainder of their article. Both of these were actions taken by the IRA but the article mentions several negative actions taken by the 'RA in recent times so in the interests of fairness shouldn't these be mentioned also? Also, again, while i've thought of it shouldn't the fact that the attacks on Sinn Fein by the present Irish Gov. are politically motivated be mentioned? Because they are - hence Berties inconsistant position on getting SF into power sharing up north but refusing to even consider sharing power with them down south.

I'm not sure if the number of votes defines the size of a party. A party's size is defined by its membership which in the UK and Republic of Ireland is a separate thing to number of votes. It might be more accurate to discuss number of seats in the Dail or House of Commons (and their respective upper chambers), but even this does not determine size. Do we have some figures for membership? Alternatively the article should be reoworded Dainamo 23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content and location

It is unnecessarily and unforgivably POV to have a page on "Sinn Féin" relating to an organisation styling itself Sinn Féin which broke the Constitution. The appropriate and correct thing to do, given the reluctance of people here to have an article which actually relates to Sinn Féin, would be to have a disambiguation page.

A disambiguation page would be the worst of all worlds. Common usage of "Sinn Féin" in a contemporary context almost exlusively refers to Gerry Adams's lot. Indeed this other "Sinn Féin" has "Republican Sinn Féin Poblachtach" on the front of their Dublin headquarters (as shown on the frontpage of their website) and it's similar on their Belfast HQ. So why on earth should a tiny little splinter who of people who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference have stronger claim to the organisation's name over the far larger group that almost everyone calls "Sinn Féin"? Timrollpickering 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean Anti-Treaty Sinn Fein, a splinter of people led by Éamon de Vaalera, who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference in 1921? or Provisional Sinn Fein, a splinter of people led by Rúarí Ó Brádaigh who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference in 1970? or Republican Sinn Fein, a splinter of people led by Rúarí Ó Brádaigh who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference in 1998? --Red King 00:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Provisional Sinn Féin is the only party entitled to call itself 'Sinn Féin' in official uses, because that is how the party is registered with the UK Electoral Commission and with Leinster House. There are large sections at the start and end of the article indicating how the party has splintered over the years. An overwhelming majority use 'Sinn Féin' to refer to PSF when talking about the modern organisation, and a dab page would seem to imply that the two parties are totally unrelated, which would be ludicrous. --Kwekubo 01:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Since they are a breakaway of a split of a breakaway, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. --Red King 00:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. As Sinn Féin does not recognise the British or 26-County authorities (such as those in Leinster House), then registration with them cannot be cited as evidence of being Sinn Féin. In fact, if anything, it is evidence of NOT being Sinn Féin.

[edit] POV comments about DUP links to paramilitaries

These comments have previously been deleted, but keep getting restored. They are totally POV and unacceptable. Ian Paisley's DUP might be uncompromising and hateful, but a front for paramilitaries they are not. It's just stuck in there by republican sympathisers as a dig at unionists, and really isn't relevant to Sinn Féin. Fact: DUP are very obstructive about going into government with Sinn Féin, because they say they are linked to the IRA. That is enough.

OTOH, Sinn Fein has well established links with IRA. Indeed the government of Ireland, hardly what you would call a biased Unionist source, named McGuinness, Adams, and others, as members of the IRA army council. [1] 87.74.12.83 14:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, certainly the Irish Government are not a biased Unionist source, but instead consider their electoral interests when assessing their allegations that Sinn Fein is directly linked to the Provisional IRA.

[edit] The term Provisional

There is no such political party known as Provisional Sinn Fein as refered to as being founded in 1970 in the side panel on this article, Sinn Fein has been a continous political enity since its formation in 1905, it is revisionism to claim otherwise and it is members of the small Republican Sinn Fein party that was founded in 1986 that are behind these claims, this group had the support of about 2% of the grassroots membership of Sinn Fein when they left the party to form RSF after the party delegates voted to abandon abstentionism in 1986.--Padraig3uk 03:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The current Sinn Féin called itself Provisional Sinn Féin at its foundation in 1970, to link itself both with the Provisional IRA and with the Provisional Government founded at the Easter Rising. It used that name to distinguish itself from Official Sinn Féin and the Official IRA. They also in the Republic used the locations of their respective headquarters to distinguish themselves; Sinn Féin (Kevin Street) and Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place). The suggestion that modern day Sinn Féin is not the same Sinn Féin that was founded in 1905 not simply the view of RSF but of all the organisations descended from that Sinn Féin. It is the view of all parties but modern Sinn Féin. On the basis of last week's opinion poll that means 90% of the people in the Republic of Ireland, given that modern day SF's support base is 10%. You obviously don't know your history, mate. user_talk:Jtdirl|Caint 05:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I was a member of Sinn Féin during that period, the party never used the name Provisional that term was used by the IRA AC, the media adopted the term along with the term officals for the stickies, but at no time did either group use those names. Sinn Fein Gardiner street dropped their claim to the name Sinn Fein when they became The Workers Party, having previously being known as Sinn Fein - The Workers Party, the Sinn Fein party today is the same party and has a continous lineage from 1905, it is RSF propaganda that the they are called the provisionals.--Padraig3uk 19:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Can one of the moderators also please change the address on the side panel as it should be 44 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, not Parnell Place.--Padraig3uk 01:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The website listed in the 'Other Irish Websites to View' as Sinn Féin Online or www.sinnfein.org, is not an offical Sinn Féin website and the party is currently is seeking to gain legal control of that domain name as it was set up maliciously, the only offical website used by Sinn Féin is http://sinnfein.ie/ .--Padraig3uk 02:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

RSF - and RSF ALONE - is entitled to use the proud and historic name of Sinn Féín. The organisation led by Gerry Adams continues to use that name without authorisation. Republican Sinn Féin is the Sinn Féin organisation founded in 1905, and reconstituted as an exclusively Republican organisation in 1917. Gerry Adams' party was formed in 1986, having departed from Sinn Féin and the Republican Movement - and simply uses that name to confuse the public. Adams and his friends are involved in a traitorous conspiracy against the aspirations of the Irish people.

What a load of POV rubbish. Has RSF ever challenged Adams' lot in any country in the world? Have they tried a lawsuit in the US (where surely they are not disputing the existance of that state) over the use of the name tied to activities there? Or did they petition the Soviet Union (which did recognise the "Irish Republic") in its last years for recognition?
Provisional Sinn Féin post 1986 carried forward the assets, constitutional structure, office holders et al from pre 1986 Provisional Sinn Féin. You'd have a better chance of convincing me that Democratic Left was the "true" Workers Party rather than the post split rump. Timrollpickering 01:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The anomonous poster above User talk:217.43.172.167 is called Risteard, he repeatly vandalised the Sinn Fein pages on politics.ie/wiki/ as well, he is a Member of RSF, who are trying to propogate the idea that the Sinn Fein party led by Gerry Adams was only formed in 1986, and at that time became known as Provisional Sinn Fein, whereas Republican Sinn Fein is the true Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein was formed in 1905 and continues to this day as the party led by Gerry Adams, not a micro grouping called RSF. --Padraig3uk 17:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What was it Behan said about how the first thing on the agenda of a meeting is the split? lol Re 'Provisional' - for research I had to read primary documentation from the period as well as interview senior Sinn Féin figures. The documents said, and they said, that it was the movement itself which coined the phrase 'Provisional' which they said was linked to the 'Provisional' Government of 1916. It was not a media invention. For a start if the media was looking for an alternative name they would hardly have tried to give it legitimacy by giving it a name linking it to Pearse et al!!! As with Risteard, his antics are known here. He has been banned from here numerous times and will be banned indefinitely if he does not behave himself. FearÉIREANN 18:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The IRA used the term provisional in reference to the provisional government when they formed the provisional Army Council, they used that name for about a year until a full IRA Army Convention was held to elect a new Army Council. My point is that Sinn Fein never used the term provisional in relation to the party, in fact after the split with the stickies they set up a 'Caretaker Executive' to lead the party until a Full Sinn Fein Ard Fheis could be Convened to elect the Party Leadership. It was the media that attached the terms Official and Provisional to the two group from the Sinn Fein split, so using the term in relation to Sinn Fein is incorrect, although the term could be used in regards to the IRA.--Padraig3uk 20:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The slight problem with that is that Ó Bráidaigh led a minority breakaway group in 1970 (and again in 1986, as RSF). Ignoring for the moment that none of these groups is really Sinn Féin (which ceased to exist in 1922), it is a complete fabrication to say that "they set up a Caretaker Executive to lead the party", when in fact they had already been expelled by the party. (Incidentally, the linkage of the word "Provisional" back to the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic is another after-the-event invention. They were Provos first, because they rejected the majority decision, just as de Valera did in 1921. At least you have to admit that Ó Brádaigh is being entirely consistent within his warped little world. --Red King 00:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


Your point that Sinn Féin ceased to exist in 1922 is incorrect the party still existed and had a elected officer board, at no time did the party not exist from 1905 to today. The major difference between 1970 and 1986, is that in 1970 the then Sinn Féin leadership failed to have their motion passed by the Ard Fheis - It required a two-third majority - at that point the leadership should have accepted the defeat of the motion and tried again the following year, but instead the leadership tried to force the motion through by, doing so they broke the constitution, as only a two-thirds majority of elected delegates can change any aspect of the party policy or the constitution.
The IRA was already split before the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis took place, the 'provisional IRA AC' was already in existance and had the support from the majority of IRA Volunteers, so when the walk-out of the Sinn Fein occured, the majority of the grassroots of the party joined them, those that remained behind under the old leadership became a minority of the party within a matter of weeks. It was Sean MacStiofáin that led the walkout from the Ard Fheis in 1970 not Ó Brádaigh, although Ó Brádaigh was elected Sinn Féin President.

When Ó Brádaigh walked out in 1986, it was after the Delegates had voted by more then the required two thirds majority to end the policy of abstentionism. There were 628 delegates eligable to vote at the Ard Fheis

   * 429 Delegates voted For,
   * 161 Delegates voted against,
   * 38 Delegates abstained from voting.

The motion required a two-third majority, the votes for exceeded this by 11 votes, so the motion was carried, at this point about 40 people walked out of the Ard Fheis, this number included delegates and their supporters, so even within the no-camp only a minority of them walked out to form RSF, I was a Delegate at the Ard Fheis, I also voted against the motion but like the majority of the no-camp remained a member of Sinn Féin because we accepted the vote of the Ard Fheis.

One thing alot of people don't realise on this whole issue is that the split wasn't to do with abstentionism really, Ó Brádaigh and RSF claim that it was over that issue and recognising of Leinster Hse, but they fail to mention that in 1982 or 83 the Ard Fheis passed a motion to allow the party to register in Dublin as a Political Party to enable the party to stand under its own banner in the EU elections, so from that time onwards Sinn Fein recognised the 26 County State, the split in 86 was over the old guard failing to retain the support of the grass roots of the party.--Padraig3uk 06:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Address fixed as requested. I don't know where this idea that it is in Parnell Place came from. I want walk past the building every morning. It ain't in Parnell Place but on the west side of Parnell Square, midway up. BTW the argument that modern SF is a direct continuation of SF of 1905 is a matter of opinion. The majority of those who were in the party up to 1922 did not believe that it continued after 1922. A minority claimed they were still it. Stating that it did or didn't exist after 1922 is POV and can't be done on WP. All we can do is point out that a minority in 1922 claimed continuity, and subsequently a series of breakaways started each of which claimed that they and not the other lot were the true SF. All we can say is that there was a party until 1922. Later groups claim continuity with that party. It is a matter that others dispute. We cannot say that it is SF. FearÉIREANN 19:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

When the treaty vote split Sinn Féin into two camps Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin and Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin they still remained as one party until the 8th April 1923 them the Pro-Treaty side reformed the Cumann na nGaedheal party - the original Cumann na nGaedheal formed in 1900 by Arthur Griffith had merged with Sinn Féin. Cumann na nGaedheal never claimed to be Sinn Féin and the Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin supporters retained the party structure and name.

When De Valera left Sinn Féin to form Fianna Fail this was not a split as such, as in fact he and his supporters had resigned from Sinn Féin, and it was a few months later that Fianna Fail was formed so the Sinn Féin party remained in place. So the notion that the Sinn Féin party ceased to exist in 1922 is totaly false.

The split in 1970 is different in that for a short period both Sinn Féin party groups Sinn Féin (Kevin Street) and Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place) layed claim to the name for a period, the Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place) group who became 'Sinn Féin - The Workers' Party' dropped their claim to the Sinn Féin party name when they became 'The Workers' Party', so the current Sinn Féin party led by Gerry Adams is the rightfull owner of the name.

The RSF group have no claim to the name as they refused to accept the democratic ruling of the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in 1986 - which is the supreme decision making body of the party - so they left Sinn Féin to form Republican Sinn Féin, they made up about 2% of the membership of Sinn Féin.--Padraig3uk 16:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pádraig, if RSF don't have a claim to the title Sinn Féin on the basis that they refused to accept the majority decision of delegates at the 1986 ard fheis, the same applies to the Provos. At the 1970 ard fheis, the Seán Mac Stíofáin/Ruairí Ó Brádaigh element did not have a majority and walked out. The WP's shedding of the term SF in 1982 does not mean that the current Sinn Féin has any more right to the name than RSF. (I'm a supporter of neither).--Damac 13:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The stickies' decision to drop "Sinn Féin" from the title may have meant that the title was up for grabs, but that doesn't in itself make the organisation that assumed it the original organisation by default. In any case when have the Provisionals ever dated their claim to the early 1980s? (Was the decision by the stickies to drop SF related to the Provs registering and contesting elections under that name?) Timrollpickering 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Damac, in 1970 at the Ard Fheis the then leadership motion failed to be carried as under the Sin Fein constitution it required then as it does today a two-third majority vote to change any aspect of the constitution or rules of the party, so although they recieved a simple majority by a small margin the motion failed to be passed. The leadership then attempted to over-rule the constitution and force the motion through, that is when then the walkout occured. The then leaderships actions at that time was in breach of the constitution and under that constitution they were deemed to have expelled themselves from the party. The 1986 motion was passed by a two-thirds majority, and thereby the constitution was changed in accordance with the rules and constitution of Sinn Fein, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and a small number of delegates and supporters walked out of the Ard Fheis and by setting up RSF were deemed to have resigned from Sinn Fein, by refusing to accept the decision of the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis which is the supreme decision making body of the party.
Timrollpickering, The leadership of what was to become the stickies, lost the right to use the Sinn Fein name when they were expelled from Sinn Fein after they attempted to force their ruling on the Ard Fheis after the motion in 1970 failed to achieve a two-thirds majority. So from that time the Sinn Fein name belonged to those that up-held the constitution and walked out of the Ard Fheis and reconvened the Ard Fheis at 44 Parnell Sq, Dublin, were they elected a Caretaker Executive of Sinn Fein to lead the party until such time as a full Sinn Fein Ard Fheis could be organised. The Decision by Sinn Fein to register the party name in Dublin was decided by the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis in 1982 or 83, this decision was taken to enable Sinn Fein to stand in EU Elections under the Sinn Fein banner and have the party name on ballot papers, prior to that the only way the party could have the name on ballot papers was to get its candidates to change their names by deed poll for example 'Gerry Adams Sinn Fein'. The decision by the stickies to alter their party name in 1982 from 'Sinn Fein - The Workers' Party to 'The Workers' Party' was in no way related to this, as that party had moved away from Republicanism towards a purely hard left agenda, and their decision was more to do with trying to attract unionist working class voters in the north.--Padraig3uk 12:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinn Fein 1905=Sinn Fein 2005 ... Not?

Can anyone tell me why this direct line of descent is so important to Sinn Fein? I've nearly had my head taken off on a number of occasions for suggesting otherwise? Surely they can see that there is next to nothing in common with Griffith's Sinn Fein and that of 2005, beyond their shareing the same name? 83.71.162.221 15:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is quite common for political organisations to seek clear roots and traditions in the country's history so as to maximise their appeal and legitimise them as a pre-existing force. By asserting themselves as the Sinn Féin that brought independence to Ireland they can claim a legitimacy and draw on a long line of "standing up for the country's interests".
For similar effects, look at the US in the nineteenth century, where the opposition to Andrew Jackson called themselves the "Whigs" after the traditional British opponents of George III. The modern Republican Party used the name of the one of Thomas Jefferson. Or for a darker example, Hitler's Germany was called the Third Reich to root it in the country's history and not appear an abberation. Timrollpickering 16:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See my reply to this point in the paragraph above this.--Padraig3uk 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger from Provisional Sinn Féin/Sinn Féin (Kevin Street)

First things first. I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I reject the claims made Sinn Féin, Republican Sinn Féin and the Workers Party to be the legitimate and only successors to the 1905 Sinn party. I'm proposing these mergers as the party we all know now as Sinn Féin is registered in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom under that name. Not Provisional Sinn Féin or Sinn Féin (Kevin Street) or anything else. As such, these articles contain information that rightfully belongs here - in fact most of it is already here - and should be merged with suitable redirects added. --Damac 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. That is, as you say, your view. But it is not neutral. My view is that Sinn Féin became Cumann na nGael in 1922, but I don't expect that to be the only view reflected on Wikipedia. Get used to it. --Red King 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Red King, please read what I wrote. I stated that I reject the claim of the Provos to be the legitimate and sole successors to the original Sinn Féin party. I also reject Fine Gael's claims to the same. However, in the Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom, there is one party registered as Sinn Féin and that is the party led by Adams. That is not POV, but a statement of fact. It is also a fact that Provisional Sinn Féin/Kevin Street SF and the party led by Adams are the same organisations. Nothing POV there at all. --Damac 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought that two different people wrote the intro to this section! So my reply was phrased accordingly. Your further explanation makes sense of it, so I will withdraw my opposition provided that the History of Sinn Féin proposal passes. But it will remain necessary to have be a Provisional Sinn Féin since the term was widely used in the past and has come back into use again. Even if it is a misnomer! (It could redirect to History of Sinn Féin#Provisional Sinn Féin, of course. --Red King 00:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Support, given that this article deals primarily with the current party there is no need whatsoever for the other articles mentioned. Palmiro | Talk 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Support. I see no purpose being served by the other articles and they should be merged with this.--Padraig3uk 00:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
oppose. Don't see the point. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on your position, Man of Ireland?--Damac 08:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Sinn Féin sub-article?

Considering the size of the Sinn Féin article as it stands and its relevance for many more articles (almost all Irish political parties), I'm suggesting that the history of Sinn Féin be removed and included in a new History of Sinn Féin article, to which the articles on FG, FF, SF, WP, RSF etc could refer to. (I've just noticed that Padraig3uk has suggested this on my talk page, so take the latter idea as his proposal with me as seconder).--Damac 09:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Support as it is a way to break the PoV impasse. --Red King 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Support. History of the Irish Republican Army would also be a good way to break another impasse. Lapsed Pacifist 11:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought the "other impasse" had largely been resolved. I would oppose any more tinkering with the IRA issue as any article on the "history of the IRA" would get bogged down in arguments over which IRA the history is actually about. --Damac 12:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


No, there was a plan to formally request a move, but that hasn't happened yet. History of the use of the term "Irish Republican Army" is closer to what I was getting at, but as a title it lacks elegance.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Can it be accepted then that users have no objection to splitting this article, and removing the history of the Sinn Féin party to an seperate History of Sinn Féin article.--Padraig3uk 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Separate articles, not separate article - one for each incarnation. Any pretence that modern ("Provisional") Sinn Féin have any more than the most tenuous connection with the original Sinn Féin is exactly that - a pretence. --Red King 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Sinn Fein Party as led by Gerry Adams, all that is being proposed is the history of Sinn Fein be moved to a seperate article, which would help stop the constant editing of this article on the Sinn Fein Party.--Padraig3uk 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there agreement on this issue to split the history of Sinn Fein from this article.--padraig3uk 19:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Democrats

This party was essentially formed as a result of a split in Fianna Fail (yes, it was a bit more complicated than that, but that's the bones of it) so why doesn't it belong here? Palmiro | Talk 12:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Progressive Democrats were formed twenty years ago, some of its membership came from FF - and FG - but that dosen't mean they can claim to be the true FF, so they were essentially a new party with no links to any other party, to follow your logic then the Labour party could also claim linkage, through DL, WP, SFWP. And if I recall at the time when the PDs were formed they claimed they were a new party too break the mould of the civil war politics of FF and FG.--Padraig3uk 15:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see it as any more far-fetched as any of the other fanciful versions of history.
Here is my logic (I accept that PD doesn't bother with PSF's heroism by association with associates - reminds me of the old Catholic dogma of "Relics of the third degree")
SF (1921), Cumann na nGael (1922-, Fine Gael                              
         -> (breakaway) SF (1922 - , Official SF, SF the Workers Party, The WP -> Labour Party
                                                    -> (breakaway) IRSP
                           -> (breakaway) Fianna Fail (1926-
                                          -> (breakaway) PDs (whenever)
                           -------------> (breakaway) Provisional SF
                                                     -> (breakaway) Republican SF
Obvious really. But I suppose we don't want to get the history get in the way of a good mythology. --Red King 19:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Sinn Fein, -> Pro-Treaty Sinn Fein -> reforms Cumann na nGael ->(1933 merger
               with The BlueShirts and National Centre Party to form
               Fine Gael
          -> Anti-Treaty Sinn Fein  (retains the name and party structure)
                           -> (Dev Valera Resigns) later forms Fianna Fail (1926-
                           -> (breakaway)(1970 Sinn Fein 'Gardiner Place'/'offical' Sinn
                               Fein-> SF - The Workers Party->The Workers Party
                                             -> (breakaway) IRSP
                                             -> (breakaway) New Agenda -> Democratic
                                                Left->merger with Labour Party
                           -> (breakaway 1986) Republican Sinn Fein
                           -> (breakaway over the GFA) 199?) 32CSM

You seem to have very little understanding of History or the workings of Sinn Fein and its rules and constitution, but if you want to include mythology rather then the true facts then carry on with your own version of history.--Padraig3uk 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidently 1984 (book) is required reading among the Adams Family. I can see that you aren't particularly bothered by inconvenient historical facts that don't suit Big Brother's version of what should have happened and therefore it did. To claim that it was the Officials who walked out rather than the provos is particularly stunning. It must be galling to find RSF doing exactly the same thing to you. --Red King 00:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I have never said the officals walked out, they were in breach of the constitution by trying to impose a defeated motion on the membership at the Ard Fheis, by their actions they were deemed to be expelled from the party in accordance with the rules and constitution of the party. RSF on the other hand failed to gather enough support to stopped the motion being passed in accordance with the rules and constitution of Sinn Fein, they then refused to accept the ruling of the Ard Fheis and walked out, and because they setup a rival organisation were deemed to have resigned from Sinn Fein. Red because the facts don't suit your own POV and bias against Sinn Fein, that dosen't make your version of what you want to believe true.--Padraig3uk 01:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary or sensible to include the PDs as one of the SF offshoots. If the PDs are to be included, a host of other parties should be in there as well. Moreover, the PDs don't claim any of this heritage; indeed, they presented themselves as a party to break the mould of Irish politics.
Pádraig, your arguments over who upheld the SF constitution in 1970 and 1986 are very superficial. As Ed Moloney has shown, the PSF leadership engaged unconstitutional methods to stack the Mansion House in 1986. At that ard fheis, there was something like 600 delegates, almost half to two-thirds the average turnout for such an event. In 1987, the number of delegates was down to pre-1986 levels. Many delegatates, who were known supporters of absentionism and delegated by their cumainn, arrived at the Mansion House to find that there were no delegate cards for them. Others claim that they had never seen so many new faces at an SF ard fheis. The Adams/McGuinness leadership both within SF and what they term as the "army" have repeatedly made use of these and other tactics in pursuit of their agenda. Politics is a dirty business in SF too and thjis should be borne in mind. --Damac 12:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The PDs do certainly claim a republican heritage. According to 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" [2]. Demiurge 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
No, they don't claim a republican heritage from the second Sinn Féin party. That's the crucial point here. The PDs have always advertised themselves as a republican party (recall Dessie O'Malley's message of "building a new republic", the PDs first slogan, for example). But this republicanism is different in semantic and ideological terms to what is now generally referred to as Irish republicanism in that it never championed irredentist claims or sought the re-establishment of a past republic. It was focused on and championed the republic as it was when the PDs was founded. There is a difference. --Damac 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't all parties in the Republic claim to be pro republican? Doesn't this just mean they are asserting themselves as a constitutional party of the state?
As I see it the main difference for the PDs is that the groups listed as being formed from Sinn Féin (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Workers' Party, {Provisional} Sinn Féin, Republican Sinn Féin) were all formed out of splits within an existing "Sinn Féin". Each of the groups listed was formed over a division about the best way forward, whether claiming to be the continuing organisation or not. (You could, I think, make a stronger case for the Democratic Left as being another split, even though the stickies had ditched the name "Sinn Féin" by the 1990s.) The PDs by contrast split from a party that had never claimed to be "Sinn Féin" in the first place and in any case the split was about policies and personalities, not about the way forward for the continuation of the goals of "Sinn Féin". Timrollpickering 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Damac, in reference to your comment about the claims in Ed Moloney's book, and the number of delegates, every cumann of Sinn Fein is entitled to send two delegates to an Ard Fheis and at that time any cumann with more then 20 members could send three as was the rules of the party at the time, but the majority of cumann would normally only send one in practice each year.

All applications for delegate voting cards from cumann have to be passed by the Ard Fheis Steering committee prior to the Ard Fheis, R Ó Brádaigh, amongst others that walked out of the Ard Fheis to form RSF were members of that steering committee, at no time then or during the Ard Fheis did Ó Brádaigh or anyone else raise the issue of delegate numbers or object to, or refuse any application recieved. These claims only came about in Moloneys book about 18 yrs after the event, so if Ó Brádaigh was aware of this fact at the time then we can only assume that he and other members of the steering comittee seen nothing wrong with any of the application from cumanns.

I was a delegate at the 1986 Ard Fheis and was for a number of years both prior and after 1986, we were entitled to send two delegates but normally I would be the only delegate to attend, that year we sent two as did every other cumann in the country as the issue was major change in policy for the party. I also voted against the motion to end abstentionism, the no vote amounted to 161 votes. But when the walkout occured only about 40 people were involved from both delegates and their supporters. The vast majority of those that voted no remained within Sinn Fein and accepted the democratic decision of the Ard Fheis and refused to follow Ó Brádaigh.

So any claims that delegates couldn't recieve delegate cards is nonsense. On a side note to this issue after the Ard Fheis vote around 100 Republicans prisoners in the 6 counties resigned from the Republican Movement, none of the prisoners in the 26 counties or else where resigned, of these only two joined with RSF.--Padraig3uk 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clann na Poblachta

On another note in all this, where exactly did Clann na Poblachta fit into the family tree of splits and divisions? Timrollpickering 23:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

CnaP did not split directly from Sinn Féin. Many of its founding members were involved in the IRA in the 1930s, which at that time had cut all links with what was then an insignificant party. CnaP members had been active in Córas na Poblachta, which was a political party that sprang from the IRA rather than Sinn Féin. The majority of CnaP members came from Fianna Fáil. --Damac 08:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism?

 WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group described in this article can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which has not come to power as "fascist" if it fulfills six of the following criteria:
  1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
  3. advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.
  5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.
  6. advocating totalitarian systems.
  7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, etc. movement.

Please comment on this entity's status here or leave commentary on the project's talk page.

The assertion of Sinn Féin as a fascist movement as defined above has been made (by an anon editing List of fascist movements by country). I don't think the suggestion has much merit but others are likely to be better informed. -- Stlemur 19:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous suggestion, I don't think even Ian Paisley would go so far as to call Sinn Fein actually fascist. Well, maybe he might, he did call the previous Pope the Antichrist. Anyway, Sinn Fein aren't fascist if you ask me. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Nov 2000 Ian Paisley compares Austrian Freedom Party to "Sinn Féin/IRA" "..these two essentially fascist parties.." here
March 2006 Wilkinson & Stirling (DUP) from Ballymena Council attack "fascist Sinn Féin" and label their supporters as being like "brownshirts" here
As far as I remember, there was a mention of Sinn Féin being "fascist" in every DUP media interview at one point in the period 2000-2001. This campaign may be ongoing- hence the request to have Sinn Féin added to the category. Its an old political trick you get used to in NI political scene- guilt by word association. Fluffy999 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: Sinn Féin/I.R.A....are definitely fascist organisations, as Sinn Féin/I.R.A. have been actively involved in 'ethnic cleansing' of Protestants from both parts of the isle of Ireland since 1916 - (Aidan Work 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

It is my evaluation that Sinn Féin does not qualify as a fascistic organization as defined on Wikipedia, in that they've never advocated any kind of corporatism (being generally of a socialist bent economically), nor advocated totalitarianism except in perhaps the very loosest of senses, nor is their flavor of nationalism, whether we call it racist or not, of the exaltative kind found in fascist states -- there is, not so far as I know, any "Irish superman" rhetoric. Is there consensus for this assessment? --Stlemur 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, this is extremist loyalist propaganda. I doubt the vast majority of unionists would go so far to call Sinn Fein "fascists". A separatist organisation sponsoring terrorism, perhaps, but not fascist. Aidan Work misunderstands the nature of Wikipedia, I asked him for sources but he said, in effect, the evidence speaks for itself. Well, not only do I disagree, but a claim of this nature definitely needs to be verifiable and referenced. See my talk page for the discussion Aidan and I had. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously not. Sinn Fein does not fit the definition of any of the criteria listed above, Mr. Work's views not-withstanding. Mr. Work will probably suggest they be listed as a Communist organisation next. Mr. Work is an expert on postal-orders, coins, and stamps. He should stick to that. Wikipedia is not a soap-box for any user's own particular views, but a place for verifiable facts. Camillus (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Again it's obvious that "Aiden" is anti-Sinn Fein from the start and will jump at any chance to victimise people at Sinn Feins expense. Like it or not Sinn Fein are elected representatives and hardly where involed in "protestest ethnic cleansing" when the IRA actively targetted RUC and the British Army, and not the protestant people. There was certainly no collusion on their part, ey? Fascist organisation? Don't make me laugh Jim-ie 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The above is absolute nonsense and you know it. It makes me so angry to listen to this. Here is the listing regarding the Bessbrook masacre.

"The worst incident of terrorism in Bessbrook's history occurred on 5 January 1976 when ten workmen were shot dead at nearby Kingsmills, purely on the basis of their religion. The men were regularly transported by minibus to the textiles factory in Glenanne where they worked. Their minibus was stopped by Provisional Irish Republican Army gunmen and the occupants were ordered to state their religious denomination. The driver, a Roman Catholic, was released, whilst the passengers, all Protestant, were shot with automatic weapons. Ten died at the scene whilst one man survived despite being struck eighteen times. "

Now if you are telling me that is not ethnic cleansing then what exactly is??

Sorry to wade in, but in reference to above unsigned comment- if you check the article for the PIRA Chief of Staff at the time Seamus Twomey it carries some context:

"..Seán O'Callaghan claims that on 5 January 1976, Twomey and Brian Keenan and gave the go-ahead for the Kingsmill massacre, when 10 Protestant workmen were machine gunned to death by the Provisional IRA in retaliation for the earlier [previous day] loyalist murder of five Catholics in the same area. It was Keenan's view, O'Callaghan claims, that “The only way to knock the nonsense out of the Prods is to be 10 times more savage”."

Savage and futile? Yes, but then so were 'killings' of the 5 Roman Catholics by the UVF the previous day. Just down the road from you in Whitecross & Ballydougan. Happy to bring them to your attention at the top of this CAIN project page.
As to the thread about ethnic cleansing being Fascist. I don't believe "ethnic cleansing" actually has any relevance to Fascism (as far as I recall the textbook definition of the term). Isn't Fascism the grouping of the ruling elite and business interests? Is this Sinn Féin? Nazism would be fascism with a racial philosophy at its core but then you'd need to factor in all that stuff about establishing a "Democratic Socialist Republic." Not sure it makes sense to try that. See Roger Griffin's work on the phenomena: The Nature of Fascism (St. Martin's Press, 1991 ISBN 0312071329, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0415096618) Fluffy999 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that some members of Sinn Feign dabbled with fascist ideas before and during World War II, but as I know little about it, it may have been a case of my enemy's enemy, as indeed it can be argued for the influence of the communist party on Sinn Feign. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am in no way denying that loyalists tookpart in ethnic cleansing also. The loyalisy policy may explain to some extent but in no way whatsoever excuses what the IRA did. The IRA were also responsible for a policy of ethnic cleansing and targeting people solely on the basis of their religion and however you like to put it they were significantly more sucessful in their aims than the loyalists. Facism has different meanings not just one from one textbook but the fact that the IRA took part in ethnic cleansing of some sort and always believed in the supremacy of the army council over the governments would them a facism movement. Secterianism is of course on the exact same level as racism and of course racism and fascim are very closely linked.
I see your point of view and im prepared to support your argument if you can get the 6/7 vote by eliminating 1 out of these 2 emphatic 'NO's for Sinn Féin.
  1. advocating totalitarian systems.
  2. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, etc. movement.

Fluffy999 21:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a national socialist movement for sure

[edit] Sinn Féin & I.R.A. are one and the same thing!

The article about the I.R.A. should also be merged into this article as well, because Gerry Adams is both the head of Sinn Féin & the I.R.A., given the fact that he is a subhuman racist who has killed people himself. That is a fact! - (Aidan Work 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

Merging Sinn Féin and Irish Republican Army would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your statement is a double non sequitur, by the way. --Kwekubo 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Have any sources? Talrias (t | e | c) 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Irish Foreign Minister has said that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are on the IRA Army Council, its safe to say that Sinn Fein/IRA are much the same thing.


By that logic, if someone said that Tony Blair was a member of M.E.N.S.A., then it would be safe to say that the British Labour Party and M.E.N.S.A. are the same thing... Mícheál 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if Tony were head of MENSA too, which he is not.


There is absolutely NO proof that Gerry Adams is head of the provisional IRA, and linking the two articles toghether is rather silly as both have different methods of achieving a united Ireland, rather the person that started this is a biggot and really should do a bit of reading before talking bollocks. It should also be noted to the person that said "The Irish Foreign Minister has said that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are on the IRA Army Council, its safe to say that Sinn Fein/IRA are much the same thing." that irish ministers see Sinn Fein as the opposition to their seats in the next election and it's what we call electioneering - scaring voters. Jim-ie 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team?

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There have been many Ladies and Gentlemen from Ulster representing the UK team which highlights the importance to refer to the country by its correct short form, The United Kingdom. As France is referred to as "France" not "la Republic.." and Sweden is called "Sweden" not Könikrik Sverige" or Kingdom of Sweden and... then the team should be the UK team.

[edit] How many MLAs currently?

Has Francis Molloy's suspension ended yet? I haven't seen anything lately on this and no-one else has updated the list on Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly which still has him as "Suspended from Sinn Féin".

Also given the tight numbers game in the Assembly, how many places on any future Executive, the Policing Board and other key bodies are Sinn Féin entitled to, both with and without Molloy? (Now that Paul Berry is out of the DUP they seem to have lost their entitlement to some places.) Timrollpickering 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Francie Molloy is still a member of the party, not sure if the suspension has been sorted out, will try and find out the latest on that, as for the DUP I think Paul Berrys resignation does cause problems for them if the assembly is reinstated without new elections as they would lose the extra places they were claiming on the policing board, and could lose a Ministerial post on the executive as well. Sinn Fein are intitled to three places on the policing board as far as I can remember, the Home secretary has plans to give these other nationalists if the party dosen't take them which seems to be the current opinion within the party.--Padraig3uk 01:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Francie Molloy was elected to the Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle at the Ard Fheis, at the weekend so that should indicate the suspension is lifted.--Padraig3uk 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added

I added a picture of a modern Sinn Fein office I took a picture of in Tralee I thought it would be a good addition.--Gw099 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adams and the Infobox

Do we really need Adams image in the infobox, considering that his is the only one out of the at least the major parties articles of either Ireland or the UK in which their image of the leader appears in the infobox. To me it just looks out of place. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been almost a week, and no one has objected, so i am going to move Gerry's images out of the infbox, and to somewhere else in the article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahh but his image is already somewhere else in the article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 106 and British troop deployment

This article says "Ireland's 106 seats" but Irish (UK) general election, 1918 says "Of the 105 seats in Ireland many were uncontested". Please could someone fix the discrepancy or if it is not a discrepancy explain it in the articles.

"and British troops were sent in to support the (largely Unionist) Royal Ulster Constabulary." is a bit simplistic and misleading, there is also the element of using the British Army to protect the Catholic population against the B Specials and the Irish government's influence on British troop deployment. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That interpretation is sort of backed up with the history of events. If you watch Peter Taylor's "Provos" you will see that he makes the point about the Bogside quickly becoming too much for the RUC/B-Specials to handle. Taylor indicates that troops were sent in to protect the RUC/B-Specials from rioters, not the other way around although he does also mention the vulnerability of nationalists in Belfast. CAIN quoted.

"Thursday 14 August 1969 - After two days of continuous battle, and with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) exhausted, the Stormont government asked the British government for permission to allow British troops to be deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland... ..There was a tacit understanding between the British Army and the Derry Citizens Defence Association (DCDA) that if the RUC and the army remained outside these areas there would be an end to the rioting." Fluffy999 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, see a synopsis of released Wilson State papers from the time here. The concern was the state dissolving into anarchy, and even annexation by the RoI. So there are any number of interpretations available to choose from. I think the statement in the article is fine as it is. Its accurate- the priority of both Wilson, Healey, and O'Neill was a return to 'law and order'. Fluffy999 11:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split article

This article needs to be split up. It has been done successfully for the various IRAs, it should be possible to do the same here.

Even if there is a single parent article, the major content like Provisional Sinn Féin should be on seperate articles with merely a summary on the parent article.

zoney ♣ talk 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should be used to refer to the party led by Gerry Adams, which is the only registered party with the name of Sinn Fein, all the history of the party and the various groups that came from the splits etc should be in a seperate History of Sinn Fein article linked from this one.--padraig3uk 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholics voting for Unionist parties

'Small numbers of Catholics also voted for the leading unionist parties, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the shortlived Unionist Party of Northern Ireland[citation needed].'

My immediate thought was that the number of Catholics who voted unionist in this period were so few in number as to be irrelevant. If this statement as it reads can't be backed up with facts then it should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.133.14.83 (talk • contribs).

Look at the votes Paisley got in Catholic areas of the North in European elections. He even picked up votes on the Catholic Tory Island. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How did Paisley get votes from Tory island when its part of Donegal in the republic of Ireland and Paisley never stood for election there?

Well so you might say so... but what numbers are we talking about here? I'm not saying that no Catholics voted Unionist in this period, I'm merely saying that so few as to be irrelevant. 'Small numbers of Catholics' might have also voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party or the Natural Law Party? But so what... it doesn't mean that it should be included within this article. It's a distraction.

I would say that as many protestants voted for Sinn Fein then catholics voted for the UUP or DUP, but what revelence that does it have in this article.--padraig3uk 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provisional Sinn Fein Propaganda Passed Off as Unbiased Truth

Provisional Sinn Fein Propaganda Passed Off as Unbiased Truth:

I tried to correct the Republican Sinn Fein page but was accused by the powers that be of "vandalism" , I dont know who wrote the "official version" of the page but they are obviously die hard Provisional Sinn Fein Supporters. In Ireland Provisional Sinn Fein and Republican Sinn Fein are rivals but, for some reason, the "official versions" of both the PSF and the RSF pages are both written totally from the PSF point of view. Indeed the page titled "Sinn Fein" is also devoted to PSF. Maybe PSF has made a big donation, I dont know, but Wikipedia is really letting itself down by allowing itself to be used as a tool of PSF propaganda. I might also say that, as no health warning is given, you are doing an injury to genuine people who look up Republican Sinn Fein in Wikipedia, only to find visious Provisional Sinn Fein propaganda being passed off as unbiased truth. Anyone from Ireland will see through it straight away, but people from other countries should not be so grossly abused.

An example of this bias is the fact that you say that Republican Sinn Fein was founded in 1986, as if this was a simple statement of fact. On the Provisional Sinn Fein page, which you have now converted to the simply "Sinn Fein" page, you say PSF founded in 1970 (original party founded 1905). How has PSF more connection with the original party than RSF? Specially since RSF has exactly the same function and policy as it has had since 1917 (when republican sinn fein took over from the monarchist sinn fein of Arthur Griffith) and provisional sinn fein has adapted exactly the policies and beliefs that Sinn Fein fought a civil war against in 1922, i.e. accepting the legitimacy of British created partitionist assemblies which usurp the functions of the 32 county Irish Republic.

Another inaccurate statement that is being peddled as truth is that RSF is a splinter group of PSF. According to the Sinn Féin constitution in 1986, discussion of entering Leinster House was banned. Before Adams and Co. put forward a motion to enter Leinster House they needed to change that rule by a majority vote. They did not do this so Mr. Adam’s motion to enter Leinster House was breaking the existing Sinn Féin constitution. In fact the article said that no member who even discussed this could stay in the party, so Gerry Adams disqualified himself from membership of Sinn Féin. There was no question of Ó Brádaigh forming a new party - he preserved the old one in tact. The word Poblachtach was added to emphasise the republican beliefs of the party. This was not a new idea. The addition of the word "Republican" had been discussed in the early part of the 20th century when many republicans in Sinn Féin were dissatisfied with Arthur Griffith's monarchist views. No doubt Mr. Adams considers small details like rules and constitutions a needless waste of time - but for lesser mortals they provide a structure which gives the ordinary party members a say in their party, and serves to contain the egoism and ambition of some of their leaders. I might also say, that by the logic of the "official wikipedia history", there is no reason to put the pre 1970 history of Sinn Fein into the PSF page. By your logic Ruirí Ó Brádaigh also founded Provisional Sinn Féin - since he lead a minority of delegates out of a Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in 1970 and also chaired the caretaker executive of PSF. It would be more logical to put the full history of Sinn Fein into both PSF and RSF pages - or into neither. But I suspect that logic has nothing to do with it, and PSF sympathy everything to do with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnchadh (talk • contribs) 09:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

The majority of Irish political parties have one link or another to some incarnation of Sinn Féin; that has no bearing on the fact that, as has been discussed before, Provisional Sinn Féin is currently registered with the UK Electoral Commission and with the Oireachtas as Sinn Féin, and no other party is entitled to that name for electoral purposes. Republican Sinn Féin is of course unregistered and its candidates stand as independents. The first two paragraphs make it quite clear that the name has been and is used by others, and the full details are explained at length. I agree though that it would be nice to break this page up into multiple articles, but it would take serious discussion on where to draw the dividing lines, if the comparatively straightforward Irish Republican Army is anything to go by.--Kwekubo 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The 1983 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, passed a motion to end the ban on debate and change of any part of the Sinn Féin Constitution, Ó Brádaigh supported this move as it was necessary to allow the debate for candidates to stand for EU seats under the Sinn Féin name. So all changes and debate in relation to abstentionism from that time were within the Constitution of the party. In 1986 a small number of those that opposed the ending of abstentionism walked out of the Ard Fheis and formed a rival organisation, RSF, by doing so they were deemed to have resigned from Sinn Féin of their own accord. So before you accuse people of revisionism you should check the facts of your own claims--padraig3uk 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis

++Removing party political statement posted by Donnchadh 03:28, 25 June 2006. Original text can be read here: The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis--Damac 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[personal attack by User:Donnchadh removed]

[edit] Post on 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis not a "Party Political Statement" but a personal view

The argument I wrote under the title "The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis" was not a party political statement but my own composition. As I am not even a member of any political party it is difficult to see how my contribution could be regarded as a "Party Political statement." An editor deleted my argument and gives a link to a political debate site where I also posted the same argument. Why should Wikipedia users be directed to a political debate site to read arguments that were composed for this site and then, later, posted on the debate site. That my composition was posted first here on this site can be seen by checking the time of posting my argument here and checking the time I posted it on Politics i.e. I think "genuine Wikipedia" users can make up their own mind about the motives for deleteing my composition. Needless to say it questions the accuracy of the Wikipedia "Sinn Féin" article. Fortunately readers can review the history of this page by pressing the "History" button.--Donnchadh 01:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

I've read somewhere Sinn Fein translated as "Our Thing" - as in "Cosa Nostra". Any Irish speakers care to comment on the validity of the translation? 84.242.86.47 12:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really it translates as Ourselves Alone or We Ourselves and was in the original Arthur Griffith conception and indeed in later versions meant to indicate independence, looking after our own affairs, self-governemnt, self-sufficiency. Gramscis cousin 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sinn means "we", and féin means "self". Sinn Féin therefore translates as "we ourselves"; it does not mean "ourselves alone". A short section on the name wouldn't go amiss in the article (if only to move that Columbo thing out of the leading paragraph); I'll write one later if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Kwekubo 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've stirred the pot a bit at Sinn Féin (19th century), which see. That should perhaps be renamed Sinn Féin (slogan) and linked from the intro-section as well as the banner-redirect. jnestorius(talk) 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe there was a version of the slogan (predating the formation of Griffith's party) which went "Sinn féin, sinn féin amháin," which would translate as "Ourselves, ourselves alone". I know this is used by the Citizen character in Ulysses, and according to this An Phoblacht article was used by other organisations also. This could perhaps be worked into any commentary on the Sinn Féin name, as it explains the "ourselves alone" translation, which is still fairly common despite being erroneous. --Ryano 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some observations

I've just read through this article forthe first time and I would like to point out some weaknesses.

  • 1917 to 1922. A distinction needs to be made here between Sinn Fein andthe Volunteers/IRA. I know this may look like a replica of the present day situation with PSF and PIRA, but in the 1920s, these really were seperate organisations. Quite a lot of SF people did not actually believe in physical force. In any case, their political activities need to be seperated from the IRA's actions as this article is about SF.
  • The 1918 election. it is generally accepted that there was some intimidation in this election, but the article here seems to go out of its way to emphasise this at the expense of the very real support SF received at this election.
  • The 1922 split. This section needs not only a summary of the arguements involved, but who lined up on which side, why they did so and what they did as a consequence. This means discussion of the 1922 election pact, the election itself, the formation of the Provisional Government of the Free State and the republican opposition "government" formed during the civil war.
  • The 1921-1960s period. There is no discussion of this period here at all and there are some important points that need to be mentioned. First of all, a very important point. From 1922 until 1949, SF and the IRA were actually seperate, sometimes mutually hostile, organisations. This means that they had different leaderships and different policies. The IRA until the late 1930s actually banned its members from also being members of SF. SF's line in this period was that they, the remnants of the anti-treaty TDs of the Second Dail, were the actual, legitimate government of Ireland. The IRA's position was the while the Republic had been temporarily suppressed, its army (the IRA) was still in existence, waiting for a chance to re-establish it. These two pieces of political theology were not reconciled until 1949, when the two organisations merged and an IRA Army Council member was made leader of SF.
  • 1956-57, SF's role here is passed over in one line. What happened here was that SF polled well in the 1956 general election in NI, which encouraged the IRA to launched its border camapign late in that year. During the campaign, SF won four seats in the Republic against the background of the high profile deaths of two IRA men, Sean South and Fergal O'Hanlon. However, this brief burst of republicanism south of the border did not last.
  • Re Modern SF/PSF. What this section needs is a quick history of PSF's political evolution. Specifically, its changing ideas on federalism (Eire Nua), socialism, abstentionism, the use of force etc. Some of these things are alluded to here, but some are not.

That's it. Thoughts welcome. Jdorney 11:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/n/Talk%7ESinn_F%C3%A9in_45ea.html"