Talk:Republican Sinn Féin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks:

 


Contents

[edit] No real dispute but how do we deal with persistent vandalism

There's no real dispute among genuine Wikipedia users on what this page should contain. The problem is the repeated vandalism by an anonymous visitor. This person is clearly a supporter of RSF, and I'd bet my money that the individual in question goes under the name Richard and Risteard on a number of Irish political sites championing the fastasies of RSF and the Continuity IRA. Could there be anything done to prevent anonymous visitors from editing this site, as that's where the problem lies. --Damac 21:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's what they had to do over at wiki.politics.ie, largely to deal with this same character. However, I doubt we'll get Wikipedia to change its policy on this just to prevent vandalism of this page. As I've said before, superior patience may be the only remedy. --Ryano 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"Genuine Wikipedia users" - now there's a concept! And they all know what should be in the Republican Sinn Féin page? (I wonder what percentage of Wikipedia users have ever even looked at this page - guess they are not genuine enough) Sounds a bit like Risteard's "True Republicans." Takes one to know one and all that. Seems Damac, you have been fighting off those RSF bounders since at least September 2005 and saving truth, justice and the American way from their flagrant fantasies. Now there's dedication to duty! --Donnchadh 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

No discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Genuine Users of Wikipedia

The problem of WikiPedia is one of propaganda: sure Richard may use it to forward his points to the point of bias, but so do others censor to the point of bias.

There is a ban-ip feature on Wikipedia, but it should be used with caution.

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

Provisional Sinn Fein Propaganda Passed Off as Unbiased Truth:

Actually I am the one who changed the Republican Sinn Fein page and my name is Donnchadh, 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. 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?

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. It 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.

[edit] Learning from a Wikipedia Master of Propaganda

Since the article titled “Republican Sinn Féin” is one of the finest examples of black propaganda you are likely to see, I think it is worth analysing the methods used by our master propagandist. It’s a short and superficial article, so it wont take up much of our time to go through it.

1. Republican Sinn Féin (RSF) is a minor political party[2] operating in Ireland.

With the first line our writer telegraphs his/her hostility to his/her subject. (I will use the masculine pronoun from now on, as this kind of obsessive partisan behaviour is more prevalent in the male population.) What exactly is a minor political party? Is it based on the number of members? Sinn Féin in the nineteen forties and fifties probably had less members than RSF has now, but they were the nucleus around which a twenty five year campaign of resistance condensed after 1970. Needless to say the party Arthur Griffith founded in 1905 was also “minor” according to these standards. Given its past, who knows what the future may have in store for RSF. Given, also, that RSF is the focus for all those Republicans who continue the tradition of refusing to recognise British created partitionist assemblies in Ireland, and for those who remain loyal to the 32 county Irish Republic, declaired in 1916, I would hardly say that “minor” is an appropriate word.

2. It formed in 1986 as a splinter from Sinn Féin and represents what is often described as 'fundamentalist republicanism'.

This is really wonderful. We have here a condensation of several propagandist strands all in one sentence. Please see my comment above (Provisional Propaganda Passed Off as Unbiased Truth) for a complete refutation of the assertion that RSF was founded in 1986. There is no question of RSF being a splinter from any thing – they continue the traditional Sinn Féin policy of defending the Republic and rejecting all usurpers. And isnt it lovely the way our writer betrays his sympathies by referring to Provisional Sinn Féin as simply Sinn Féin?

3. The decision was taken in response to Sinn Féin's decision at their 1986 Ard-Fheis to end their policy of abstaining from taking seats won in Dáil Éireann. RSF viewed this as an acceptance of the legitimacy of the partition of Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I have explained above how this proposal to take seats in the free state parliament was out of order, according to the Provisional Sinn Féin constitution in 1986. Adams needed first to change the article banning such proposals. He did not do this. Indeed the article in question banned anyone who made such a proposal from membership of the party. Adams banned himself from membership of Provisional Sinn Féin. There was no question of Ó Brádaigh setting up a new party – he kept the traditional Sinn Féin intact and in continuity with its past.

4. The splinter was led by the former leader of Sinn Féin, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and much of the older, largely Southern based membership of the movement who disagreed with Gerry Adams and his largely Northern based backers.

Again we have this lovely little word “Splinter.” It would be more accurate to say that Ó Brádaigh resumed leadership of the party in 1986, as he he had taken leadership of the traditional Sinn Féin membership, with traditional Sinn Féin policy and beliefs in 1970 – and for the same reason, i.e. to twart the attempt to hiijack Sinn Féin and turn it into a reformist British constitutional party.

5. The Continuity IRA, founded in 1986 but which emerged publicly in 1994, in opposition to the ceasefire declared by the Irish Republican Army, is believed to have links to RSF. Both RSF and the CIRA have been proscribed by the United States State Department as terrorist organisations.

Needless to say all that happened in this regard in 1986 was the addition of the word “Continuity” to emphasise that the 32 county Republic still had its army, the same army which defended her since 1916. And how good of our writer to let us know the US State Department’s opinion.

6. RSF claims to be the true inheritor of a tradition of Irish republicanism that includes the original Sinn Féin of the secessionist Irish Republic declared in 1919, and the 'Old' Irish Republican Army that fought the 1919-1921 War of Independence. It claims via a kind of apostolic succession: · the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 was incompatible with the Irish Republic and hence null and void. · all Irish elections subsequent to the Second Dáil election in 1921 were based on the Treaty and hence illegitimate. · The 64 TDs who voted for the Treaty in 1922 had violated their oath to the Irish Republic and abdicated their legitimacy. · in entering the Dáil of the Irish Free State in 1927, the anti-Treaty TDs who had joined Fianna Fáil had done likewise. · the 7 "faithful" TDs of the Second Dáil had transferred their authority to the Army Council of the IRA in 1938. · the last remaining of the seven, Tom Maguire, had in 1969 recognised the IRA 'provisional Army Council' (rather than the Official IRA). · Maguire subsequently switched to recognising the Continuity IRA in 1987.[3]

Our intrepid writer feels he must give us the above list of facts, or else his mask will slip for even the most innocent in these matters. But, he manages to slyly let us know his opinion on the list. He slips in the words “a kind of apostolic succession.” This serves several functions. It gives the whole idea of succession an archaic and somewhat ridiculous colouring. The comparison of the Republican Movement with the Pope gives an element of comedy. And, of course, the inference is that RSF believes in a theology rather than a political ideology, thus undermining any possible validity for that political ideology. Isnt it amazing what a master propagandist can do with just a couple of words? We stand in awe of your brilliance.

7. These claims are rejected as fanciful by most republicans. Senator Martin Mansergh, a prominent figure in Fianna Fail (the largest Irish republican party), has described as 'preposterous nonsense' the 'concoction of a sort of pseudo-apostolic succession from Pearse to the Second Dail to the IRA to the Sinn Fein party' to the small irredentist movement currently claiming that it, not the elected government of the Republic, is the true government of Ireland. RSF refused to recognise the validity of the Good Friday Agreement even though it was accepted by the electorates on both sides of the Irish border.

Our master comes down to the level of the pedestrian here. He had done his work with the words “a kind of apostolic succession,” but like the great master he is, he realises that this might be a little too subtle for the uneducated masses, so, secure in the knowledge that he has gained the admiration of the sharper members of his audience with his brilliant “apostolic succession” stroke, he lays it on with a shovel for the clowns. Martin Mansergh is wheeled out to shout it through a megaphone. Lets not forget the last line. Another little gem. The GFA was accepted by the electorates on both sides of the border. No mention of the fact that people were not given a choice of living in a 32 county united peaceful republic. They were just asked to accept partition until such time as the British and the Unionists give up their threat of “immediate and terrible war.” Little wonder they said OK.

8. RSF remains a fringe party and continues its policy of abstentionism, thus meaning they have not stood in elections to either the Commons or the Dáil. They also opposed the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly as they felt this further entrenched a British presence in Ireland claiming that "those nationalists who took their seats in the new Stormont" were "guilty of treachery to the Irish Republic." [1] . They have therefore not participated in elections to the Assembly either. The party occasionally stands in local elections in Republic of Ireland howver they do not contest elections in Northern Ireland. They did initially plan to contest the 1989 local government elections in Northern Ireland and had planned to run 23 candidates in that year, with three of those being sitting councillors elected for Sinn Fein in 1985. However shortly before those elections, the British Government introduced a requirement that all prospective candidates must sign an anti-violence declaration. RSF refused to do so on the grounds that such an oath "calls for the public disowning of the Irish Republican Army, Cumann na mBan, Fianna Éireann and a repudiation of the right of the Irish people to use force of arms to end British occupation." [2] Consequently their candidates became ineligible.

Its not an anti-violence declaration. Candidates can fully support Imperial violence in places like Iraq. They can even support state violence in Ireland in defence of the British occupation. The only thing they are not allowed to support is armed struggle in defence of the Irish Republic. And what do you mean by “the party occasionally stands in local elections?” The party stands on any occasion when there is a local election.

9. They stand on a platform of the establishment of social justice based on what they describe as the principles of Irish Republican Socialism, based on the 1916 proclamation of an Irish Republic. They also have a policy named Éire Nua ("New Ireland"), which would see the establishment of a 32 county Ireland completely independent of the United Kingdom and set up as a federation of the four Irish provinces.

Actually Ireland already has 32 counties!

10. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh is RSF's President.

What a genius, I really must take my hat off! He leaves the one true and unambiguous statement till last. Thus we are left with the warm and gratifying feeling that we have spent a little time, not only with a master of his art, but with a sincere and honest man.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your contributions so that other users know who's writing what. To do this, click the third icon from the right on the editing toolbar.
You might feel that the page as it stands is Provo propaganda. The article is not perfect but your pushing for no change really by calling for it to be substitued with RSF propaganda. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give organisations and their supporters another webpage, but to enable some from of neutral appraisal of the subject under discussion.
The problem is that Wikipedia in the past has come under attack by a party colleague of yours - Risteard - who persistently tried to introduce silly terms such as "true republicans" "former republicans" and a range of other partisan vocabulary from the RSF arsenal. Wikipedia is not Saoirse and anyone who tries to make it so will fail.
Wikipedia deals with reality, and not fantasy. You may think that Tom Maguire Irish Republic still exists and that the Conty IRA are the army of the republic but that is a minority position in the real world. Wikipedia can record that some people support the notions you support but it cannot put these above the actual political reality in Ireland.--Damac 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Have to second what Damac has said. Additionally I don't think you help your credibility by accusing everyone who reverts your (heavily RSF biased) edits of being PSF supporters. Neither do you do yourself any favours by making ridiculous allegations like asserting that wikipedia is on the PSF payroll. The article certainly could be improved but any edits should aim for a Neutral viewpoint. The fact that you continually removed the section about Portlaoise prison (something which is well documented fact) suggests that as Damac says, you simply want to replace the article with a piece of RSF propaganda rather than a neutral piece. Why not sign up for an account and provide justifications for any edits you make? You will have a lot more credibility then as any edits which duplicate your past efforts ("RSF = good, everyone else = PSF agents") are likely to be shortlived. Valenciano 22:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought I gave plenty of space to pointing out the propagandist methods used by the article writer - the constantly sneering tone not least. I dont know how you could possibly edit this article to give a balanced view as it gives an unremitingly hostile and biased view of RSF from beginning to end. I think I have pointed this out to the satisfaction of any reasonable reader. I admit that my edits were a bit tongue in cheek - but that is because when I read the article first ( I am obviously new to Wikipedia) and had read that these articles can be edited by anyone who want to, I thought the article was some kind of PSF joke - its so far from any objective reality and apes the standard PSF propaganda to a word. The reason why I didnt comment on the CIRA section is that this is supposed to be an article on RSF. There is a seperate article on CIRA. The reports on Portlaoise belong there. By the way who are the Conty IRA? As for minority positions - I might remind you that believing that the Earth was round and that the Sun didnt revolve around the Earth were once distinctly minority positions - it didnt make them any less true.--Donnchadh 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is no "one" author of the piece. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you check the history of the article in question, you'll see that numerous people have contributed information to the article. I accept that some of the language added by a particular user - and you can find out who added "apostolic succession" if you check the history - is not appropriate. However, attempts to improve the article have been made difficult by RSF acolytes attempting to force their POV in the article. But having said that, RSF does not shy from using archaic language to justify the party's position - we have the "prophetic shock minority", etc.
The information on the Portlaoise prisoners is relevant as it led to the resignation en masse of RSF cumainn in Limerick and the reorganisation of the party in the city as announced in Saoirse this month.
And you know full well who the Conty IRA is; you're the one after all who goes around calling a party universally known as Sinn Féin as PSF.
Comparing republican legitimitism with scientific progress is outright ridiculous. But the analogy is not totally misplaced as RSF and its supporters more resemble flatearthers than the likes of Gallileo.--Damac 06:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Damac, "RSF and its supporters more resemble flatearthers than the likes of Gallileo" well at least your not pretending to have any kind of objective perspective. Its no wonder this article is so poor and such an abuse of honest people who look up Republican Sinn Fein in Wikipedia. I object to the use of childish names like "Conty IRA" the way I object to childish names like "provos." I use the words Provisional Sinn Fein because it is ridiculous to reserve the name Sinn Fein for a party which has turned its back on the central policy of Sinn Fein until 1986. Also because, as I have explained above, Gerry Adams broke the Sinn Fein constitution and barred himself from membership by pressing forward a motion that was banned according to the existing constitution. It is not a childish or pejorative name. It was once a very proud and noble name signifying resistance to Imperial aggression all over the world. Indeed, according to your logic, Ruiri O Bradaigh founded PSF. According to any logic he was PSF president for many years. As for RSF point of view, since the whole article is written from someone's point of view, the inclusion of some RSF point of view (without the narrators snide remarks) would at least add a little balance. Its funny that at every point where the PSF and the RSF world view seperate, its always the PSF view which is presented in this article as objective fact. I dont know who in RSF used the words "prophetic shock minority", but its not unusual for political activists, of any party, to use colourful language. That dosnt give the writer of an encyclopedia entry the right to pepper his article with the same kind of hyperbole. If you feel the information on the CIRA is relevant then write it in terms of its influence on the party. To just tack it on at the end, under a seperate heading, as a piece of information split from its context, is just plain lazyness. I will also point out again that putting all the history of Sinn Fein into the PSF page and not into the RSF page, shows your bias towards PSF, and gives the false impression that the actions of Ruiri O Bradaigh in 1970 were somehow more ligitimate than his actions in 1986. If you believe this to be true, Im sure we would all love to hear your reasoning. If you are really interested in amending this article, I have pointed out several errors above that have nothing to do with POV. I would do it but it seems I am barred. --Donnchadh 11:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


This is a talk page, not an article so terms such as Conty IRA should not be seen as impinging on Wikipedia's credibility. And I'll also remind you that it was yourself you brought in the silly false science argument - my response was in jest to that.
If you doubt my ability to write on republican matters, please consult the article on Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and a number of other republican leaders, which I wrote. A visit might be worthwhile as it might help you learn how to spell the name of your great leader.
The "prophetic shock minority" comment is the core message displayed on the RSF webpage [1] and was uttered by Seán Ó Brádaigh. The party sees itself as a minority movement and that fact is reflected accurately in the article here. And I can't really see how you can get upset at terms like "apostolic succession" when a leading RSFer goes on about "prophetic minorities"!
Yes, Sinn Féin has a glorious history - just as long as you ignore the anti-Semitic nonsense that Sceilig used to come out with in the 1930s as president of Sinn Féin.
I'd agree with you to a point, and this has been proposed but not followed through (Wikipedia is a work in progress, not something written in stone), that the history of Sinn Féin be extracted from the current SF article and put in an article of its own. Something similar has been done for the IRA under its various guises.
You're more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia; you're certainly not barred. Why don't you find something else to write about or another article to edit in order to learn the ropes and in due course you can return here and help write a neutral article on RSF. --Damac 12:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, let's look at some of the claims that were made as fact by the anonymous IP User:159.134.128.58 (was this you Donnchadh?):
    1. "other republicans...have already surrendered to British rule." — highly POV.
    2. "the cause of the conflict is British occupation" — to put it mildly, this is not universally accepted!
    3. referring to the Republic of Ireland as the "Irish Free State" — anachronistic.
    4. "Provisional Sinn Féin split from Republican Sinn Féin, and not the other way round" — Provisional Sinn Féin won the vote on abstentionism, they retained most of the members and the registered electoral name "Sinn Féin", and the RSF supporters physically walked out of the 1986 ard fheis. Therefore it's hard to see how PSF could be described as the splinter in this situation.
(For what it's worth, I don't support either RSF or PSF).Demiurge 12:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I don’t know if my “science argument” was so silly and false. What is regarded as truth in science is also relative to perspective. Generally, in politics it’s the winners perspective that is promoted as truth, and who wins today may well loose tomorrow. Id have to say Damac that checking an opponent’s spelling is really a sign of desparation. It’s a pitty that spelling wasn’t the only problem with this article. Your use of the term “Conty IRA” is, of course, not in the article itself, but it says a lot about the mentality and beliefs that you seem to have carried into the article. You say “And I can't really see how you can get upset at terms like "apostolic succession" when a leading RSFer goes on about "prophetic minorities!"” It’s a pitty you don’t see that there must be a difference between the function, methods and language of a political activist and those of the writer of an encyclopedia article. Regarding your assertion that PSF are universally known as Sinn Féin, I think any newspaper owned by Tony O'Reilly would dissagree with you, though their objection to giving PSF this exclusive honour is obviously different to mine. As for my practising on other articles, Id have to say that if they are all so lazy minded, inaccurate and propagandising as this one the result will be the same. And, please, give your ego a little rest, I have read your article on Ruirí Ó Brádaigh, it really is a lot better than this one.--Donnchadh 13:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


· OK, let's look at some of the claims that were made as fact by the anonymous IP User:159.134.128.58 (was this you Donnchadh?):

Yes, Demiurge, that was me, I didn’t know how to regester at the time. As I already said my edits were a bit tongue in cheek because I thought the whole page was PSF’s idea of a joke. But, OK lets look at the claims as you list them:

1. "other republicans...have already surrendered to British rule." — highly POV.

PSF have accepted British rule in Ireland and accepted that British law in Ireland is legitimate. They have destroyed their weapons, implying that the British forces are the legitimate security forces. The traditional Republican view since 1916 is that the 32 county Irish Republic is the only legitimate authority in Ireland. Adams and McGuinness were part of an army that killed many members of the British forces. At the time, it would seem they believed their actions were legitimate and correct. Usually, when an army, which claims legitimate authority, faces another army which also claims legitimate authority, and, after a long fight, that army admits that it is their opponents who are the legitimate authority and destroy their weapons, we say that army has surrendered.

2. "the cause of the conflict is British occupation" — to put it mildly, this is not universally accepted!

I think most people accept that if the British had not invaded Ireland this would never be happening.

3. referring to the Republic of Ireland as the "Irish Free State" — anachronistic.

Anachronism has nothing to do with it – if we believe the 32 county Republic exists and remains the legitimate authority, how can the 26 county state be The Republic of Ireland. Besides you only have to look at the behavior of the 26 county state to see it has nothing to do with the Republic proclamed in 1916.


4. "Provisional Sinn Féin split from Republican Sinn Féin, and not the other way round" — Provisional Sinn Féin won the vote on abstentionism, they retained most of the members and the registered electoral name "Sinn Féin", and the RSF supporters physically walked out of the 1986 ard fheis. Therefore it's hard to see how PSF could be described as the splinter in this situation.

I really have answered this at least twice already. If you accept PSF was an organisation with a consitiution,and therefore an organisation capable of conducting a vote, you must accept that the membership must abide by the rules of the constitution. At the 1986 Ard Fheis there was an article in the constitution, I cant remember the number of the article now, its easy to look up, which barred anyone from membership of PSF who even discussed entering Leinster House. Before Adams put forward his proposal to enter Leinster House he was obliged to change the article banning such a proposal. He did not do so and therefore banned himself from Sinn Féin membership. Of course, this is a legal argument, none the less valid for that. I could also reproduce wanton lies Adams and McGuinness told the Ard Fheis to sway the vote – like for example that they would never enter Stormont. I accept the the word “splinter” is not a good one – but as I said, it was tongue in cheek.--Donnchadh 13:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • According to [2] the relevant articles were in fact amended by the 1986 ard fheis. Demiurge 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, Donnchadh, you've made your point, or have at least tried to. You're an RSF supporter and believe that the dead generations (and a minority of those) have more right to Irish sovereignty than the living generations. I suggest that if you want to engage in debates on the Second Dáil and Tom Maguire etc., then take your arguments to http://www.politics.ie. There are plenty of people over there who'd love to hear from you over there. Or, if you'd prefer to chat with like-minded people, then head on off to http://admin2.7.forumer.com. Unless you're going to make some kind of worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia, I'm not going to feed your trolling any longer. Regards. --Damac 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a troll is as lazy and innaccurate as everything else you have contributed so far. Specially when my contribution is, by now, at least three times as long as the origional article, and at least gives someone wanting to know something about RSF something to go on.--Donnchadh 13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Demiurge, I find you attitude so much more helpful and constructive than Damac’s. If you look at the wording of Resolution 162, section a recommends taking places in Leinster House:

“THAT this Ard-Fheis drops its abstentionist attitude to Leinster House. Successful Sinn Fein parliamentary candidates in 26-County elections:

a. Shall attend Leinster House as directed by the Ard Chomhairle

This is still an illegal recommendation as Resolution 162 has still not been passed. Only in section b does the motion propose a change to section 1b of the constitution:

To accommodate this change, the Constitution and Rules be amended as follows:

That Section 1b of the Constitution be amended to read:

"b. No person who is a member of any political party organisation or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who, if elected, intend taking part in the proceedings of the Westminster or partitionist 6-County parliaments or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions, shall be admitted to membership or allowed to retain membership."

I think it is obvious that it is impossible to change section 1b of the constitution and recommend entering Leinster House in the same proposal. Until the proposal is passed, those who recommend entering Leinster House in Proposal 162, have banned themselves from membership of Sinn Féin. And how could the proposal be passed when everyone who supports it have banned themselves from voting.--Donnchadh 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • So by your logic it's impossible for the Sinn Féin constitution to ever be amended, as anyone who wants to change it automatically disqualifies themselves from voting! Demiurge 14:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, we won't mention the fact that the constitution and name of Sinn Féin was hijacked in 1917. Founded as a dual monarchist party, it became an outright republican one over one weekend, and I'm sure the rules and objects of the existing organisation were bent at the time. If RSF is so upset at the rules of the organisation being broken, then it should take its case to the courts, as SF did decades ago in the Sinn Féin Funds case.
Still, though, one would think that your average SF supporter in 1986 would have been so outraged at the Adams and Co. for "breaking" the constitution that they would have a) either voted against the amendment, or b) walked out the door with RUAIRÍ Ó Brádaigh. Fact is that they didn't. Fact is that the Provos have gone from political strength to strength since. Fact is that RSF have lost the one county councillor and one urban councillor in the 26 counties they had since. Fact is that Dublin RSF didn't even run a candidate in the last local elections.--Damac 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Please Demiurge, think about what you are saying. If Adams wanted to enter Leinster House, and stay within the rules of the party there was a simple procedure to go through. First he had to get a resolution passed by majority vote to amend Section 1b of the Sinn Féin constitution. When this was done he could have quite legally proposed to enter Leinster House, or any where else for that matter. As it happened he put himself and the rest of his supporters outside the party. They continued on, of course, but not as the same party. --Donnchadh 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • How was he supposed to amend Section 1b without the intention of entering Leinster House? Was he just going to amend it for the sake of it? Really, you're just arguing about how many Provos can dance on the head of a pin. There was a vote; your side lost; deal with it. Demiurge 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here Donnchadh. From a purely legalistic and academic point of view you may be right though I doubt it. Even if you are, are you seriously trying to imply that the same delegates who overwhelmingly voted to enter Leinster House would , if asked, have voted to make it impossible to discuss the very issue which they approved?! It's hardly a credible or tenable theory. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority were in favour, opponents walked out (they probably wouldve walked out anyway - read Ruairi O’Bradaigh's speech and the main thing that seems to irk him is entering Leinster House.) Consequently, Adam's section gained ownership of the name with the result that today, rightly or wrongly Adam's Sinn Fein are regarded by the vast majority of political parties and media institutions as THE Sinn Fein. Wikipedia simply reflects that viewpoint. Valenciano 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Damac – I thought you werent going to feed my “trolling” any more. That was another gem from you, considering that it was me that started the thread in the first place, and I have hardly tried to distract the discussion from my central point. Which court exactly do you suggest RSF take its case to? Its one thing for PSF to go pleading to British and Free State courts, but I don’t see RSF doing it. And there you go with “provos” again. How are you sure the rules of Sinn Féin were broken in 1917? I never heard of it. Maybe you can add it to the new pre 1970 Sinn Féin page if you ever get around to doing it. Talking about those who didn’t walk out of the Ard Fheis in 1986, I’d say, in hind sight, a lot of them wished they had. Popularity at the polls, when the price of that popularity is disgarding what you stood for in the first place is a very hollow victory.--Donnchadh 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was actually addressing Demiurge, not yourself.
The same court - a Free State one - that ruled on the Sinn Fein Funds case in the 1930s and 40s could rule on the issue - SF at the time recognised the court for that specific purpose. What's different now?
It's not for me to lecture you on the history of a movement you claim to support. The 1917 Ard Fheis saw a wholesale takeover of the name of SF and a complete overhaul of every political principal that the pre-1917 SF stood for. That's secondary school textbook stuff. Even your average republican website - RSF included - has plenty of information on that.
"hollow victory" - your subjective opinion but not necessarily objective fact.--Damac 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


"From a purely legalistic and academic point of view you may be right though I doubt it" It seems, Valenciano, that your logic is telling you that I am right, but you are pulling back from the "apalling vista" of the implications. Rules and constitutions have a binding effect on human organisations or they are completely without a point and we have anarchy and the rule of the biggest ego. Without a doubt those who voted for entering Leinster House would also have voted to change section 1b, if the change had been done properly. As it happens they just voted themselves out of the party on a legal technicality. As for The Sinn Féin? I think everyone knows that the kind of people who would have joined Sinn Féin in the 1930's and 40's as opposed to Fianna Fáil are the same kind of people who join RSF today as opposed to PSF. And Damac, you said you were sure the Sinn Féin rules had been broken in 1917 during the "wholesale takeover of the name of SF and a complete overhaul of every political principal that the pre-1917 SF stood for." Facts please? If the rules were not broken then the changes were valid, just as the changes by Adams would have been valid in 1986 if he had not expelled himself and his supporters from the party and from voting. --Donnchadh 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Donnchadh, you seem to base your whole arguement on the fact that you believe the 1986 motion 162 was in your eyes ilegal under the constitution, but you choose to ignore the fact that in 1983 at the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis a motion was passed - and supported by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh - to change the Sinn Féin Constitution so that:
"no aspect of the constitution and rules be closed to discussion"
this was done to enable the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in 1983 to debate a motion, to allow Sinn Féin candidates to stand and take seats if elected to the European Parliament a motion that was also supported by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh.
It should be noted also that the last sentence of Sinn Féin constitution reads:
"Any alterations or amendments to the foregoing constitution shall require a supporting vote of not less than two-thirds of the duly elected delegates present at the Ard-Fheis."
So is it your arguement that you reject the 1983 motion, as this enabled the debate in 1986 that change the constitution to allow Sinn Féin to stand and take seats in leinster house to take place. Its about time RSF realised that the facts don't support their version of history.--padraig3uk 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Another gem from Wikipedia:

“According to RSF, those delegates who voted to participate in Dáil Éireann had by their vote left the party, leaving RSF as the only legitimate Sinn Féin[4]. This claim is invalid as the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in 1983 a motion was passed to change the Sinn Féin Constitution so that: "no aspect of the constitution and rules be closed to discussion" this was done to enable the Ard Fheis in 1983 to debate a motion, to allow Sinn Fein candidates to stand and take seats if elected to the European Parliament.”

This is a funny statement considering that Gerry Adam’s Resolution 162 in 1986 included the following:

That Section 1b of the Constitution be amended to read:

"b. No person who is a member of any political party organisation or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who, if elected, intend taking part in the proceedings of the Westminster or partitionist 6-County parliaments or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions, shall be admitted to membership or allowed to retain membership." --Donnchadh 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Padraig3uk, I see your point though, I will look into it in more detail. Its hard to believe, though, that both Ruirí Ó Brádaigh and Gerry Adams were so deluded in 1986 that they both believed that section 1b of the constitution still existed, if it had already been vitiated in 1983.--Donnchadh 13:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Padraig3uk, could you give me the resolution number you are referring to from 1983,as you will agree, just inserting a quotation with no reference has very little credibility, thanks--Donnchadh 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So far I have been unable to locate this line "no aspect of the constitution and rules be closed to discussion" in any of the motions passed during the PSF Ard Fheis 1983. Neither have I been able to locate any reference or allusion to it anywhere except in wikipedia. I have spoken to a member who was present at the 1983 Ard Fheis and he couldnt recall any such motion - which would have been sure to be controversial enough to be memorable. Are you sure your not thinking of an Official Sinn Féin Ard Fheis? Again, Padraig3uk, please supply your reference so your claim can be verified. --Donnchadh 14:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was an delegate to Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, from around 1978 to 1988 and was present and supported the motion passed in 1983, as it was required to enable us to debate the issue of party candidates being able to take seats in the EU if elected, it was also passed that the party would register as a political party in Dublin to enable the candidates to carry the party name on ballot paper for these election, rather then having to change their names by deed poll to include Sinn Féin, this was also supported by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, a fact that he conviently forgot in 1986 when it didn't suit his arguement then. Section 1b, refered to members of Sinn Féin giving support to or endorsing an candidate standing in election for either Leinster house, Stormont or Westminster, and only applied if a party member was to endorse such a candidate at election time, it didn't exclude the party members discussing the issue of changing the constitution to alter or remove that section.--padraig3uk 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While we wait for Padraig's reference, I would like to point out that from a legal point of view this is still a weak argument. Section 1b was still operative in 1986, its wording was: "No person....who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions, shall be admitted to membership or allowed to retain membership." The line "no aspect of the constitution and rules be closed to discussion" would seem, at first glance, to conflict with section 1b. There is, however, a substantial difference between "discussing" the the rule barring the taking of seats in Leinster House (an aspect of the constitution and rules) and formally "approving" or "supporting" the "candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions." For example there are regular conferences on pedophilia, where pedophilia is discussed without any of the delegates supporting pedophilia or approving of it. Its clear that if this line allowing the discussion of any aspect of the constitution was indeed adopted, it did not, in any way, infringe on or vitiate Section 1b (which was still recognised by Adams himself in 1986 to the point that he proposed amending it to continue its effect in regard to Stormont and Westminster only.) The only purpose there could have been to adopting such a line emphatically allowing the discussion of any aspect of the constitution would have been to prevent an overly restrictive interpretation of Section 1b. At the very least the new paragraph, in the Republican Sinn Féin article, claiming to vindicate Adams actions in 1986 should be removed because 1) No reference has been given to verify the claim 2) Even if such a motion was adopted in 1983, it did not conflict with section 1b, or infringe on its content or effect.--Donnchadh 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See my answer to this above--padraig3uk 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pádraig I have answered you at length below but every time I try to answer your assertions Damac is there, within minutes, to delete my answers. You can see below there is quite a litter of censorship.--Donnchadh 11:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Donnchadh, there is no censorship, just provide links like any normal person. --Ryano 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Donnchadh, I read through the history of this page and the posts by you that were removed, are posts you posted in politics.ie under the name Cael and just cut and pasted into here, you failed to continue that debate there, then you tried to restart a new thread to rehash the same debate all over again, then when this was locked and a redirect notice inserted directing it back to the original thread, you seem to have given up, you have failed to produce any evidence to prove your claims, so give up, your convincing no-one.--padraig3uk 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to post personal opinions presented as fact. If you want to argue the ins and outs of the 1986, go back to politics.ie where POV is welcomed and where you already spent a whole weekend debating it, with many of the same people.--Damac 11:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello comrades, nice to meet you all here on a break from Politics.ie Isnt it funny how pro PSF fanatics, who shout down any criticism whatsoever of PSF on Politics.ie can turn into neutral encyclopedists when they click on Wikipedia. Wonders will never cease.--Donnchadh 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Donnchadh/Cael, the only pro-Sinn Fein person in this discussion here is me, and as for your accertion that anyone that critises SF in politics.ie is shouted down that is nonsense, you have spent the past weekend pushing this issue there and nobody has shouted you down or prevented you from doing so. In fact people where willing to debate the issue with you, yet you failed to produce any evidence to support your theories on this issue, except what you believe, that is fair enough in a debate on politics.ie, but on an Wiki such as this POV is not acceptable unless you can prove it to be fact, which you have failed to do.--padraig3uk 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pádraig, you are far from the only PSF supporter here, but at least your comrades on this page, in their politics.ie incarnations cannot just delete any argument which dosnt comply with the PSF party line as they can do here. You say I failed to produce any evidence. Genuine wikipedia users reading this page might wonder why ten times the amount of material than appears on the main article page has all been consigned to the "History" section. Furtunately they can still go there and find out what you and your comrades are so desperate to hide. You seem to cast some kind of aspersion on the fact that I use the name Cael (the name of a character from a story from the Fiannaíocht cycle) on Policics.ie and my own name Donnchadh here. I tried to join Politics.ie with my own name but did not recieve a confirming e-mail after two attempts. I tried again with the name Cael and was immediately admitted. I find it strange that the head editor here censors my contributions saying that users should only use this page to discuss the contents of wikipedia articles, and yet he does not jump to delete when you and your comrades begin a chat about Politic.ie registration, whos who on Politics.ie and the contents of the debates there. I think "genuine wikipedia users" will draw their own conclusions.--Donnchadh 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


"Users are meant to be discussing edits and articles on talk pages" these are the words of FearÉireann, please take note Pádraig, Damac and the rest of the cadre, we are not here to discuss how we bash each other on Politics.ie--Donnchadh 01:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Éamonn McCann on RSF and Political Legacy of 1916

    • SPAM REMOVED - PLEASE PROVIDE LINKS TO MATERIAL YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF OTHER USERS--Damac 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

--Donnchadh 14:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Short History of Republican Sinn Féin

    • SPAM REMOVED - PLEASE PROVIDE LINKS TO MATERIAL YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF OTHER USERS--Damac 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

--Donnchadh 23:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proclamation of the Republic 1916

    • SPAM REMOVED - PLEASE PROVIDE LINKS TO MATERIAL YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF OTHER USERS--Damac 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnchadh (talk • contribs).

Sorry, but what's the point in this? Could you post links to media stories etc you feel are relevant somehow. Thanks!GiollaUidir 13:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no need for Donnchadh to post media articles here at will. Not only is this wasting space and capacity, but there are copyright issues involved as well. I've removed these, and if he wants to bring this material to other user's attention, then he can provide links to the relevant websites. --Damac 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Rate Hacks on the Delete Button but they contribute nothing of Value

[edit] Personal attack deleted and author blocked

[Particularly vicious personal attack deleted] The person responsible, Donnchadh has been blocked from Wikipedia for twenty-four hours for the attack. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is stopping you [comment responding to the attack now removed above.] from making your point here, you have just ignored the rules. As it says at the bottom of the edit window every time you edit Wikipedia, "Content must not violate any copyright", since every word you type is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License when you click "Save". You cannot just cut and paste other people's work like this without their permission. As GiollaUidir said, just post a link to the article: http://www.google.com. We already have a copy of the proclamation anyway, at Wikisource, so posting another full copy wastes space and puts unnecessary strain on our databases. As does clicking save repeatedly instead of using the preview function. --Kwekubo 19:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis and the Unbroken Continuity of Sinn Féin Poblachtach since 1905

++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)

[removed personal attack again] by Donnchadh The user has received a final warning for it. If he reinserts it in that form he will be blocked (again) from editing Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Some clarification on my use of "genuine" Wikipedia users. What this refers to are registered contributors to Wikipedia, not anonymous editors. Hope that clarifies matters.--Damac 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact Damac people who display an IP address are a lot less anonymous than some of the people around here who use fake names. And its strange how everyone who regesters and becomes a "genuine wikipedia user" suddenly knows exactly what should be included on the RSF article. Im wondering how material which I have offered since regestering, perhaps ten times more material than appears in the main article, has all been censored?--Donnchadh 11:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinn Féin 1986 Ard Fheis post 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 casts doubt on the accuracy of the Wikipedia "Republican Sinn Féin" article. Fortunately readers can review the history of this page by pressing the "History" button.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnchadh (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not a soap box. Users are meant to be discussing edits and articles on talk pages, not their personal views on political parties. Personal arguments cannot feature in articles as that breaches the no original research rule. Please follow WP rules. Soap boxes are not allowed here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Having read the stuff, clearly it cannot be posted here in that form. Please find an alternative forum. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts and figures I give in my composition exactly discuss the accuracy of the information given in the main article. I clearly show that the article is incorrect in several major regards. Not least the assertion that Republican Sinn Féin was founded in 1986. I also clearly show how the vote on Resolution 162 was corrupted by the Adams leadership. At serveral points in this discussion page PSF enthusiasts have made hostile and unsubstantiated assertions in regard to RSF. Why have their contributions not been removed?--Donnchadh 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I might also point out that my composition does not constitute original research, as all the facts and figures I give are widely available in several publications. As for personal views not being admitted, just read the above discussion page, PSF supporters have contributed almost non stop personal views. Also your editor has clearly made a mistake when he give a link to Politics.ie and describes the contents as the "Original Text." The text was not posted on Politics.ie until one and a half hours after it was posted here. The text on Politics.ie differs from the one I posted here as I edited it again after I had posted it here. This site was the first place it was posted and the original text is to be found in in the "History" section of this page. This can easily be checked. --Donnchadh 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact all texts are personal views. One always makes a personal choice on what to include and what to leave out. You choose what nouns, adjectives, verbs to use and who to use them in regard to. There is no such thing as an objective text - all texts are ultimately subjective. One has only to look at the RSF main article page to be convinced of this. The political world view which shaped it is immediately apparent.--Donnchadh 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations where congratulations are due. The new re-write is certainly a huge improvement over the old one. Well done Damac.--Donnchadh 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, excellent new edit, its obvious much of my complaints against you were unfounded. Well done Damac.--Donnchadh 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Damac, since you seem to be the main mover on this page, could I point out to you that Ruirí Ó Brádaigh pushed hard for Sinn Féin to run candidates for the European Parliament at the 1977 Ard Fheis. He was defeted by an allience of Gerry Adams and Daithí Ó Chonaill, who felt that the party would do badly and this would hurt the IRA campaign. My sourse for this is the new biography of Ó Brádaigh by Professor Robert White. A very serious acedemic work of 436 pages which has been meticulously reserched with sixty pages of references and notes. I think this throws considerable doubt on Brian Feeney's assertion that Adams needed to enter the line "that any aspect of the constitution can be discussed" in 1983 so that proposals to run candidates in the European Parliament could be discussed. Id also have to say that the book makes no reference to a ban on "discussion" ever being in the SF constitution. Feeney may well be right about the line being added, but I think it was a kind of trojan horse for the dropping of abstentionism. The addition of the line provoked no objection from abstentionists pricisely because there was no ban on "discussion" in the first place. The ban on "support" and "approval" of entering "partitionist" parliments was unaffected. I would hope that you would consider reflecting these factors in the article. As for the claims I have made of vote rigging, Professor White makes the same claims. I might also say that Ed Moloney, no RSF sycophant, makes the same claims, based on the same figures, in his book, A Secret History of the IRA. It is quite a short article and space would well allow for such considerations, as they were central to the split in 1986.--Donnchadh 23:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Donnchadh, I'm not really the "main mover" on this page, nor am I some kind of chief editor. There are no such positions on Wikipedia; I'm just interested in the topic, that's all. I had contributed very little to it up until last week, and generally confined my interest to preventing POV being added here by members of the party.
I haven't read White's book yet but I'm promised it by a friend. It would be great if you could use it to enhance the Wikipedia article on the book's subject - you could start by adding RÓB's date of birth for example.
The information you refer to doesn't really have a place here. It should be mentioned in the Sinn Féin article by right, and then this article could refer to it.
I mentioned before that there should be a History of Sinn Féin article. I discussed this with other users ages ago and there was consensus there for such a move. I just don't have the time to do it yet but I will propose moving all the pre-1970 material from the existing SF article to the History of SF article. That would allow for a more detailed examination of the history and the current (P)SF.
Another idea would be to write an article on the Sinn Féin 1986 ard fheis. There is already an article by that name on the politics.ie wiki [3]. For these complex issues, seperate articles seems the best way to do it.
Have you seen Irish_republican_legitimatism yet?--Damac 07:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The proplem is that approximately 25% the republican sinn féin page is given over to an explanation of the split. The account given fails the test of logic and the facts. Even if a new article is written which does give the full facts this article will remain weak because its gives an innaccurate account. It seems incredible to me that you cannot see the logical contradiction just by reading Resolution 162. How can you propose amending section 1b. and propose entering leinster house in the same motion? --Donnchadh 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Why is Pádraig trying to censor the 1985 results--Donnchadh 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'am not trying to censor you, the 1985 motion was passed by a majority of the delegates at the Ard Fheis, but failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority to change the constitution, so the figures you quote are incorrect, in fact I think you are giving the figures for a different motion that was discussed in 1985, as the vote on regarding abstentionism as a tactic and not a principle only failed by twenty votes short of a two-thirds majority.--padraig3uk 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pádraig I have given a reference for these results. I could also have given Ed Malony's Secret History of the IRA as reference as he gives the same figures. If you want to change the article you must give a ref for your assertions.--Donnchadh 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Donnchadh, I have given a reference to the information, you are confusing two seperate votes on two different resolutions.--padraig3uk 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Donnchadh, you are giving a reference to Ed Moloney on p292, this is what he says, At the next Ard Fheis a motion declaring abstentionism to be a tactic, not a principle, was Passed, although short of a large enough majority to change the party's constitution. So In future try reading the content before editing articles.--padraig3uk 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If Malony said this then he is mistaken - I have given the actual results. For someone who hates RSF so much you spend a lot of time in this page. Has Gerry ordered you to keep the public disinformed?--Donnchadh 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pádraig, if the pass mark to change the constitution is 75% then how can you say the resolution was passed, when even by your inaccurate figures it did not reach a two thirds majority.--Donnchadh 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought all yous RSF supporters believed Ed Moloneys book was the bible, I have never said I hate RSF, but what I do hate is revisionism when it comes to history. On the point of the 1985 resolution, a motion that achieves a majority of delegates votes is regarded as passed, but as the vote required a change to the constitution it failed the achieve the two-thirds majority required to make that alteration. Which is similar to what happened with the dropping of the Eire Nua policy, the motion to abandon the policy was passed, but it was the following year that it was removed from the constitution as it didn't achieve a two-third majority vote in the first year.
And as I pointed out to you above the figures you are quoting relate to a motion on abstentionism that was before the 1985 Ard Fheis, which failed, there are not the results of the vote on abstentionism being a tactic or principle, which was a different motion, so don't revert the edits I made to correct your error.--padraig3uk 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the ref you give from Ed Malony's book , he does indeed give the sentance you qoute on page 292. But he gives the actual results on page 296: "At the 1985 conference, the year before, the motion seeking to define abstentionism as a tactic and not a principal had been lost by 181 votes to 161; a total of 341 delegates had cast their votes." This total figure should obviously be 342 - perhaps a typing error. So Malony has contradicted himself. In the same page he draws attention to the evidence for massive vote rigging both at the 1986 ard fheis and at the 1998 vote on the GFA. Given the contradicction in the space of a few pages it would be wise to look elsewhere for confirmation of the results. I have also looked at Brian Feeney's SF 100 turbulent years. You claimed earlier that Feeney said that the vote missed the two thirds majority by twenty votes. In fact he does not say this, he says simply that the motion was "defeted" by twenty votes. He does not mention a two thirds majority. Professor White's book which I give as a reference for my figures confirms the results given by Malony, i.e. 181 for and 161 against. As this book is much more rigourous than Malony's book, and his figures tally with Malony's its obvious that Malony was simply incorrect when he said that the vote failed to reach a two thirds majority by twenty votes. Given that twenty votes is the margin given by all sources, and given that 20 votes is the margin given in the actual figures quoted, the actual figures must hold the most weight. Therefore I am re-editing the page to reflect this. Hopefully you will not re-edit without supplying extra sources.--Donnchadh 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist organisation?

I don't think it's particularly useful to include this organisation in the Category:Designated terrorist organizations for the one reason that only one state (the US) actually believes it to be so. RSF is openly active in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland, Scotland and England). It is not an underground organsation in any of these countries, and the legitimate authorities of these states do not designate RSF as terrorist. Therefore, I see no reason why the definitions of one state must apply to Wikipedia. I'm removing RSF from this category and will bring the matter to a higher level should User:Weggie persist in forcing this categorisation.--Damac 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RSF is barred from elections in the UK due to it's refusal to renounce violence so the above info is false - cat reinstated as it is technically correctWeggie 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
RSF is not "barred" as such. It refuses to take what they call a "political test oath" so have excluded themselves. If they signed the required piece of paper tomorrow, they could participate in any election it liked in the UK. Whatever the case, this has no bearing on the point I raised, namely that Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the categorisations of one government over another. Should we also define George Bush as a Satan now that President Chavez has declared him to be one?--Damac 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if I agree with you Weggie, because they do not "renounce violence" that does not make them a terrorist organisations. What terrorist acts have RSF carried out? Vintagekits 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The list of proscribed terrorist orgs is different in every county. This article is clear about where RSF is proscribed. This cat is not defining RSF as 'terrorist' merely recording the fact the the US State Dept. has defined this org as as a terrorist org. I can't see how we can come up with rules about which countries designations apply to which org? Weggie 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it perhaps we could do with a specific cat for orgs designated by the USA? Only a limited range of nations have such lists so we could be specific here Weggie 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think our focus should be on how the organisations in question are viewed in the territories where they are primarily active, and pay less attention to what other governments have to say on the matter. In this specific case, the article should mention how RSF is seen in Ireland and the UK and it should be categorised according to that perception. Of course, the article should mention the fact that it is listed by the State Departments as being "terrorist", but we should stress that this is not a widely held view in Ireland. In fact, the categorisation is entirely misleading as it gives the uninformed reader the impression that the authorities in Dublin and Belfast are allowing a terrorist organisation operate openly and maintain offices and telephone numbers.
To be honest, I don't see the point in forcing RSF into a category containing the word "terrorist". It is not helpful at all.--Damac 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It is helpful to the uninformed reader to have all information about an organisation. Then they can inform themselves by reading the body of the article to make up their own mind. Adding a cat doesn't force the reader into any conclusions. Weggie 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Should be perhaps then categorise the Holocaust as hoax because some people (Irving) and states (Iran) say so?
All the relevant information is contained in the article. Adding a category like this is not helpful at all. --Damac 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Surely this is a prime example of when WP:Common Sense should be applied? Because the US has mistakenly categorised a Political Party as being terrorists does not mean that it should be repeated on here. (Damac puts it better ^^) GiollaUidir 11:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You need to do your research as to the reason the US has classified the org under terrorist legislation. It is a very specific reason. I'm sure you can work it out, to say it is a 'mistake' shows a lack of understanding of the issue Weggie 12:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
To quote the reasons from the FTO website: "CIRA's aliases, Continuity Army Council and Republican Sinn Fein, were also included in its FTO designation."

RSF is not an alias of the CIRA, the US is quite obviously mistaken.GiollaUidir 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep trying - try Hansard Weggie 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What possible relevance has Hansard got to the US DTO list?? It is you that is maintaining that the US is correct, despite their website being quite clearly mistaken, I suggest you provide the proof that RSF is infact a "terrorist" organisation.GiollaUidir 10:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


The views of the USA government are its alone, this is a worldwide wiki therefore this category and Category:Former designated terrorist organizations should be removed from wikipedia.--padraig3uk 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Seán1905 is a sockpuppet of Donnchadh otherwise known as Cael, he is constantly trying in impose RSF POV as fact into this article.--padraig3uk 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Padraig3uk otherwise Padraig is a member of Provisional Sinn Féin he edits on wiki politics.ie and causes the same problems there.

The Republican Sinn Féin page that i have added is correct just as the Provisional Sinn Fein page is. Yes both contents are disputed. But I do not change the Provisional Sinn Fein page to force an opinion on people. Padraig is always forcing his PSF POV onto the RSF page. This should stop.

Seán1905

Cael or Donnchadh, you had this debate last year on this article, and your nonsense was rejected then, so why do you think it is acceptable now.--padraig3uk 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Number one its the truth. If you don't agree with the history of SF (RSF) ok. I don't agree with your version of SF (PSF). I do not go changing the disputed content of your parties alleged history (you r a member of (P)SF). So agree to differ and we can all do better things with our time.Seán1905 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cael, what are you trying to achieve here, your edits were disputed and reverted the last time as POV, you also tried to vandalise the Sinn Féin article as well, which was also reverted by another user for vandalism. This isn't a game between you and me, although you see it that way, its about you posting RSF POV and propaganda.--padraig3uk 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way I am neither of the two persons you seem so caught up on. Unlike you I am not a member of either of the two disputed parties. So as I said, "Number one its the truth. If you don't agree with the history of SF (RSF) ok. I don't agree with your version of SF (PSF). I do not go changing the disputed content of your parties alleged history (you r a member of (P)SF). So agree to differ and we can all do better things with our time." True this is not a game so grow up and agree to differ.Seán1905 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've currently protected this page from editing until this dispute can be resolved -- before you complain, please note that the alternative was blocking two or three of you for blatant WP:3RR violation. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the dispute resolution process, and work together to achieve consensus. Thank you. Luna Santin 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

Padraig, I am neither of the persons you think I am. Nor am I a member of either RSF or PSF. You on the other hand are a member of PSF.

So as I said earlier, If you don't agree with the history of SF (RSF) ok. I don't agree with your version of SF (PSF). I do not go changing the disputed content of your parties alleged history (you are a member of (P)SF). So agree to differ and we can all do better things with our time.

Put back my RSF content and at the top of each page (RSF & PSF) a note can be added saying that there is a dispute regarding who is 'Sinn Féin' since the split in 1986. I think that is fair and reasonable, as up to that point both parties were one and the same.Seán1905 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your RSF content is POV, this is a encyclopedia not a party propaganda sheet, why where you removing facts from the local election results for the candidates, why where you vandalising the infobox by altering the content to the extent that it failed to display properly. Why are you constanstly refering to Sinn Féin as Provisional Sinn Féin when you know no such party exists and that Sinn Féin have never used that title. The name of Republican Sinn Féin is the name adopted by that party in 1986 when it split from Sinn Féin the party that legaly holds that name and is register as such in Ireland. Learn what NPOV means.--padraig3uk 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Padraig NO1 you are the one giving the Provisional SF POV. My POV is simply a fact which merits inclusion in this encyclopedia. As Sinn Féin (Poblachtach) do not recognise either of the partitioned states in Ireland they are not registered as a political party. Regarding (Provisional) Sinn Féin, I quote, "Disgusted by what they saw as the incompetence of the leadership, the traditionalists led by Seán Mac Stíofáin and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh split from the IRA and Sinn Féin to form the Provisional IRA and its political wing Provisional Sinn Féin (both bodies were known as 'provisional' after the formation of a 'provisional' army council by the rebels). The remainder of the party became known as Official Sinn Féin." - this is according to wiki on Sinn Féin. I must agree with you Sinn Féin never used the title 'Provisional' and later added 'Official', but they ceased to exist under that name in 1977 and are now known as the Workers Party.

So both 'Provisional' and 'Republican' can lay claim to the name 'Sinn Féin'. So up 1986 we agree. Now I put it to the moderators to put back my RSF content and at the top of each page (RSF & PSF) a note can be added saying that there is a dispute regarding who is 'Sinn Féin' since the split in 1986. I think that is fair and reasonable, as up to that point both parties were one and the same. So there again fair and reasonable.Seán1905 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can User:81.129.243.76 stop inserting POV into this article, this is not a RSF propaganda sheet.--padraig3uk 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Editprotected}}

This party is contesting the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007. As part of the general coverage of these elections, this page needs to be unprotected to allow credible users add information on the party's candidates.--Damac 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request granted (although WP:RfP would have been the forum for this). The protection was set to expire today anyway. Sandstein 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Turns out it had already expired. Sandstein 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublican_Sinn_F%C3%A9in_fa08.html"