Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 13 December 2009

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with the guideline, and discuss objections at the relevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sinn Féin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sinn Féin at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Political Parties

It is requested that one or more audio files demonstrating correct pronunciation of this article's title be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requested recordings for more on this request.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 28, 2004 and November 28, 2006.

Off-topic?

The "Links with the IRA" section seems to veer off-topic. I am unsure where the paragraph beginning "The robbery of £26.5 million from the Northern Bank in Belfast in December 2004 further scuppered chances of a deal" belongs in the article, but as the paragraphs before it do not introduce any "deal" I do not believe it belongs there? O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try then

The NYT does not support the assertion that "it has been distancing itself from the IRA`s traditional methods since 2001", it would only support the fact that they asked the IRA to disarm in 2001, everything else is conclusions being based upon that source, especially as other "distancing" had taken place in the past. Equally as that information was not covered in the article body, it did not belong in the lead. Does that sound about right? O Fenian (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. On a related issue I think Domer made the point before that the political views section could do with a rewrite to reflect changing developments over the years and I agree since this seems a relatively non-controversial point as such developments happen in all parties. For example on Europe SF policy has changed? Provided the sourcing is okay and it's not presented in a POVish "SF betraying traditional principles way" then a rewrite would be in order as the current bullet point format looks a bit crap. Valenciano (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Foundation

I see two nationalist editors are trying to open up the battle about foundation again. Domer48 and his colleague BigDunc are trying to claim in the infobox that the current SF party was founded in 1905, and not in 1970. This was dealt with before with compromise text in the lead stating that the party was formed in 1970, but traces its origins back to 1905. The infobox should reflect this (as it did prior to the recent edits). It is Provisional POV to be claiming that the current party is the same as the 1905 party and was not founded in 1970 after the split. As discussed at length previously, this whole article needs to be changed to get rid of the Provisional POV - the sections about SF pre-1970 need to come out and go into the "History of SF" article, which needs to be extended up to 1970. In short, the SF articles need to mirror the IRA articles. Mooretwin (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Suppose what would you expect from a loyalist. BigDunc 14:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange and unhelpful comment. I'm not sure what one would expect from a "loyalist" or why it would be relevant. I doubt that a "loyalist" would have much interest in the issue. Mooretwin (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh but you do. BigDunc 16:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Coming in as uninvolved admin (I have no opinion on the content of this article). However, to help make talkpage discussions more productive, let's please keep comments focused on the article, not the contributors, thanks. --Elonka 17:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added three references to this information now, so the editor above can take their accusations and POV comments to a chat room because this is not the place for them. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP articles are supposed to be written from a NPOV. As you well know, there are dozens of sources explaining the foundation of the current party in 1970. This has been discussed before. You ought to try to look at things from an objective perspective and not that of an Irish nationalist (and, in this case, a Provisional republican one). Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the sources then! No sources = No discussion! Try reading the article if you have trouble finding sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources noted above, but more can be provided. Remember: NPOV. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Last time, provide a source which contradicts the ones I've added! --Domer48_'fenian' 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cain says "The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF." The BBC say "The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein, although it derives its name from an organisation founded by Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith in 1905." Clearly they are saying two different things here, one say the origional SF party split into PSF and OSF, while the BBC says PSF split from OSF? But the BBC says the party was founded in 1905 here. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Either way, they both say that the current party (the subject of this article) was formed in 1970. Please restore the date and the sources to the infobox. Then we can move on to reorient this article and the History of SF article as per previous discussions. Mooretwin (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No they don't! Now we have three detailed histories of the party giving its 100 year history, and not contradictory sound bites! --Domer48_'fenian' 11:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. You quoted yourself above: CAIN - "The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 ..." and BBC - "The modern party was founded in 1970 ...". Just because people have written histories about the entire SF movement from 1905 doesn't mean that the Provisional version of the party wasn't founded in 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the contradictions in the sources does not help your cause at all! The fact that the BBC offers two totally different accounts says a lot. Now, three detailed, subject pacific, histories on the party can not be considered equal to contradictory sound bites. That you could even suggest that Kevin Rafter and Brian Feeney have written histories about the entire SF movement from 1905 offreing a Provisional version of history is pathetic. Every source you don't like is in your opinion either Nationalist/Republican, and the same goes for editors on the project! Now I don't have to assume good faith with you at all, and I don't have to feed your delusions. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources aren't contradictory: they both say the party was formed in 1970. You've quoted them yourself. You quote titles of ("subject pacific") books, but conveniently fail to say what those books say happened in 1970. No-one has said that the books offer a Provisional version of history. I have no "likes" or "dislikes" of sources, and I have not described any source as either nationalist or republican. Please stick to discussing the issue, and avoid red herrings. Please revert your edits in the interests of accuracy. Mooretwin (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A Loyalist editor is trying to portray that Adams is the President of Provisional Sinn Fein that is wrong, no such party exists, he is president of Sinn Fein founded in 1905. BigDunc 13:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "loyalist" editor trying to portray Adams as anything. Since you mention it, though, Adams is president of the SF party that split from the 1905 party in 1970, and which was in its early days known as Provisional SF to distinguish it from Official SF. Mooretwin (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the 1905 party after 1970? We know that one section of the party went off and adopted the new title of OSF. We also know that there is no such party as "Provisional SF" not then or now. We know also that the section of the party who did not go off and adopt the title OSF continued to call itself SF as it always had done, and that this is still the same party that Adams is the President of today. Now if editors read any of the three detailed histories of the party giving its 100 year history, and not contradictory sound bites peddled here they would know this. Since the editor has a history of this type of nonsence, call editors and authors Nationalists or Republicans I don't think it helps to feed their delusions.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we have the ridiculous notion that we are "trying to cover a comlicated subject." The party was founded in 1905! Now I know that my appear comlicated to some, but give some credit to the editors who can read. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Once again, we're trying to cover a comlicated subject in one field of an infobox. This is dumb. The party's history is accurately described in the lead and body. Infobox fields are not compulsory, so I've removed it. Problem sorted, so you can find other reasons to snipe at each other. Regarding the HQ, Dublin seems correct to me going by their website. Stu 14:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh! No. I wrote the section of the article titled "1969–1970 Resurgence and "Provisional" / "Official" split" and none of the text has been disputed. This would be difficult I know because of the number of sources used. Therefore to remove the text as you have done, is simply pandering to the delusions of an editor who offers sound bites that contradict each other. We don't pander to opinions or delusions and that is what you have done. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer asks "What happened to the 1905 party after 1970?" and then says: "We know that one section of the party went off and adopted the new title of OSF. We also know that there is no such party as "Provisional SF" not then or now. We know also that the section of the party who did not go off and adopt the title OSF continued to call itself SF as it always had done, and that this is still the same party that Adams is the President of today." This is very wrong, and I can't decide whether it is genuine ignorance or faux misunderstanding in order to propagate a POV.

The answer to his question is that the party split into two factions, each purporting to retain the name SF - to distinguish the two, one (the majority party) became known as Official SF and the other (the minority party) became known as Provisional SF. The latter faction walked out of the party conference and set up its own headquarters and structure, separate from the "official" party, which remained. It is not true, therefore, to say that one "went off and adopted the new title of OSF": this was a name given to it by commentators at the time in the same was as PSF was given to the splitters who were allied to the Provisional IRA. This mirrors exactly what happened with the IRA, and the names correspond. Whether the official name of the current party was or is Provisional SF is not relevant. The official name of the party now known as the Workers' Party was not Official SF either. Nonetheless, this is how it was known. Both parties continue to exist today: Official SF is now called the Workers' Party and Provisional SF retains the SF name. The latter party is the subject of this article.

Domer goes on to say: "Now if editors read any of the three detailed histories of the party giving its 100 year history, and not contradictory sound bites peddled here they would know this." Yet, as we know, he conveniently declines to say what these histories tell us about what happened in 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Paper never refuses ink! I'll not be feeding your delusions. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read the section that Domer admits to have written on the split and stuck a POV tag on it. It's laughably biased to the Provisional side. Mooretwin (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer above says: "That you could even suggest that Kevin Rafter and Brian Feeney have written histories about the entire SF movement from 1905 offreing a Provisional version of history is pathetic." and later "Every source you don't like is in your opinion either Nationalist/Republican, and the same goes for editors on the project! Now if editors read any of the three detailed histories of the party giving its 100 year history" Obviously based on his comments, one of those sources is the Brian Feeney book "A hundred turbulent years..." I have read the book and since Domer obviously sets such store on Feeney's opinions could I draw the attention of him and other interested editors to this section p251, first page of chapter 8 entitled "the years of agitprop" (subtitled "sinn fein backs the war 1970-81) which says "In early 1970 neither the Provisional IRA nor its political mouthpiece Provisional Sinn Fein, had much of an existence outside west Belfast. Its new Dublin-based leaders had almost no followers. There were of course, pockets of support around Ireland where various individuals in the republican movement, emotionally spurred by the events of August 1969, gave their backing to the breakaway group, which as yet had no organisation on the ground" the following page he says: "Others both inside and outside the movement viewed the Provisionals as a dangerous backward looking offshoot from a republican movement that had spent the best part of ten years trying to jettison irredentist violence and rhetoric" So if Feeney is a relevant source why should we ignore the fact that they were called Provisional Sinn Fein by him at the beginning? Why should we ignore the fact that Feeney considers PSF to be a "breakaway" group or an "offshoot"? Over to you Domer. Valenciano (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep! I wrote the section titled 1970s and 1980s also! I think it addresses the issue quite well. Anyone, and I mean anyone who still wants to suggest that there was or is a political party called Provisional Sinn Fein has a serious POV issue thats needs to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Valenciano, that is why Domer has avoided telling us what his "100-year-histories" actually tell us about what happened in 1970. Now, why does Domer, and his colleague Dunc, wish for this article to avoid saying that the party was formed in 1970? Mooretwin (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's disappointing that Domer seems to prefer to edit war than discuss changes here. His point is that there are 3 books with that title. One book is written and commissioned by Sinn Fein themselves and therefore certainly can't be used in support of such a controversial claim. The second, the Feeney book as I've pointed out above directly contradicts Domer's 1905 claim as he describes them as a "breakaway" and "offshoot." The Kevin Rafter book he declines to quote from. So we're left with two sources, one which says 1970 and one which *might* support Domer's analysis.

The solution here is simple, we simply reflect what the sources say, so in cases like this where there is a contradiction we report what the sources say without taking a position on which of them is right or wrong. So to deal with points above the article needs to reflect the facts that

• some sources say the party was formed in 1970
• other sources that the party was formed in 1905
• they were dubbed Provisional Sinn Fein by commentators and authors
• the party itself never used that title

Perhaps as Goodday suggests below, the page could be protected until an agreed version of the lead is agreed? Valenciano (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The section titled 1970s and 1980s addressed this issue, and also points to the slective use of Feeney quotes above to support their POV. This should and will be ignored, with the text being reverted to reflect both the facts and the sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your POV, numerous sources have already been produced on this page which support a 1970 date so your attempt to insert a 1905 date (citing a Sinn Fein commissioned book!) will not work. As for Feeney, when he says that the party was a "breakaway" or an "offshoot" why should we ignore him? You need to deal with sources like that. I repeat my suggestion that you work constructively with editors here rather than cherrypicking sources and edit warring. Also in the interests of NPOV, you are a Sinn Fein member, aren't you? Valenciano (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll not be feeding your delusions and will edit per sources and not your slective use of quotes.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculation about editors' motivations is not helpful to this discussion. Please just keep commentary focused directly on the article, thanks. --Elonka 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Domer, that's the second person on this talk page you've called delusional. Dial it down a bit, that's really making it personal. I've listed the five forms of opening sentence below. In order up to the Valenciano's current version.

1. Sinn Féin (English: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish pronunciation: ) is a political party in Ireland. The current party, led by Gerry Adams, was formed following a split in January 1970 and traces its origins back to the original Sinn Féin party formed in 1905.
2. Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith. The party are currently led by Gerry Adams.
3. Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland, originally founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith. The current party, led by Gerry Adams, was formed following a split in January 1970.
4. Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland, founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, and while the are a number of Parties with origins in Sinn Féin the current party is led by Gerry Adams.
5. Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland, formed following a split in 1970 in the original Sinn Féin party which was founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith. The current party is led by Gerry Adams.

I think 2 definitely has to be ruled out, as it makes no mention of the split. My edit (3) attempts (probably poorly) to reflect the fact that the modern party claim direct lineage from the 1905 party, but qualifies this in the following sentence. I was going to write more, but I just realised it's Friday night and I have better things to do. A Magners or two, and a few episodes of Deadwood to be precise. I notice an IP just reverted in his first ever contribution to Misplaced Pages. Did someone forget to sign in? Stu 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead does not mention the fact that there have been a number of parties with origions to 1905. What makes 1970 different to say 1986? Nothing! There was a protracted leadership challenge in 1970, and the current leadership won out! It's that simple, not only that it's referenced. I'll stop using the word "delusional" if you have a problem with it, and just revert to using WP:OR and WP:SYN to describe the efforts of some editors actions. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a number of parties with origins in 1905, but this article is only about one of them: the one formed in 1970. Why is 1970 different to 1986? It's not really. 1970 was the year when (Provisional) SF split from (what became Official) SF. 1986 was the year when Republican SF split from (Provisional) SF. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is though, there is no such party as (Provisional) SF! There never was! (Provisional) SF as a term was used to differentiate betweet the disputants! Its that simple really. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the party never officially called itself Provisional SF is not a problem as it doesn't alter the fact that it was formed in 1970. It was known in the media as Provisional SF in its early years, and subsequently simply as SF. Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Option 4 looks interesting. However, Domer have you got the citations on the 1970 leadership contest. I'm not really aware at any level of detail as to what happened. If there was a contest and one side one, then its in continuity without qualification. If there was a split then it can reasonably said to require some qualification (although I think the foundation date is clear). --Snowded 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

Ya'll should consider having this article 'protected', until ya'll can come to an agreement on the foundation date. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to re-orient SF articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

My proposal is that the Sinn Féin articles should mirror the IRA articles, since the two organisations are "inextricably linked" as part of the republican movement, and the various splits in the republican movement through the years have been mirrored in both the various SFs and the various IRAs. Therefore:

1. The Irish Republican Army article should correspond with a Sinn Féin (1905-1922) article.
2. The Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) article should correspond with a Sinn Féin (1922-1970) article.
3. The Provisional IRA article should correspond with a Sinn Féin (current party) or the Sinn Féin article on the basis that the current party now attracts this as the common name.
4. The Official IRA article should correspond with the Workers' Party of Ireland article.
5. The Continuity IRA article should correspond with the Republican SF article, etc.

For that to happen, the pre-1970 stuff has to be removed from this article, and the perhaps the History of Sinn Féin article could become the Sinn Féin (1922-1970) article. This article as it stands presents a false impression, namely that the current Sinn Féin party is the sole, uninterrupted and only legitimate successor of the party founded in 1905. The reality, however, is that the current party was formed in 1970 when it split from the 1905 party, which then became known as Official Sinn Féin and later the Workers' Party. The current party was known as Provisional Sinn Féin in its early period to distinguish it from Official Sinn Féin. As Official Sinn Féin evolved into the Workers' Party, Provisional Sinn Féin then came to be recognised simply as Sinn Féin.

Sources to support this proposal:

• Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
  • Traditionalists like Mac Stiofain saw the way things were going: taking about a third of the delegates with him, the Provisionals’ Chief of Staff departed, reassembled in a pre-booked hall for another meeting, formed what became Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) and announced publicly that a Provisional Army Council had been set up to reorganize the IRA.
• Jonathan Bardon (2005), A History of Ulster. Blackstaff Press Ltd, p. 675
  • led the coup that split the movement in December 1969. The breakaway group, as an interim arrangement, elected a provisional executive just before Christmas, with Mac Stiofain as chief of staff and Ruari O Bradaigh as president of Provisional Sinn Féin, its political counterpart. Ten months later they stated that this temporary period was over, but the names Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA remained with them ever since.
• Brendan O'Brien (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA: From 1916 Onwards, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.75
  • In a pre-planned move they immediately went to a Dublin city venue to form a caretaker executive of a new (Provisional) Sinn Féin.
• Ed Moloney (2007), A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books, p.72
  • Later that evening they met to set up an Executive for their own version of Sinn Féin and elected Ruari O Bradaigh as the first Provisional Sinn Féin president.
• S. J. Connolly (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford University Press, p. 543
  • … the movement split in January 1970 into official and provisional Sinn Féin, mirroring the split within the IRA the previous month.
• Thomas Hennessey (2005), Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles, Gill & Macmillan, p.358
  • And from this point there were two IRAs … matched by two parallel Sinn Féins – Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin.
• Brian Feeney (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the Troubles, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.138
  • Chronology: 1970. January. Provisional Sinn Féin founded.
• W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott (1994), Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1993, Gill & Macmillan Ltd, p. 284
  • Entry for PROVISIONAL SINN FÉIN: The political counterpart of PIRA which dates from January 1970, when the split occurred in the Republican movement.
• CAIN Abstracts on Organisations
  • Entry for Sinn Féin (SF) : The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF.
• BBC Fact Files.
  • The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein, although it derives its name from an organisation founded by Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith in 1905.
• Agnes Maillot (2007), New Sinn Féin: Irish republicanism in the twenty-first century, Taylor & Francis, p.4
  • Under the leadership of Tomas Mac Giolla and Cathal Goulding in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, there was a shift towards the left. ... Marxist distinctions based on class replaced a more traditional vision based on geography and history. To aim to unite the working class was seen as a dangerous path by those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin, since it was seen to undermine the fundamental dimension of the conflict: that of the colonial legacy which was maintained through partition and its institutions.
• Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman (2007), Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, University of Pennsylvania Press, p.199
  • The Provisional IRA was created in December 1969 in full knowledge of these facts, its twin sister, Provisional Sinn Féin, shortly afterward.
• Jonathan Tonge (2006), Northern Ireland, Polity, pp.132-133
  • Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) formed in 1970 pledged allegiance to the First Dail, having split from what became known as Official IRA and Official Sinn Féin, because it had voted to enter a 'partitionist parliament'.
• Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W. White (2000), Self, Identity, and Social Movements, University of Minnesota Press, p.330
  • In January 1970, the political wing of the Republican movement, Sinn Féin, also split. Those who rejected constitutional politics walked out of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis and formed Provisional Sinn Féin. Those who supported the Official IRA were then referred to as Official Sinn Féin.
• John Plowright (2006), The Routledge Dictionary of Modern British History, Routledge, p.276
  • The modern party dates from 1970, when Provisional Sinn Féin split from Official Sinn Féin.
• Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan, p.96
  • MacStiofain and his supporters had prevented the constitutional change but they were in a minority. They quickly departed to form a new organisation that would shortly come to represent the traditional republican doctrines and a majority within the militant republican constituency on the island. The new movement pledged its 'allegiance to the 32-County Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 ... etc.
  • After the split in the republican movement in 1969-70, Adams sided with the newly established Provisional movement. (p.9)
  • ... nobody, and no party, has a monopoly on the legacy of 1905. (p.18)

Comments

Thank you, they all support the contention that Provisional Sinn Fein is a term to differentiate between the two factions in the leadership dispute. "It was known in the media as Provisional SF in its early years, and subsequently simply as SF. Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)" --Domer48_'fenian' 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely one solution. It could work, but could be messy. A single article may still be the best option if worded correctly. Therein lies the problem, this article is not worded correctly. Stu 15:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be true that "the two organisations are 'inextricably linked' as part of the republican movement" but that's editor logic, not reader logic. It would seem to me like a fairly straight forward common name and primary topic issue. A Sinn Féin (disambiguation) sounds like it might be called for but when someone says "Sinn Féin" they mean Sinn Féin - the current, primary and commonly spoken about party. All others take second place. (The same might have been said for the IRA, too.)

Looking through this article it does look like there is a lot of room for culling content and leaving it to the "History of ..." article. That would let this article focus on the politics of the party in a context that is relevant to contemporary politics (like other political parties).

I don't see the benefit to splitting the history up into different sections. If the history article get too long (it hasn't) parts of it can be spun out but there's no point to my mind in doing so before then. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to keep the present-day Sinn Féin at Sinn Féin, having separate articles for the historical parties. --Soman (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue the exact opposite of Mooretwin: that there should not be three or more articles about the IRA, or at least that there should be a parent article covering the IRA from 1913 up to today. Sinn Féin and the IRA are not like Accrington Stanley, where one club closes and a new one is formally constituted with the same name, then x years later the same happens again. In both the IRA and Sinn Féin there was a continuity of constitution, of membership and of policy that makes for a single, linear history, despite the splits. The fact is that whatever Richard English or the BBC say, there is no "founding" document for Sinn Féin in 1922 or 1970. People did not come together to "found" a new organisation, they simply took the existing organisation in a new direction. Scolaire (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thus the question, when was the lineal SF founded? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Founded in 1905, as stated. Continued after 1922 when pro-treaty members left and formally constituted a new party, Cumann na nGaedhael; ditto in 1926 when de Valera and co. left and founded Fianna Fáil, and on other occasions when new parties were established. Split in two in 1970 and continued as two rival parties - both linearly descended from the original Sinn Féin, neither constituting itself as a new party - until one of them renamed itself the Worker's Party. The one remaining Sinn Féin continued after 1986 when abstentionists left and formally constituted a new party, Republican Sinn Féin. An so on. So: one Sinn Féin in 1905, one Sinn Féin in 2009, and a continuity of constitution, of membership and of policy between the two. This isn't propaganda of any sort, it's just the facts. Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no continuity of constitution, and certainly no continuity of policy between current SF and 1905 SF. As per the sources, the current SF broke away from 1905 SF in 1970 on a point of policy. Mooretwin (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But the current SF continued the policy of abstention that the leadership had attempted to abandon, so there clearly was continuity with the Sinn Féin of 1905. And in what way do you think Sinn Féin is constitutionally different? What parts of the 1905 constitution were ditched at the time of the split? Scolaire (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, Republican Sinn Fein are the only party with continuity since they continued the policy of abstention that "Provisional" Sinn Fein abandoned in 1986. All this is moot since here we have to go with what the sources say, not what individual editors *think* happened. We have numerous sources which say that the party formed in 1970, we have others that say that they formed in 1905. Per NPOV, we need to respect both those source based viewpoints. That is why attempts to force either 1905 or 1970 as the start date of the party in the lead will not produce a stable solution and will only lead to further edit warring. Valenciano (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that there was no change in policy in over 100 years. If that was the criterion then the British Conservative Party is not the same party as the Conservatives of 1900 because they agree with women's suffrage. What I said was that between 1969 and 1970 there was continuity of constitution, of membership and of policy. 1986 is a different story because Ó Brádaigh left Sinn Féin and formed a new party, so there was no continuity of constitution. You talk of sources. One of the sources cited above as saying SF was "founded" in 1970 is Brian Feeney, author of Sinn Féin: A hundred turbulent years. Figure that out! Anyway, in the interests of stability I will not attempt to "force" 1905 as a start date. Can you convince others not to force 1970? Scolaire (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its not rocket science. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Scolaire) That is the point I'm making, there is disagreement between sources and sometimes within sources themselves - Feeney's book is indeed titled "A hundred turbulent years" but the book itself on p251-2 describes PSF alternately as "a breakaway", "an offshoot" and goes on to say: "Ten years later from their origins as a tiny geographically limited group, the Provos - comprising both the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein had mushroomed into a national movement... How did the small group of militarist dissidents who came together off Parnell Square in 1970 spawn a new Sinn Fein..." Sources don't agree, so the acceptable way forward surely is to draft a lead that reflects all points of view? Valenciano (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Provisional SF broke away in 1970 and formed its own party. That's a fact, supported by numerous sources. You are arguing that the new party is the "true" SF , because it was opposed to a change of policy, and therefore the breakaway group wasn't in fact a breakaway because it kept the original policy. That is fallacious, and pure Provisional POV. Maybe the fact that the Officials later dropped the name SF is causing confusion. Mooretwin (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As for continuity of constitution: that followed Official SF. Provisional SF broke away and formed its own party. It was Provisional SF which had to find its own HQ (Gardiner Place remained the Official SF HQ), and it was Provisional SF which had to start up its own newspaper (An Phoblacht), while Official SF continued to publish the United Irishman, the SF publication since 1948.Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (from an Englishman) -- However the articles are split, there should be a general article on all the parties that have used the title (however accented or not). I would suggest that this article should be brief (without a particular focus on any one of them, with "main" templates linking to the individual articles each. It will be necessary for the person who creates this general article to defend it against those who want to add to this bief summary. In this way a tree of linked articles is produced. I do not know enough to comment in the various "succession" issues, but terminating one article at the point where the Provisional and Official parties split will be sensible. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments and clarification:
  • Can't see that a single article covering all the various guises of SF could be workable. It would have to be massive. That said, I've no objection to a general article in addition to articles on each SF..
  • No objection to the current (i.e. Provisional) party being at Sinn Féin, so long as it starts at 1970 as per the sources. Sinn Féin (current party) is an alternative.
  • No great objection either to culling this article down to post-1970 and dealing with the rest in the History of Sinn Féin article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That said, articles to mirror the IRA articles makes perfect sense, too. Mooretwin (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is and should be the main SF article 1905-present day, having articles branching of this is no problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? Mooretwin (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of what I said above: it is all one organisation. Scolaire (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the comments made above by Scolaire. BigDunc 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But it's not all one organisation. The Workers' Party exists. Read the sources. Mooretwin (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire and BigDunc. Splits are in the nature of movements and while remnants of those factions which did not succeed may exist the continuity is clear--Snowded 09:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Valenciano. Some sources say 1905, some say 1970. That's certain. It's not up to us to write the article based on our own interpretation of these. Yes there is evidence of a direct lineage from 1905 to date, and that should be reflected in the article. But baldly stating the party was founded in 1905 in the infobox and the lead is misleading and ignorant of the 1970 sources. "Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland, originally founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith. The current party, led by Gerry Adams, was formed following a split in January 1970." seems the best wording to me, without a "date founded" field in the infobox. Maybe "formed" isn't quite the right word. Stu 10:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuart, I agree on the infobox and largely I agree with your wording with the minor change that I would say that the current party "emerged following a split in 1970." That was also the stable version of the lead for months. Valenciano (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By Snowded's argument, this article should actually be about Republican Sinn Féin, since "the continuity is clear". Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No they have broke away and have a new constitution. Adams is the president of the party that was founded in 1905. BigDunc 10:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Not really Mooretwin, organisations split, and over time one or other will dominate. THe foundation date is the same. In this case there is little question about who dominated so the founding date in 1905 is fine. THe body of the article has to cover the split however. --Snowded 10:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no party called Provisional Sinn Fein. And Adams doesn't claim to be the leader of PSF in fact if asked i'm sure he would say also that there is no party in Ireland called PSF. Another wikipedia fuck up to placate vociferous editors pushing a POV. BigDunc 11:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To Snowded: it's not about "who dominated"; it's about what happened and which party is which. The two parties which emerged out of the 1970 split continue to exist. Just because one of them (the official party which remained) changed its name and has been less successful than the other (which split from the former) doesn't mean that the other party is "the one true Sinn Féin". Mooretwin (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I made no comment whatsoever related to who is the true Sinn Féin, I simply made a point about foundation dates for organisations that go through transition and change. --Snowded 11:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are interpreting a split and the formation of a new organisation in 1970 as mere "transition and change" in a single party, dismissing the majority side of the split because they did not go on to "dominate". The implication of this is that you say the current SF - and not the Workers Party (or IRSP) and not RSF - is "the party of 1905" and thereby endorse the Provisional version of history. The sources say the current party split from the main party in 1970 and formed a new party. Subsequently it grew bigger than the main party and the main party changed its name, but that doesn't alter what happened or the facts about the current party's formation. Mooretwin (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To BigDunc: No-one has said there is a party called Provisional SF. And no-one has said Adams claims to be the leader of PSF. Adams is hardly a neutral source on the subject of the split, in any case. The party of which Adams is leader, however, and which is called SF, started out being described as Provisional SF. The only people "pushing a POV" are those trying to push the Provisional version of the split as the definitive version. Mooretwin (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to talk in terms of the "true Sinn Féin" (I doubt that term appears in any of the sources) or of the "Provisional version". There were two Sinn Féins after the split. Now there is one. There is no documentary evidence (a bald statement in a book is not documentary evidence) that either party left the original party or that either one was newly formed i.e. no press statement saying "we have left" and no published constitution for a new party. If I'm wrong point me to the evidence. Scolaire (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There were, indeed two Sinn Féins after the split: the Officials and the Provisionals (although both parties purported to be simply "Sinn Féin"). The latter party was a breakaway party, as per the sources. The former later changed its name (which appears to be the source of your misunderstanding), while the latter didn't and is known today simply as "Sinn Féin": that doesn't make it the 1905 party - it is a party that was formed in 1970 after a split from that party. You may wish to engage in primary research to find primary documents to say they weren't a breakaway party, but on Misplaced Pages we rely on secondary sources. Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Mooretwin, so who are this party that were formed in 1970? BigDunc 09:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The party which is the subject of this article, i.e. the current SF party. Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no Party called "Provisional Sinn Féin"

"Provisional Sinn Féin" was a term used to distinguish between the factions within the Party. There was no New Party established in 1970! This article is about Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin was founded in 1905 and the current Party President is Gerry Adams. This is all well referenced to WP:RS and WP:V sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Domer, you seem to be ignoring the reliable sources that state 1970 as the date of formation. I'm not saying 1970 should "win" over 1905, to do so would be ignoring the 1905 sources. But you can't just ignore the sources that suit your POV. As stated above equal importance should be placed on both. Stu 09:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a new party formed in 1970, as per the sources, and as per the real life events, when the Provisional faction walked out and formed its own party. As you acknowledge, the party was originally referred to as Provisional SF to distinguish it from the original party which became known as Official SF. They were not two "factions within a party": they were two parties, with separate headquarters, separate newspapers, separate leaders, etc. They remain two separate parties today. Read the sources. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, there was no New Party established in 1970! There was not and never was a Party called "Provisional Sinn Féin." "Provisional Sinn Féin" was a term used to distinguish between the factions within Sinn Féin. Well explained and well referenced in the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources say there was a new party formed in 1970. Please read them. Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As per above by Scolaire, BigDunc and Snowded. The sources do not say there was a new party formed in 1970. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. Read them. Mooretwin (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What party? BigDunc 12:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The current SF party, then referred to as PSF. Mooretwin (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are the sources that say a single party continued to exist after 1970? Does this single party still exist today: the Workers' Party and the current SF are actually one party? Mooretwin (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The current party with Adams as president were founded in 1905, not 1970. BigDunc 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been provided which contradict this. Why are you ignoring them? Stu 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The party founded in 1905 split into two in 1970, when Adams was among those who left to form Provisional SF. At least two other parties could claim to be the same party as that formed in 1905: the Workers' Party and Republican SF. But we don't take sides. Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You have a source that says Adams is the president of a party founded in 1970? BigDunc 13:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adams left SF to join SF? It has been accepted by Mooretwin that "Provisional Sinn Féin" was only a term used to distinguish between the factions within the Party. enough said. So it was only used to distinguish between the factions so logically and as the sources have said it was still called SF. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So, no source to say that OSF and PSF were, in fact, a single party? Adams left SF to form a new party also called SF, but known as PSF. There were two Sinn Feins, as per the sources. Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on Mooretwin so Adams celebrated the centenary of his party mustn't be very good at maths out by 65 years. Did any other party celebrate 100yrs? BigDunc 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No sources, then? We're not here to support the POV that the current SF party is the sole legitimate heir of the 1905 party. So what Adams chooses to celebrate is irrelevant. We go with reliable sources here. Read them. Mooretwin (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The logic of individual editors is not a reliable source. Now we additionally have 1905 being pushed on the basis that a party publication and the party leader say so!!! Seriously?! However we do have policies which certain editors appear to have forgotten such as WP:NPOV: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable" and WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So given that both 1905 and 1970 are mentioned by multiple reliable sources, both need to go in. Valenciano (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't have been put more clearly. In any case, Domer's initial change was always to be controversial and should have been discussed on the talk page first. We need to formulate a wording that respects both sets of sources, not just one. Stu 09:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say "both sets of sources", to what are you referring? We have several sources saying that the party was formed in 1970. The only sources being put forward by those disagreeing appear to be the titles of books (one of which is a party publication, and another of which actually supports the 1970 formation in the book itself). Mooretwin (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1905 sources are Feeney, Rafter and the party's own history, yeah? We've established that Feeney contradicts itself. Do we know what Rafter says about the foundation, or is the title just being used as the source alone? Despite its inherent bias, A Century of Struggle can be used as a source to represent the current Sinn Fein's view that they are the direct descendant of the original party. This view should be reflected in the article, but not presented as undisputed fact. Stu 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know what Rafter says. So far it is only the title being offered as a source. Obviously, the article needs to discuss the issue of republican legitimacy and explain the Provisional view of history, but this should not be given undue weight. The important thing is that the article should not give the false impression (as it currently does) that the current SF party is indisputably the exact same party as the 1905 party. This article should start with the split in 1970 (in the same was as the Workers' Party of Ireland article does). Otherwise, WP is taking the Provisional side by saying it is the only legitimate successor to the pre-split SF and the Official side is not. Ironically, the Officials have the better claim, given that they were constitutionally the 1905 SF party and it was the Provisionals (the minority) who broke away and formed a new party. Mooretwin (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) BigDunc asked for a source that says Adams is the president of a party founded in 1970. These should help:

• Provisional Sinn Féin is the political wing of the Provisional IRA. Its leader, Gerry Adams, has argued that military efforts alone cannot drive the British out of Northern Ireland. (Lawrence John McCaffrey (1995), The Irish Question: Two Centuries of Conflict. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, p.164);
• Meanwhile, Provisional Sinn Féin, latterly under the leadership of Gerry Adams, focused more directly on gaining Catholic support in local government elections. (Stephen J. Lee (1996), Aspects of British Political History: 1914-95. Routledge, p.331). Mooretwin (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you go to page 285 of the book by Stephen J Lee you will also find, The British Government were furious when, in 1995 the United States issued a visa to Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams. And if you go to the other book on page 185 it says Gerry Adams the leader of Sinn Féin it appears they are contradicting themselves. BigDunc 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the contradiction to which you refer? The current SF party was formed in 1970. Referring to it as SF (which is now the common name) doesn't alter that. Gerry Adams is leader of SF and the SF to which they refer was formed in 1970 and can also be (and used often to be) referred to as Provisional SF. It's all in the sources.

I provided those sources because you appeared not to understand that the current SF is the same party as that referred to in 1970 as PSF. I thought if you had a source referring to Gerry Adams as the leader of PSF it might help you understand that they are the same party. Mooretwin (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So is Adams the leader of 2 parties? Acording to the sources you provide he is. BigDunc 10:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's very difficult to assume good faith with responses like that. Either you haven't read the sources or you're choosing not to understand them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that you genuinely don't understand that the current SF party was also referred to (largely in the past) as PSF, and that the fact that it was referred to by two names doesn't mean that it was two parties. Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc is doing a 'I see no ships'. He knows perfectly well that that Brady sorry Ó Brádaigh and his cronies walked out of the Sinn Fein Árd Fheis when it voted to end the absention policy. In true double-think, he declared that his group were the only true inheritors of The Cause and thus his new party was really still the old party. This is exactly the same logic as was used after the Treaty. It is fantasy logic. Adams's Sinn Féin is a fragment of fragment of a fragment, but they have the fantasy that they have uninterrupted continuity. Which makes it a bit wierd that they denounce Republican Sinn Féin or Continuity Sinn Féin or Real Sinn Féin, all of whom use the same logic. So it is not remotely surprising that the sources gradually change from using the term RSF to SF, because "O"SF became SFtWP then the Workers Party, letting the Provos enjoy their fantasy. --Red King (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In this earlier thread a compromise wording that "the party was originally referred to as PSF by media commentators" or that they were "dubbed PSF" was agreed. I still don't see what's wrong with that - it matches the sources. We can even add the fact that the current party never referred to itself as such. As for the foundation date I still haven't seen any credible argument why we should prefer the 1905 claims over the 1970 one. The three references in the infobox are book titles - one of them a SF publication i.e. a primary source that cannot be used to support such a claim, one is the Brian Feeney book. There I would be interested to hear from BigDunc why he believes the title can be used but not the statements inside that the current party are a "breakaway" or an "offshoot" or why he believes we should ignore Feeney referring to the party as Provisional Sinn Fein on numerous occasions?

After all this we're left with the fact that

1) no one disputes that they were called PSF by some sources

2) no one disputes that there are sources saying they were formed in 1970

so given that, per WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS the lead needs to be reworded to something similar to the previous stable version. 1905 ideally needs to come out of the infobox or it needs to be changed to "1905/1970." Furthermore better sources need to be found for the 1905 claim. Valenciano (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The original Sinn Féin was certainly founded in 1905. The problem we have here is that the party currently registered under the name Sinn Féin asserts that it is the same party as that founded in 1905, when clearly it isn't (it is a minority of a minority). We've solved this problem with Irish Republican Army, by saying that it existed from 1916 to 1922, and any subsequent organisations calling themselves IRA are not the same. What we need to do is split the current article three ways to reflect three quite different organisations: SF (1905-1922), SF (1922 - 1970), and SF (1970 - date). The article as it stands is seriously misleading where it says anything significant about SF prior to 1970: it certainly should not be the primary article about Griffith's SF. It must be changed. --Red King (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Red King's suggestion is basically same as my proposal above. It's the best way to deal with this. Mooretwin (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior to Domer's change at the start of the month, infobox stated:

• 1905 (original party)
• 1970 ("provisional" Sinn Féin, see history below)

And the lead stated:

• "Sinn Féin is a political party in Ireland. The current party, led by Gerry Adams, was formed following a split in January 1970 and traces its origins back to the original Sinn Féin party formed in 1905."

I would propose removing the date founded field in the infobox, and amending the lead to:

• "Sinn Féin is a political party in Ireland. The current party is led by Gerry Adams and was formed following a split in January 1970. Along with several other Irish parties it traces its origins back to the original Sinn Féin party formed in 1905 by Arthur Griffith."

Thoughts? Stu 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The party directly owes its origins to 1905 and more particulilarily the republican ethos that took over and dominated the Party from 1917 on. The 1970 divide in the party quickly healed with the virtual demise of the "official" wing. It is the only party called Sinn Féin and has never at any time in its history called itself by any other name. the present wording allthough not ideal is a better representation of the factsCathar11 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote "The 1970 divide in the party quickly healed with the virtual demise of the "official" wing." Problem is that the divide didn't "quickly heal." The officials continued the Sinn Fein name until the 1980s and were far more electorally successful than Provisional Sinn Fein in Republic of Ireland, winning 7 parliamentary seats in the 1989 election for example (a level that PSF has still not attained) together with 1 Euro MP. All this is by the by since we have too many sources for a 1970 formation to ignore.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valenciano (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Party that stood in the 1989 Election was The Workers Party and it sought to distance itself from the Sinn Féin origins, By saying the split healed I'm talking about grass root activists who in general moved to SF. The Workers Party/ Fardiner street faction were interested in representational politics whereas Sinn Féin were interested in activism. The allegedly Marxist Workers Party are now Conservatist centrist Labour members. Labour Party support did not increase after the absorbtion of Democratic Left and remained at pre merger levels.Cathar11 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree agree with Cathar11. BigDunc 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're still ducking the question about the Feeney book which I asked earlier. Why should we use the books title but not it's content, given that the content supports the use of Provisional SF as a label and says that it was a breakway? Valenciano (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How can you agree with Cathar11, when Cathar11 says that "the divide in the party quickly healed"? The divide never healed: the Officials and Provisionals remain in separate parties. Indeed both parties further divided after 1970 - the IRSP split from the Officials and RSF split from the Provisionals. Mooretwin (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a split in 1970 when the officials were formed the term 'Provisional' was a media creation. Never has been a party called PSF. The officials openly used the name, provisionals was never used by any member of SF. BigDunc 12:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, in point of fact, the Provos split from the Officials and not the other way around. Hence theier use of "Official" (ie real) Sinn Fein at the time. Jdorney (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My Recollection of the time was that each side distinguisged itself by it's address ae Kevin St. or Gardiner St. and that the labels were media only. I have never been a member of either organisation. The row was procedural with each side claiming to be the SF party.Cathar11 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How they were described is a side issue. The fact is that the Provisionals/Kevin Street SF left and formed a new party. Gardiner Street was the SF HQ before the split, and the Provisionals had to establish new HQ because they'd walked out and left SF (notwithstanding that they themselves claimed to be SF and called themselves SF). Mooretwin (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, we can interpret events however we like, but multiple reliable sources have been provided which state the current party was formed in 1970. That is undeniable. So to baldly state that the current party were formed in 1905 is to ignore those sources and breaches our most important policy, WP:NPOV. "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." If you want to go and try to rewrite NPOV, go ahead. It's NPOV, not PROVOPOV ffs! Stu 19:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No we have sources that use a media creation when in fact no such party existed, I have said numerous times there is no party called Provisional Sinn Féin. BigDunc 19:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You are going to make my head explode Dunc! The fact that the current party do not call themselves Provisional Sinn Féin does not mean we should ignore the sources to state that they were formed in 1970. Stu 20:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've written below about the Sinn Fein Funds Case in 1948, which decided that the then SF was not the same as teh orgiinal party. Here's another article expounding this POV. Sinn Fein's Bogus 100 year History. Now I'm not necessarily endorsing this view, by Michael McDowell, who hates the current SF party. But this makes it clear that the 100 year continuity of modern SF is disputed (to say the least).Jdorney (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1948 judgment was a political judgment by Theodore Conyngham Kingsmill Moore. He was educated at Marlborough College and Trinity College Dublin. He served in the Royal Flying Corps 1917-18, and was called to the Irish Bar in 1918, to the Inner Bar in 1934, and became a bencher of King’s Inns in 1941. He was a representative of Dublin University in the Seanad Eireann 1944-47, became a judge of the High Court in 1947. De Valera did not assistthe rights of Sinn Fein to the funds and as Fianna Fail had left SF in 1926 they had no entitlement. How could a party that divided into pro and ant treaty sides not be both inheritors of the same founders. His 1923 date made only political and not legal sense.Cathar11 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Indo "article" appears to have been provided by nobody less that Mr Michael McDowell himself and supports claims such as, an organisation which did not break up "ceased to exist" and did not have a "continuous set of beleifs". This is obviously biased material with questionable reliability to start with. A judge may have ruled that the party would not retain the legal status of the leaders of sixteen without them present (which must have been a rather exhaulted position, judge himself quoted as considering them no less than a monarchy) but if the organisation was indeed continuous, Mr Michael McDowell and Justice Kingsmill Moores rulings, however notable, should not obscure the facts. The idea that these two mens findings, one indelibly biased, should be the only basis of the facts would be unfair at best. The findings of our Honourable Justice Theodore Coynyngham Kingsmill Moore are quite notable but it is accepted that the establishment turned on those who did not support the treaty which if I am not mistaken included the remaining numbers of SinnFein in particular. One folk are heros and the others are pirates. The pirates tale must remain to be told. As for referencing rants by Michael McDowell published in the Independant, which I must admit is not something I have seen before, is hardly an acceptable unbiased reliable source for discreditation of his most lowest esteemed counterparts except to note his opinions against them (and he is not notable enough to do that, is he? Plenty of party leaders to quote as debasing SinnFein without inviting the rest of the cabinet to soapbox). They will print any rant that Michael McDowell fancies writing so long as he is a public figure, I would presume, and we have the onus to recognise it as a rant with professional predjdice. No intent to smear McDowell there but his bias should not be in any doubt. ~ R.T.G 12:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine Cathar, you don't have to agree with it. But the point is that the continuity of the SF party from 1905 has not only been disputed but actually contradicted by the Irish High Court and the article should reflect this rather than endorsing just one view. Jdorney (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that view being incorporated into the article,but not to dominate it.

Not dominate, no. But given equal weight per neutrality. Jdorney (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc appears to be confusing two issues: the name and the foundation. No-one is claiming that the current SF party ever called itself PSF, merely that it was so described particularly in its early days. This does not mean that it was not founded in 1970, when it split from (what then became known as Official) SF. Mooretwin (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to JDorneys Indo "article" above... If the facts are that some or others or called SinnFein "Provisional Sinn Fein" then why not state on the article that "*some or others* referred to Sinn Fein as Provisional Sinn Fein" and why rather than debating only to display one information or the other? Freedom of the press girls. All facts available. ~ R.T.G 12:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So the judgement of the Irish High Court is not notable? I'm afraid it is. Michael McDowell is indeed hostile to modern SF, but his view, as a former Irish minister Government Minister and as a lawyer, is also notable. We are supposed to be presenting a multiplicity of views not arguing for one (in this case party political) interpretation. In short, SF calim to be inheritors of 1905 SF and of the party which declared the First Dail. This is in fact disputed, and several parties claim this legacy. The article should reflect this. Jdorney (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The High Court ruling is notable, of course it is (quite interesting that, I have requested an Hon TC Kingsmill Moore article because info is scant although he is honoured in many ways), but in the case where SinnFein was never disbanded, it merely changed, and the ruling says it "ceased to exist", suggesting other notable concerns. I doubt today that if Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Mary Lou..etc.. left and joined other parties, a judge would rule that Sinn Fein had ceased to exist so if there were special circumstances, and there were, we shouldn't miss that. JDorney seems to agree with this further up but it is nessecary to point out that decimating Sinn Fein is a part of Michael McDowells career making particular concern of him being a reliable source and included in his Independant piece is every bit of unproven negative rumor and suspicion that floats around about Sinn Fein, and also the IRA at that time (2006). I am sure there are a lot more verifiable and more condemning items about Sinn Fein and IRA that he could have relied on and surely there are less questionable sources for Misplaced Pages to provide Sinn Fein controversy. Sinn Fein lost all but one seat in the Dail after that so something went on. Just wanting to add exactly what that "article" is before it goes as reliable source. Certainly Sinn Fein of any later period could hardly claim to be the "Ourselves" that the founders were as they divided that but it is undoubtably the most notable institution of direct dissent from the original institution, which might not be apparent should they be described as no more than founded in 1970. The others are founded by former members of that institution. There is no reason to entertain their vanity... Being founded by a leader is just as good and perhaps better than being the debatable one of many that some wish to gripe about. One not good enough, eh? "Only remaining division of the party following a 1970 split" is probably more accurate (or is it? Where did the officials go? no pun intended). ~ R.T.G 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RTG, McDowell is a reliable source for his own opinion. His view is notable because (a) he was minister at the time, (b) he is lawyer and (c) he was (is?) a prominent figure in Irish politics. My point is, not that one interpretation is right, but that the cliam to the SF legacy is highly disputed. McDowell's article demostrates this. Re wording I would like to see included; the modern SF Party traces its origin back to 1905, but the legacy of the original SF is claimed by several parties in Ireland. The dispute goes back to 1922 and the Treaty split. The Irish High Court ruled in 1948 that SF subsequent to 1922 was a new and different organisation but Republicans stress the continuity of the party. In 1970, SF split again into two groups (labeled Official and Provisional wings). The current SF is descended from the 'Provisional' group and is the only party to use the name SF. Jdorney (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we have to respect what the sources say. And this is eaxactly what they say. At present the article gives preference to the current party's POV, backed up by fairly poor sources. On McDowell, his opinion is relevant and should be included, provided that it is in context and his critical position on the current party is noted. Stu 09:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

McDowells postion in office at that time as Minister for (law, I believe, perhaps not...) qualifies him not only to provide reference about that position but to write a book about it. He is an expert at being a minister of something (law). What he is not an expert reliable source on is those for whom failure by his doing McDowell is a part of his career advancement. He is paid good money to make conspiricy theories about parties opposing him (politicians... what you think they are colleagues? Brothers in dails?), even when no other source exists such unreliable shite gets deleted faster than most other serious efforts on Misplaced Pages. He is not even the No. 1 at doing it. Bertie or Brian were probably enjoying No. 1 career success at that time. I don't look so often at politicals information but if I find ye providing opposing politicians as reliable sources for each other, you will have to come out with it. We have some of the most congenial politicians in the world in the south (IMHO) but they are still a load of fighting politicians and are only 100% reliable sources on each other about fighting each other. There are probably more relevant positions on SinnFein than this particular one of Michael McDowells. There is barely anything verifiable in it. What do we say, "Here is a statement to the Independent by Michael McDowell where he slings all the codswallop he can think of at SinnFein, isn't he a quick thinker?" Hey he was only getting going in that letter it was cut off in mid sentence. ~ R.T.G 11:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So you don't like McDowell. I get it. That's not the point though. The continuity and the legacy of 1905 SF are disputed by notable sources and the article should reflect this, sin e. Jdorney (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Earliest SF, nationalist?

The template on the article (republican), the categories and the infobox doesn't really get across that SF was originally nationalist when it began but became republican later. Logically the founder Arthur Griffith's The Resurrection of Hungary can't be called republican, since it advocated a King of Ireland. Also there is the earlier relationship with Cumann na nGaedhael—a nationalist organisation completely untainted by socialism. Is there a way to get this across in the article layout, without misleading the reader on its present politics. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there an element of the classic definition of a republic in there, rather than the modern day focus on not having a monarch? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends how you look at it. The dual-monarchy idea seems to have been pragmatic, but early SF would easily be considered to "the right", both economically and culturally. Griffith seems to have been an admirer of "old Europe", rather than wanting a "Jacobin-communist Europe" or "Liberal-masonic Europe". Since the usurpation of James II, the monarchy has unfortunetly combined many elements of what could be found in classical definition of a republic anyway: Parliament, the City and the civil service have more practical influence than the monarch. I find it hard to believe that Griffith and co would have snuggled up to FARC or other Marxist-Leninist groups. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is another example of the logical traps we set for ourselves when we pretend that the SF of today has any more than a tenuous connection with the SF of 1905. --Red King (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The point made by Cathar11 above is a good one: the most profound revolution in Sinn Féin was not 1922 or 1970 but 1917. At the 1917 Ard Fheis Sinn Féin ceased to be a vehicle for Griffith's somewhat idiosyncratic views and became a republican party - effectively the political wing of the Republican Movement - and most decidedly left-wing, as witness the Democratic Programme of the first Dáil. Modern Sinn Féin is in every sense the political successor of the 1917 Sinn Féin. Whether Griffith himself would have "snuggled up to FARC" is beside the point. Scolaire (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point Scolaire. Re the Democratic programme though, it's been argued that this was no more than rhetoric to get the Labour Party to stand aside in 1918. No attempt was ever made to implement it. Agree with the rest though. Sinn Fein as a Republican party dates from 1917. But re subsequent SFs. Don't both FF and FG have legitimate claims to be descended from the 1917 model? Their predecessors both stood as SF in 1922. Likewise OSF/Workers Party, RSF etc all emerged directly from SF. The Provisionals are the current SF no doubt but not the only party with claims on the historical legacy by any means Jdorney (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're all "descended" from the 1917 Sinn Féin - nobody has ever disputed that! But do any of them claim or even want to claim to have been founded in 1905 (or in 1917)? Those with their own founding constitutions - FF, FG and RSF - certainly don't. And I suspect the changes to WP constitution at the time of the name change means they have very little interest in such a claim. More relevant this discussion, how many of them are even remotely similar to the SF of 1917? FF, FG, WP? Hardly! Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the earlier round of splits (1922 and 1926) were played out in the Irish Courts in the late 1940s in the Sinn Féin Funds Case as to who (SF,FF or FG) should inherit the SF funds (frozen in 1922) and therefore who was the real inheritors of the original party. It was decided that the money did not belong to the 1948 model SF, as it was not the same organisation as at the time of the Treaty split in 1922. Instead it was ruled that the money should be used as a trust fund for veterans of the independence movement from 1916-1921. I think this would make an interesting little article in itself. .

I also add, without comment, the summation of Ronan Fanning at an academic conference to mark the centenary of SF's founding in 2005.

"In his keynote address, Ronan Fanning, Professor of Modern History at UCD addressed the question “Who owns Sinn Féin?” Referring to the Sinn Féin Funds case of 1947-48, and the Supreme and High Court judgements it led to, Professor Fanning identified: '...(a) stark contrast between the national inclusivism of de Valera’s vision of the Sinn Féin of 1917-22 and the narrow exclusivism of those who, after 1923, ...regarded Sinn Féin not as a body of persons, but as a political ideal.' Professor Fanning speculated on whether the bicentennial event in 2105 might see the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as marking a moment when 'Sinn Féin finally braced itself for re- immersion in the current of national life and politics.'

The conference took place over 12th and 13th December at the UCD William Jefferson Clinton Centre and was organised by the Global Irish Institute and the Humanities Institute of Ireland, UCD."

Jdorney (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Left wing?

Is it accurate to describe Sinn Fein as having a left wing ideology? It is surely an ethnic nationalist party, with anti-Semitic roots? Those tend to be characteristics of the extreme right in European politics. I do note that the "left wing" characterization in the lede of the article is unsourced. I feel it should be removed. Irvine22 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You come back from another block and right back to disruption, eh? You don't learn a thing. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about whether Sinn Fein may accurately be described as having a "left wing" ideolody, given its ethnic nationalist and anti-Semitic roots?Irvine22 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed and a consensus reached. Please stop being disruptive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, now it's being discussed again, as there is no consensus for SF having a "left wing" ideology. Irvine22 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see you are confusing the fact that you don't like it with the absence of consensus. Also, your recent addition (that I suggest you self-revert) does not establish anti-semitism. --Snowded 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Sinn Fein is indeed the party founded by Arthur Griffith in 1905, it was founded by an open anti-Semite. And isn't extreme nationalism generally a right-wing disorder? Irvine22 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what Irvine put in that they are a right wing anti semetic neo nazi party, would that make you happy? BigDunc 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sinn Fein was long associated with the IRA, which made common cause with the real Nazis, but I wouldn't call Sinn Fein neo-Nazi as such today. But neither would I call them "left wing". I'd stick to the demonstrable facts and say that they are a nationalist party founded by an anti-Semite.Irvine22 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Troll feeding time. BigDunc 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I suppose Sinn Fein do refer to themselves (alone!)as both "nationalist" and "socialist". I dunno...nationalist-socialist? Sounds somehow familiar.Irvine22 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, if you have multiple reliable sources suggesting the current SF has any anti-semitic or neo-nazi tendencies then best produce them here first. If not, then in my honest opinion, inserting such controversial material based on dubious sources and edit warring over it would be very ill advised especially given WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and your recent block for other controversial edits. Valenciano (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actualy, I indicated above that I wouldn't call today's Sinn Fein neo-Nazi as such. But if we accept that the Sinn Fein of today is in fact the party founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith (which seems to me to be open to question), then it is a party founded by an open and vicious anti-Semite. Irvine22 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Way forward

Based on the evidence provided by the sources, the following changes need to be made to the article:

1. Significant culling of the "History" section, as this is already covered in the History of Sinn Féin article. All we need is a very brief background section with a link to the History article.
2. This article really needs to start with the split. The current "1969–1970 Resurgence and "Provisional" / "Official" split" needs to be rewritten from a NPOV. Obviously it should include the Provisional version of events, and the Provisional view that they were, in fact, the true SF, inheriting the legacy from 1905.
3. The lead needs to be reworked to reflect the article.
4. Consideration should be given to renaming History of Sinn Féin as Sinn Féin 1905-1970. Mooretwin (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've partially reverted the infobox and lead back to the pre-November version per the discussions here and at the WP:NPOVN. I amended the wording of the lead, hopefully this compromise will stick. I'm not sure about actually splitting the article to mirror how the IRA articles are split. I think this article should remain at its current title and continue to be about the current party, with the history section focusing on post-1970. Rather than create Sinn Féin (1905 - 1922), Sinn Féin (1922 - 1970) and three new history articles, the entire history from 1905 to date can continue to be located at History of Sinn Féin. Seems more logical to me. Stu 15:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm proposing. You'll see from the four bullet points that I'm no longer proposing the creation of the additional articles. Mooretwin (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Im copying this commrnt from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Talk:Sinn_F.C3.A9in Was this discussion notified on the talk page of the article itself? If not then the above does not constitute a consensus for change. I note that participation above comprises only one side of the argument on the talk page itself. --Snowded TALK 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) As this discussion wasnt notified here I am reverting Stuarts edit as no consensus was arrived at here.Cathar11 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I started the discussion at NPOVN to get new input. I wasn't going to canvas anyone. And Cathar, if you think there's no consensus for my change, then your correct action would be revert to the stable, pre-November version of the text. Domer had no consensus to change that version (breaching NPOV) but yet you seem keen to let it stand? Here's the link to the stable version, I expect you'll want to restore it now. Stu 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You do have to notify things on the talk page you know, and you certainly can't claim consensus for an edit if you don't. --Snowded 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If I was starting a vote on the issue elsewhere, of course I would notify those already involved. But I was seeking input from uninvolved editors. What benefit would there be in those already involved repeating everything stated here on the NPOV noticeboard? Stu 16:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine if you brought them here, or copied the discussion. What you can't do is claim a consensus. Also the editors involved there were hardly uninvolved now were they. --Snowded 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My opening sentence at NPOVN was "Can I request some input regarding a dispute at the above talk page." I did direct them here. Maybe I didn't word it correctly. JD and Judith were not involved up to that point. If my intent was to game the system I would have emailed several users privately asking for their support, or something similar. Whereas I posted on the noticeboard specifically for disputes of this type. Stu 16:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but then on the basis of a discussion elsewhere, without notification on this talk page you claimed a consensus based edit. Right place to post, but it should have come here, or been notified here before any action was taken on the article itself. It was the edit summary of your amendment which created the issue. --Snowded 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we try and see what the issues are? There appears no question that there is continuity with the 1905 formation, or that the various splits created various organisations that have a common lineage. There appears to be a difference as to what constitutes foundation between those who believe a split means a new creation date and those who think that the split per se (especially for a dominant successor) means that the origin remains. Is that fair? --Snowded 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that some people wish this article to remain as it is, giving the impression that the current SF party was not formed by splitting from the 1905 party, but actually is the 1905 party, and/or that the party is the "one true successor" to 1905. No sources (other than 3 book titles) have been provided for this, but many sources have been provided to show that the current party began in 1970. This proposed way forward allows for this article to be about the post-1970 party, but with an explanation of the Provisional POV (i.e. that it is the "one true SF" with a direct, uninterrupted and unchallenged lineage from 1905). Pre-1970 is covered in the "History of SInn Féin" article. Mooretwin (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree with the suggestion above by Mooretwin and it was a bit sneaky to go to a noticeboard without notifying any participant to this discussion and when like minded editors agree you then claim consensus. BigDunc 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, it was exactly the correct action to take. It's what the NPOV noticeboard is for. Nothing "sneaky" about it. Stu 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why BigDunc "totally disagrees"? Mooretwin (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to create a new article about a party which don't exist. BigDunc 18:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc is engaging in doublethink again. The party that is currently registered under the name SF is a new party that was founded in 1970. Full stop, end of story. For the background, see History of SF. That is as much as the article can say. Anything else is WP:OR and not verifiable against independent, neutral, reliable sources. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And again RK is talking rubbish SF the party that Adams is the president were founded in 1905. Full stop, end of story. BigDunc 19:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So, according to your sources, what happened in 1970? Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Flesh on the bones (1): history/background section

This section should be renamed "Background", and be significantly reduced, given that we already have a History of Sinn Féin article which rightly covers this ground. The Background section should read something like:

The Sinn Féin party was founded by Arthur Griffith in 1905, and its originally policy was for an Anglo-Irish dual monarchy like that which existed under Grattan's Parliament and the so-called Constitution of 1782, which it considered to be still in effect because it deemed the Act of Union of 1800 to have been illegal. The party remained small until it was wrongly blamed by the British for the Easter Rising. After the Rising, Eamon de Valera replaced Griffith as president and, in 1917, it committed for the first time to the establishment of an Irish republic. In the 1918 general election, Sinn Féin won 73 of Ireland's 105 seats, and in January 1919, its MPs assembled in Dublin and proclaimed themselves to be the parliament of Ireland. The party supported the Irish Republican Army during the War of Independence, and negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the British Government in 1921. The terms of the Treaty split the party in two, a Civil War was fought, and the majority (pro-Treaty) side went on to form the first Government of the Irish Free State as Cumann na nGaedheal. The minority (anti-Treaty) side retained the Sinn Féin name and refused to recognise the new independent state.

Sinn Féin split again in 1926 with the departure of de Valera, who left to form Fianna Fáil and to participate in constitutional politics in the Irish parliament.

The party subsequently declined into a fringe movement and in the 1960s, it moved to the left, adopting a 'stagist' approach similar to orthodox Communist analysis.

Views? Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to this going in? Mooretwin (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Object to this selective and narrow historical section written to comply with an agendaCathar11 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? Remember the history of SF is covered in the History of Sinn Féin article. All that is needed here is a brief overview of events by way of background. If we put it into the article, you can still edit it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Flesh on the bones (2): section on split

Regarding no. 2 of the "way forward" above, this is a start in moving towards NPOV (changes in bold):

Formation: Provisional/Official split

There were two splits in the Republican Movement in the period 1969 to 1970. One in December 1969 in the IRA, and the other in Sinn Fein in January 1970.

The stated reason for the split in the IRA was ‘partition parliaments’ however the division was the product of discussions in the 1960s over the merits of political involvement as opposed to a purely military strategy. The split when it finally did come in December 1969, arose over the playing down of the role of the IRA and its inability in defending the nationalist population in Northern Ireland. One section of the Army Council wanted to go down a purely political (Marxist) road, and abandon armed struggle. IRA had been dabbed on the walls over the north and was used to disparage the IRA, by writing beside it, “I Ran Away.” Those in favour of a purely military strategy accused the leadership of rigging the Army convention, held in December and the vote on abandoning the policy of abstentionism and abandoning the nationalists.

In January 1970, at a reconvening of the Army Council, the two motions in December were overturned. It was then decided to set up a Provisional Army Council because it was intended to reconvene in six months in order to regularise the IRA, when the term provisional would be abandoned. The split in the Republican Movement was completed on 11 January 1970, when at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis the proposal to drop abstention was put before the members. The policy of abandoning abstentionism had to be passed by a two-thirds majority to change the Party’s constitution. Supporters of the Provisional Army Council made allegations of malpractice, including voting by pro-Goulding supporters who were not entitled to vote. When the vote was taken the result was 153 to 104 in favour. The leadership had failed to achieve the two-thirds majority. The leadership then attempted to propose a motion in support of the (Goulding) IRA Army Council. This motion would only have required a simple majority. About a third of the delegates saw this as an attempt to subvert the party's constitution, refused to vote and withdrew from the meeting. Pre-empting this move they had booked a hall in 44 Parnell Square, where they established a “caretaker executive” of what became known as Provisional Sinn Féin. The "Official" majority faction which remained loyal to the leadership became known as Official Sinn Féin and later evolved into the Workers' Party of Ireland. Official Sinn Féin was also referred to as Sinn Fein (Gardiner Place) and Provisional Sinn Féin as Sinn Fein (Kevin Street), due to the location of the opposing offices.

1. Bell (1997), p.366; Feeny (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8; Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5

2. Coogan (2000), pp.337-8

3. Ferriter (2005), p.624

4. Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5; Feeny (2002), pp.249-50; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Bell (1997), p.366; Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281

5. Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8

6. Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.2811

7. Bell (1997), p.363; Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; Anderson (2002), p.186

8. Anderson (2002), p.184

9. Anderson (2002), p.186

10. Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186

11. Anderson (2002), pp.187

12. Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186

13. Bell (1997), p.366; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186

14. Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107

15. Bell (1997), p.367; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8

16. Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107

17. CAIN Abstract of Organisations: entry under Workers Party.

Views? Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More than one third of delegates were involved. The meeting they held was to defend the Sinn Féin constitution. Parralel organisations were created. Referred to at the time as....... It continued to use this constitution. Does this sound like a new organisation???Cathar11 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard English says about a third walked out. Your opinion that the meeting was to "defend the Sinn Féin constitution" is very interesting, but you are not a reliable source and, in any case, whether PSF continued to use the SF constitution doesn't matter - they still walked out and formed their own party, as per the sources. They were a minority. They created their own HQ at Kevin St, separate from the SF HQ at Gardiner Place. They started up their own newspaper, An Phoblacht, separate from the SF paper United Irishman. They elected their own leader, Ruairi O Bradaigh, separate from the SF leader Tomas Mac Giolla. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Republican Sinn Fein? You only need to put four - to make a line... ~ R.T.G 12:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The RSF split in 1986 would be/is dealt with later in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought all this other stuff was too. I thought that RSF was highly relevant to todays SF as it might seem that the split was an expression of the cessation of violence and an indicator of differing support as when splitting at other times the focus of support has shifted toward the continuing militant campaigns. In fact is this the only Sinn Fein split where main support followed the non-militant route? It must be the only non-militant progression of Sinn Fein since Arthur Griffiths campaigns and even that is debatable, he hardly was discouragig it was he? I doubt that it is too much OR to note that observation on the article? It would shed light on the Continuity IRA but I don't see any question to neutrality. Shedding light on the Continuity IRA lends probably favour to Sinn Fein but it could still be a major element shaping SF today. ~ R.T.G 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in all the splits with the exception of DeV's second one, it was the majority, non-militant, element that attracted the main support. Obviously the press was more interested in the minority of militants. --Red King (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to this going in now? It can, of course, be further edited once it's in. Mooretwin (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you simplify "regularise" and explain "Ard Fheis"? I don't know enough to approve/dissaprove your details looks pretty much "they disagreed and split such a date". GLuck ~ R.T.G 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right to query "regularise": it looks like POV language. The section needs a more radical re-write - I just made a few small amendments to it to get rid of the more glaring POV. If we're content with the changes in bold, we can insert the new section, and continue to edit it. As for "Ard Fheis", it is the Irish Gaelic word for "conference", used by various SF parties to describe their annual conference. (You're right that it probably needs explanation for the WP readership.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer both questions together: (1) I agree absolutely that the whole "history" section needs to be drastically reduced - it is almost a verbatim reproduction of the History article. (2) The question of whether to call it "history" or "background" is really an extension of the "1905 or 1970" debate; I think it would be better to shelve that question and try to agree a text first. (3) The split itself is only one part of that history, so it may be that a "History 1970-1983" section would make more sense than just re-writing the "split" section. (4) I'm not really in a position to review your detailed proposals on a Thursday morning; if you would be willing to wait a few days I will be glad to collaborate on improving these sections. Scolaire (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, willing to wait and to collaborate with you. Happy with (1) and (3). Regarding (2), we have to conclude that that debate is settled. The evidence for 1970 is overwhelming, and all we have for 1905 is three book titles: one a party publication and two others which the books themselves support 1970 (I've gained access to Rafter today and will post what he has to say). Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence for 1970 is overwhelming, there was no new party! --Domer48_'fenian' 09:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to make sense, but every single source so far disagrees with you, with the apparent exception of a party publication. Mooretwin (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! It is now accepted that there is not and never has been a party called PSF! Read the sources again without the user of the media term and it becomes really simple. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing two issues. Whether or not the party was called PSF (by itself) is a different question. By the same argument, there was no party called OSF either ("without the user of the media term"). Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a party called OSF! It started as a media term, but was later adopted as an official title. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What source are you using to support that? And what bearing does that have on your (unsourced) efforts to contradict the scores of sources saying the current SF party was formed in 1970? Mooretwin (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to conclude, then, that the debate isn't settled. Since nothing new had been said for quite a long time, however, I still believe we should let it lie for now, and try to work at getting a concise and NPOV history section. Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What debate are you saying isn't settled? Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You said above, "Regarding (2), we have to conclude that that debate is settled." Given this edit and this one and this one, plus the exchanges immediately above here, I would have to conclude that the debate is still ongoing. It has, however, become stagnant, and nothing is ever going to be achieved by a continuation of "I'm right", "No, I'm right". Let's look at the History section, and come back to this when we have some new ideas. Scolaire (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Could people stop using edit summaries like "agreement has not been reached on the talk page to change this - please make the case there". There was no agreement for Domer to change the article from the stable version in the first place. Yet you are prepared to edit war to enforce this unagreed version. Stu 16:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, policy on WP is to go with the sources. The sources overwhelmingly say that the party was formed in 1970. Editors who refuse to accept what the sources say should not be allowed to impose their will on the article simply by their determination to edit-war. Why are you content to allow this to happen? Mooretwin (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "content" to let anything happen. I'm not in favour of the current - or any - edit-war. All I'm saying is that an edit-war is compelling evidence that the debate around it is not settled, regardless of the belief of one or both parties that they have won. I have more to say on your "overwhelming sources", but I decline to say it at this time, because I have begun the job of overhauling the History section and I do not wish to be side-tracked from it. Now, you said you were willing to collaborate with me. Is that still true? If so, can we confine the discussion to the bottom of the page? It's hard to keep track of a discussion that's going on in two places at once. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for editing the History section

My proposals, I have to say at the outset, are far more radical than Mooretwin's. The history of Sinn Féin, as far as I am concerned, takes in everything from the meeting in the Rotunda to the 2009 European elections. All of it needs to be drastically reduced, so that history will take up a reasonable proportion of the article. Two things I think are worth saying: first, that there is no need to introduce concepts such as "succession", "legacy" or "legitimacy" - a statement of the facts will do; and second, that the history of Sinn Féin is not the history of Ireland, or the history of the Troubles. In editing down, the focus should always be firmly on where Sinn Féin was, what it was doing and what it was saying. I suggest that there should be a single History section, with sub-headings "1905-1922", "1922-1970", "1970-1983" and "1983 to the present". Here is a proposed draft for the first section:

Sinn Féin was founded on 28 November 1905, when, at the first annual Convention of the National Council, Arthur Griffith outlined the Sinn Féin policy (MacDonncha (2005), p.12). That policy was "to establish in Ireland's capital a national legislature endowed with the moral authority of the Irish nation" (Griffith, The Resurection of Hungary, p. 161). Sinn Féin contested the Leitrim North bye-election of 1908 and secured 27% of the vote (Brian Feeney, Sinn Féin: a hundred turbulent years, pp. 49-50). Thereafter both support and membership fell until at the 1910 Ard Fheis (party conference) the attendance was poor and there was difficulty finding members willing to take seats on the executive (Feeney, pp. 52-4).

In 1914 Sinn Féin members including Griffith joined the anti-Redmond Irish Volunteers, which was referred to by Redmondites and others as the "Sinn Féin Volunteers". Although Griffith himself did not take part in the Easter Rising of 1916, many Sinn Féin members, who were also members both of the Volunteers and the Irish Republican Brotherhood, did. Government and newspapers dubbed the Rising "the Sinn Féin Rising" (Feeney pp. 56-7). After the Rising republicans came together under the banner of Sinn Féin, and at the 1917 Ard Fheis the party committed itself for the first time to the establishment of an Irish Republic. In the 1918 general election, Sinn Féin won 73 of Ireland's 105 seats, and in January 1919, its MPs assembled in Dublin and proclaimed themselves Dáil Éireann, the parliament of Ireland. The party supported the Irish Republican Army during the War of Independence, and members of the Dáil government negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the British Government in 1921. In the Dáil debates that followed, the party divided on the Treaty. Anti-Treaty members led by Éamon de Valera walked out, and pro- and anti-Treaty members took opposite sides in the ensuing Civil War (citations to follow).

On a procedural matter: in an edit as drastic as this, it is probably desirable to merge the affected sections with History of Sinn Féin, rather than just delete the current text. Scolaire (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely opposed to these proposals (as I understand them) in the macro sense because they would maintain - even strengthen - the current Provisional POV of this article, by giving the impression that the current SF party is the sole direct and legitimate successor to the 1905 party. An impression overwhelmingly contradicted by the sources provided. This article is about the current party and therefore should begin in 1970 with a short background section explaining the split. The History of Sinn Féin article should really be about the party up to 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this "Provisional POV" that is being suggested? Who said that the current SF party is the sole direct and legitimate successor to the 1905 party? There is not one person who has suggested this. This article is about the party and therefore should begin in 1905. There was no "new" party created in 1970! SF as a party did not dissolve in 1970! There is not and never has been a party called PSF, that is just a media term to differentiate between the two factions of the party in 1970. This is not disputed now by anyone! This is overwhelmingly supported by the sources which I provided. Any editor, who accepts that PSF was only a media term and yet insists that the party today was only founded in 1970 is only being disruptive and should be ignored. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Moorertwin, the intention is not to bolster any claim to "sole succession" - just the opposite! As I said above, I want to take the question of "sole succession" out of it altogether. But the history of the 1917, 1923 and 1948 Sinn Féins - whether you see them as one and the same or not - is the history of the current Sinn Féin. The current Sinn Féin would not now exist without those earlier incarnations. And there is nothing to stop the Fianna Fáil, Workers' Party or ather articles from including exactly the same history. My proposed first paragraph is not essentially different to the one you proposed on Wednesday. The main difference is that where you summarised older, unreferenced information (e.g. "wrongly blamed for the Rising") I have tried to present a more coherent picture based on recent sources. So why do you think our approaches are totally divergent? Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's more then one SF party, split this article into those seperate SF parties. Then have a SF disambiguation page. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And will you write all theses articles for us? Let's try to keep the talk page for constructive discussion, can we? Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, I've gotta get a band-aid for my bite-wound. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To Scolaire: I said my objection was at a macro level. At a micro level I have no difficulty with your text. The issue is that this article gives the impression that the current SF party was formed in 1905 and continues as that same party. In fact, as the sources say, it was formed by a minority break-away from the 1905 party in 1970. Therefore this article does not need a "History" section that treats the 1905-1918, 1922-1938, etc., periods the same way as, say, the 1970-86 period. The history of SF before 1970 is mere background. The history of this SF (which is the subject of this article) begins in 1970 with the split. Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. What I'm trying to do here is edit down the current overblown history in order to give a more neutral impression. As I understand it, you are in agreement that some treatment of the pre-1970 period is needed. Let's continue to look at the text on a "micro" level, and maybe that will give us greater clariy in the longer term in determining in what format that text is presented. Here is a proposed draft for the second section:

Pro-Treaty Dáil deputies and other Treaty supporters formed a new party, Cumann na nGaedhael, on 27 April 1923 at a meeting in Dublin where delegates agreed a constitution and political programme (Michael Gallagher, Political Parties in the Republic of Ireland, p. 41). Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin members continued to boycott the Dáil. At a special Ard Fheis in March 1926 de Valera proposed that elected members be allowed to take their seats in the Dáil if and when the controversial oath of allegiance was removed. When his motion was defeated, de Valera resigned from Sinn Féin and on 16 May 1926 founded his own party, Fianna Fáil (Tim Pat Coogan, The IRA, pp. 77-8). With the success of Fianna Fáil, support for Sinn Féin fell to pre-1916 levels (Michael Laffan, The resurrection of Ireland: the Sinn Féin Party, 1916-1923, p. 443). An attempt in the 1940s to access funds which had been put in the care of the High Court led to the Sinn Féin Funds Case, which the party lost and in which the judge ruled that it was not the direct successor of the Sinn Féin of 1917 (Laffan, p. 450). In the 1960s Sinn Féin moved to the left, in line with the changing policy of the IRA. It also moved towards the ending of abstentionism, although that movement was opposed by some members, notably Seán Mac Stíofáin and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh (Robert William White, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh: the life and politics of an Irish revolutionary, p. 119).

Please remember that this is only a draft proposal. All comments and amendments are welcome. Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, I don't understand. You said your rewrite was to be more radical than mine. Yet it is more than twice as long. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I said my proposal was more radical than yours. What I am proposing is to edit down "1969–1970 Resurgence", "1970s and 1980s", "Links with the IRA" and "Peace Process" sections to the same extent, and to take "Organisational structure" and "Electoral performance" out of the History section and into the article proper. In that way I hope to make the article what you say it should be: an article about a current political party rather than another article about 20th century Irish history from a republican perspactive.

Now, you say my re-write of the earlier sections is more than twice as long as yours. That is true. It is because I thought it desirable, to use your own phrase, to put "flesh on the bones". I think you will find it is still far shorter than what is now in the article - and what must remain in the article until we reach consensus on an alternative. Can you specify what parts of my proposed text are not useful in establishing what you see as the background to the formation of the current party? In that way we can get the collaboration up and running. Scolaire (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm clearer now. I agree about taking "Organisational structure" and "Electoral performance" out of the History section. (Why were they there in the first place?) Carry on - I'm happy with your efforts so far. My concern - as I've said - is at a macro level, but we'll see what the article looks like when you've finished your re-write (for which you have my support). Mooretwin (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

According to History of Fianna Fáil, your text "de Valera proposed that elected members be allowed to take their seats in the Dáil if and when the controversial oath of allegiance was removed" is not correct. It says that he proposed deleting the statement of fidelity. This is more likely: I can't see him expecting to delete the oath of allegiance to the state. --Red King (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

According to History of Fianna Fáil, "Fianna Fáil initially refused to enter the Irish Free State's Dáil Éireann in protest at the Oath of Allegiance which all members of the Dáil were obliged to take." It says nothing about any statement of fidelity. Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to move Scolaire's rewrite into the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember what I said above, we will have to merge the affected sections with History of Sinn Féin, not just delete the current text. I would rather wait until I have finished my proposed edit (1983 to the present), then I will be happy to do the work myself. Scolaire (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SOS - citation needed

I'm working on the 1970-1983 subsection of the History at the moment, and I need a reference for the use of the name/nickname/label/tag "Provisional Sinn Féin". Though most of the books cited by Mooretwin above use the wording "Provisional Sinn Féin", none of them seem to say where, when, how or with whom the name/label originated. I have looked through the whole of The Times Digital Archive and The Guardian/Observer Historical Archive for the year 1970 and the wording does not appear at all (although "Sinn Féin" and "Provisional Army Council" do appear in close proximity). The wording does appear twice in The Irish Times in 1970, but both times in small, peripheral pieces on the inside pages. In its report of the 1970 Easter Parades, by contrast, The Irish Times refers to the "Caretaker" Sinn Féin. So, can anybody provide a citation? Without it we cannot say that Ó Brádaigh's supporters were called, dubbed or referred to as "Provisional Sinn Féin". Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Bardon says "the names Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA remained with them ever since". Agnes Maillot says "To aim to unite the working class was seen as a dangerous path by those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin ...". There are dozens of sources using the term, and entries in political directories, etc., under the name Provisional Sinn Féin. Mooretwin (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not my question, Mooretwin. There are already two sources in the article saying that the name "remained with them". I'm asking when and by whom the name was given to them. Can you source that for me, please? Scolaire (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You have sufficient sources to say that they were known as Provisional SF. I'm not aware of a source saying "who" gave them the name, although I'll hunt around. Not sure why you need to mention who gave them the name in the article - you can just say they were known as PSF. Mooretwin (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"They were known as" is a classic example of weasel words. If I came across a similar phrase in an article I was not involved in, my first reaction would be to slap a on it. Of course "who" is important! Was it an Irish politician? A British journalist? A Chinese barber? The absence of any evidence that anybody used the name in the twelve months following the meetings of 11 January leaves a huge question mark over all of the cited sources. As of now I have sufficient sources to say that years after the event they would be known to historians as Provisional SF; no more than that. Scolaire (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, from "The Provisional IRA" by Patrick Bishop and Eamon Mallie, (1987), p.137 on the split in the IRA, "A few days before Christmas" 1969: The new 'Provisionals' met;

"Their first act was to repudiate the proposals passed at the previous Convention and to reafirm their allegiance to 'the 32 county Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by Dail Eireann in 1919, overthrown by force of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the British imposed 26 county and 6 county partitionist states'. They elected a Provisional Executive of twelve, which then withdrew to elect a Provisional Army Council of seven. The nomneclature, with its echoes of the 1916 rebels' Provisional Government of the Irish Republic reflected the belief that the irregularities surrounding Goulding's convention rendered it null and void. Any decisions it took were revocable. They proposed to call another convention within twelve months to resolve the leadership of the movement. Until this happened, they regarded themselves as a provisional movement. Ten months later, after the Spetember 1970 Army Council meeting, a statement was issued declaring that the 'provisional' period was now over, but by then the name had stuck fast."

In SF itself (p138): "The Ard Fheis was held on 11 January 1970 in the intercontinental hotel in Dublin. When the resolution to end abstentionism was voted on it was carried, but without the majority necessary for it to become the policy of teh movement..., MacStiofain seized the other and announcedthe at Goulding no longer represented the IRA and that to support him would be a breach ofteh Sinn Fein constitution, He declared his allegiance to the Provisional Army Council, urged th delegates to follow him, and left the meeting accompanied by about one third of the 257 Delegates to reconvene in a conference hall in parnel Square which had already been hired for the occasion."

In short, the provos themselves used the term for about ten months at the start, when they were still setting up their organisation. After that, they considered tehmselves to be the IRA and SF, but the name was already in common usage to distinguish them from the 'Officials'. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where are the words "Provisional Sinn Féin" in that quote? I'm not disputing that the abstentionists were called "Provisionals" or that "Provisional Sinn Féin" is a common enough label now. I'm looking for a specific reference to where that name or label was used at the start. Scolaire (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maillot refers to "those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin". English says MacStiofain and colleagues "formed what became Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) and announced publicly that a Provisional Army Council had been set up to reorganize the IRA". Sounds contemporary to me.

Bardon says "The breakaway group, as an interim arrangement, elected a provisional executive ... with ... Ruari O Bradaigh as president of Provisional Sinn Féin ...". Hennessey says "from this point there were two IRAs … matched by two parallel Sinn Féins – Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin". Feeney says that Provisional Sinn Féin was founded in 1970. CAIN says "The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein".

If you don't want to say that they were known as Provisional SF, why can't you just use a form of words along the lines of what the many sources say - some good possibilities above. Although, personally, I think "was known as PSF" is fine (it's backed up by the sources and satisfies those editors who are concerned to emphasise that the party was never officially known as PSF - which is true, although as yet we have no source to back it up). Mooretwin (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are sources which show that the party was known as PSF in its early days, but is now known as PSF - thus refuting your suggestion that PSF is a retrospective label applied later:

• John McGarry and Brendan O'Leary (1995), Explaining Northern Ireland: Broken images, Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd, p.511
  • Provisional Sinn Féin, republican political party which supported the PIRA, now known as Sinn Féin .
• Peter Barberis, John McHugh and Mike Tyldesley (2000), Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations, New York:Blackwell Publishers Ltd, p.244
  • Provisional Sinn Féin, now known simply as Sinn Féin, emerged out of the fundamental split in the Republican movement which took place during the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in January 1970. ... . Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire I'll try get some sources together later today which actually answer the question ask. Rather than repeat myself, this might help here--Domer48_'fenian' 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nell McCafferty says PSF called themselves PSF: The members of the breakaway faction, which emphasized armed struggle over politics, called themselves Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA ... (Nell McCafferty (2004), Nell, Penguin Ireland, p.250). Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@Scolaire, no mention of 'Provisional SF', but a clue to where the name came from. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So Nell McCafferty is the one with the inside track on Sinn Féin in the 1970s! Who'd of thunk it? More fool the poor sods who wasted their time writing biographies of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, Joe Cahill etc. Scolaire (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources

Hello. For some reason this talk page is on my watchlist and I've been watching the ping-ponging of arguments and the need for reliable sources. I have to say I very much doubt Nell McCafferty's autobiography cuts the mustard. Instead, I went to JSTOR which contains an archive of academic journals (I'm lucky enough to have access via my alma mater). Anyway I put "Provisional Sinn Fein" in as the esearch term and it found 30 articles : mostly from the 1980s and 1990s, some more recent and some of not much weight. However, I think the following might help to improve referencing, and give the "outside view" of academia:

• White, Robert W (1989). "From Peaceful Protest to Guerrilla War: Micromobilization of the Provisional Irish Republican Army" (PDF). American Journal of Sociology. 94 (6). University of Chicago Press: 1277–1302. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

In late 1969 and early 1970, members of both the IRA and Sinn Fein split over whether political or miltary activities should be dominant in the republican movement. The Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein were formed by those emphasizing military activities. Those favoring a more political response became known as Official IRA and Official Sinn Fein.

• Walker, Clive (1988). "Political Violence and Democracy in Northern Ireland" (PDF). Modern Law Review. 51 (5). Blackwell Publishing: 605–622. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

...Sinn Fein was riven into official and political factions in 1970 (mirroring a parallel split in the Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.) brought about by differing propensities towards violent action. The former transmuted itself into "Sinn Fein the Workers' Party" and then (in 1982) the "Workers' Party". Since that time, Provisional Sinn Fein has styled itself simply "Sinn Fein".

• Grove, Andrea (2001). "The Intra-National Struggle to Define "Us": External Involvement as a Two-Way Street" (PDF). International Studies Quarterly. 45 (3). Blackwell Publishing: 357–388. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

After the split between republicans in North and South, the northern party, Provisional Sinn Fein, was established as the political arm of the IRA in 1970, but was not legalised by the British until 1974. Because of its policy of "principled abstentionism" the party did not contest elections until 1982. The poorest and youngest Catholics were mobilised by Provisional Sinn Fein with the hunger strikes of 1980-1981....

• Sweeney, George (1993). "Self-Immolation in Ireland: Hungerstrikes and Political Confrontation" (PDF). Anthropology Today. 9 (5). Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: 10–14. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

..the 1981 hungerstrike was perceived by Provisional Sinn Fein as an active arther than a passive means of continuing the armed struggle. I would argue that the 1981 hungerstrike was perceived and presented by Provisional Sinn Fein but also by the Catholic church, the nationalist community and the media as a passive protest for a legitimate right... ... and Provisional Sinn Fein, who before 1981 had limited involvement in the electoral process in Northern Ireland, gained 7.7% of the vote in the council elections of 1981 and 10.1% of the vote in the 1982 Northern Ireland Assembly elections... Undoubtedly, the 'success' of the hungerstrike and the electoral support gathered by Provisional Sinn Fein during the 1981 hungerstrike and its aftermath was, in part, the result of skilled manipulation of the news media... In recent years the upsurge in the Provisional IRA's campaign of violence...has once again met with disapproval from nationalisys in Ulster. This disapproval is manifest in the decline in support for Provisional Sinn Fein.

• O'Leary, Brendan (2005). "Mission Accomplished? Looking Back at the IRA" (PDF). Field Day Review. 1. Field Day Publishing: 217–229, 232–246. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

The Provisional IRA was created in December 1969... its twin-sister, Provisional Sinn Féin, shortly afterwards.... Hereafter, unless otherwise stated, the Provisional IRA will be treated as the IRA, and Provisional Sinn Féin as Sinn Féin because that is how the volunteers and members describe their organisations, and because, officially, the Official IRA no longer exists, having been disbanded by its party, the Workers Party, the heir of the defunct Official Sinn Féin.

• Bourke, Richard (2004). ""Imperialism" and "Democracy" in Modern Ireland, 1898-2002". Boundary 2. 31 (1): 93–119. ISSN 0190-3659.

As Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, president of Provisional Sinn Féin between 1970 and 1983, came to elaborate the position within a few years of the break with the Officials, the escape from "economic imperialism," and so the transition to publicly administered socialism, had to begin with Irish revolutionary secession.... As late as 2002, it remained the stated objective of Provisional Sinn Féin to remove the fundamental "cause of conflict" in Northern Ireland... British policy was possessed by the phantom of imperialism, but when the ghostly remnant was allowed to bow out, a million Protestant unionists remained as a solid political reality. Curiously, the leaders of Provisional Sinn Féin seemed to know this. McLaughlin, after all, conceded the point in speculating that if "unionists were to find that they could become a minority within the North of Ireland it is difficult to believe that they would not resist . . . change violently."

• Maney, Gregory M (2000). "Transnational Mobilization and Civil Rights in Northern Ireland" (PDF). Social Problems. 47 (2). University of California Press: 153–179. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

In 1970, the majority of republicans opted to effectively exit from the civil rights movement and support an armed campaign for the reunification of Ireland conducted under the newly constituted Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

• Keatinge, Patrick (1987). "Ireland's Foreign Relations in 1986" (PDF). Irish Studies in International Affairs. 2 (3). Royal Irish Academy: 99–139. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

Underlying this bout of party politics was a further element of uncertainty, when Provisional Sinn Fein decided at its Ard Fheis on 31 October - 2 November to end its traditional policy of abstaining from the Dail, thereby raising some electoral questions for Fianna Fail and impinging on Mr Mallon's hopes for a minimal degree of bipartisanship.

• Spjut, R J (1986). "Internment and Detention without Trial in Northern Ireland 1971-1975: Ministerial Policy and Practice". The Modern Law Review. 49 (6). Blackwell Publishing: 712–740. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Mr. Rees endeavoured to placate the Loyalists by publically stating that the speed at which he released was related to the level of violence and that he would resume the use of ICOs if necessary. He explained to the writer that the Provisional Sinn Fein knew that this was likely because they were meeting with Northern Ireland Office officials at the time.

• Garrett, J Brian (1979–1980). "Ten Years of British Troops in Northern Ireland" (PDF). International Security. 4 (3). MIT Press: 712–740. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)

The Provisional Sinn Fein (the allegedly "political" wing of the Provisional IRA) have for some time advocated a form of Federal Ireland...

• Seiler, D L (1989). "Peripheral Nationalism between Pluralism and Monism" (PDF). International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique. 10 (3). Sage Publications: 191–207. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

This debate has led to a schism within the two most active and radical "nationalitarian" movements, those of the Irish and the Spanish Basques. In Ireland the Workers Party has given up violence and made the first choice; Provisional Sinn Fein decided for the second.

Lozleader (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those, Lozleader. Unfortunately it has only added a list of journal articles to the already long list of books on the subject that use the name/label Provisional Sinn Féin. This only further confirms that the party was known by the authors of books and journal articles as Provisional Sinn Fein. What I'm looking for, and what doesn't seem to be forthcoming, is some sort of verification that it was known to the general public as Provisional Sinn Féin, and/or that it was known by that label around the time of its genesis i.e. the year 1970. It's one of those facts that everybody seems to know (I "knew" it myself until a few days ago) but nobody seems to be able to source. Please note what I said in my original post, that the label does not appear in two of the most important British newspapers in the whole of 1970, and not to any significant extent in one of the most important Irish papers. Does nobody find that strange, for a name "by which they were known"? Compare the frequency with which the British and Irish papers use "Jedward", the name by which John & Edward are known. Scolaire (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you just say what the sources say, i.e. PSF formed in 1970, later known only as SF? Or - using the second source provided by Lozleader - has styled itself simply as SF since OSF dropped the SF name. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I can say what I please. I choose to say what I am satisfied is verifiable. Thanks to everybody for responding to my query. I think there is no point in prolonging this. I will produce the next instalment of my draft shortly. Scolaire (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for editing the History section, part 2

Here as promised is the latest instalment of my proposed edit:

1970-1983

At the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis on 11 January 1970 the proposal to end abstention and take seats, if elected, in the Dáil, the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom was put before the members (Joe Cahill: A Life in the IRA, Brendan Anderson, O'Brien Press, Dublin 2002, ISBN 0 86278 674 6, pg.186). A similar motion had been adopted at an IRA convention the previous month, leading to the formation of a Provisional Army Council by Mac Stíofáin and other members opposed to the leadership. When the motion was put to the Ard Fheis, it failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority. The Executive attempted to circumvent this by introducing a motion in support of IRA policy, at which point Ó Brádaigh led a walk-out from the meeting. These members reconvened at another place, appointed a Caretaker Executive and pledged allegiance to the Provisional Army Council. The Caretaker Executive declared itself opposed to the ending of abstention, the drift towards Marxism, the failure of the leadership to defend the nationalist people of Belfast during the 1969 Northern Ireland riots, and the expulsion of traditional republicans by the leadership during the 1960s (J. Bowyer Bell, The Secret Army: The IRA, pp. 366-8). At the October 1970 Ard Fheis delegates were informed that an IRA convention had been held and had regularised its structure, bringing to an end the 'provisional' period (Peter Taylor, Provos, p. 87). By then, however, the label "Provisional" or "Provo" was already being applied to them by the media. (Gerry Adams, Before the Dawn, p. 149). The opposing, anti-abstentionist party became known as Official Sinn Féin (Feeney p. 252).

Initially, because the "Provisionals" were committed to military rather than political action, Sinn Féin's membership was largely confined, in Danny Morrison's words, to people "over military age or women." A Belfast Sinn Féin organiser of the time described the party's role as "agitation and publicity" (Feeney, p. 260). New cumainn (branches) were established in Belfast, and a new newspaper, Republican News, was published (Feeney, p. 261). Sinn Féin took off as a protest movement after the introduction of internment in August 1971, organising marches and pickets (Feeney, p. 271). The party launched its platform, Éire Nua (a New Ireland) at the 1971 Ard Fheis (Taylor, p. 104). In general, however, the party lacked a distinct political philosophy. In the words of Brian Feeney, "Ó Brádaigh would use Sinn Féin ard fheiseanna to announce republican policy, which was, in effect, IRA policy, namely that Britain should leave the North or the 'war' would continue" (Feeney, p. 272). Sinn Féin was given a concrete presence in the community when the IRA declared a ceasefire in 1975. 'Incident centres' were set up to communicate potential confrontations to the British authorities. They were manned by Sinn Féin, which had been legalised the year before by Secretary of State, Merlyn Rees (Taylor pp. 184, 165).

After the ending of the truce another issue arose—that of political status for prisoners. Rees released the last of the internees but introduced the Diplock courts, and ended 'special category status' for all prisoners convicted after 1 March 1976. This led first to the blanket protest, and then to the dirty protest (Feeney pp. 277-9). Around the same time, Gerry Adams began writing for Republican News, calling for Sinn Féin to become more involved politically (Feeney p. 275). During the 1981 hunger strike, striker Bobby Sands was elected Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone with the help of the Sinn Féin publicity machine. After his death on hunger strike his seat was held, with an increased vote, by his election agent, Owen Carron. These successes convinced republicans that they should contest every election (Feeney 290-1). Danny Morrison expressed the mood at the 1981 Ard Fheis when he said:

"Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?" (Taylor (1997), pp.281-2).

This was the origin of what became known as the Armalite and ballot box strategy. Éire Nua was dropped in 1982, and the following year Ó Brádaigh stepped down as leader, to be replaced by Adams.

Scolaire (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Pretty fair and balanced and also informative. I'd be a little concerned that the first para is a bit wordy (will the reader really be interested in the methods used to pass abstentionism at the 1970 Ard Fheis?). Also that the IRA didn't defend the Catholics in 1969 is disputed in "The Lost Revolution", the new history of the Officials. But apart from that it looks good. Jdorney (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about wordiness. If it could be shortened, and still make the point that it was not the original motion that led to the walk-out, I'd be happy with that. On the second point, I'm not arguing that the IRA failed to protect Catholics, only that the Caretaker Executive said it did. Scolaire (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The first part reads to me like it has deliberately been written to avoid saying that the Provos left and formed their own rival SF party. Doesn't even mention the name Provisional SF. Mooretwin (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty fair assessment. That the Provos left and formed their own rival SF party is one of two opposing points of view (POV). My draft is deliberately neutral on that question (NPOV). Scolaire (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Two opposing point of views? Who says they didn't? (Apart from Domer48, BigDunc and the Provos themselves?) Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. Scolaire (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, The text could maybe be more explicit that the republican movement of the day split onto two parts, without saying which one was the "true" SF. Jdorney (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So a small number of WP editors and the party itself says that the Provos didn't leave, and every single reliable source listed so far says the opposite - Scolaire thinks that the article shouldn't mention what the reliable sources all say? That's giving a hell of a lot of WP:Undue weight to one non-reliable source, and failing to go with what the scores of reliable sources say. Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with the article explaining PSF's own view that it is the "true SF", so long as it is clear that it is the Provo view, but the article should make clear that the party was formed in 1970 when it split from what then became known as OSF. Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I said at the outset this article is not about who is the "true SF"! I am determined to keep it NPOV. Now, the fact that one POV has "scores" of sources does not make it NPOV. And there is no consensus that the sources "prove" that they left. That's still only a point of view (POV). Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said that the article should be about who is the "true SF": the article should be about the current SF party. The fact that said party believes itself to be the "true SF", however, is notable and should surely be mentioned. Seems crazy to ignore it, and does a disservice to WP readers. What you can't ignore either is the party's formation in 1970. For the article to purport that the current party was formed in 1905 is POV. To characterise around 30 reliable sources saying X against 1 (biased) source saying Y as two "POVs" of equal weight is, in itself, POV. Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Mooretwin, you have cited "scores" of sources, and you have drawn a conclusion from them. Please show me where any other editor has agreed unequivocally that that is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Saying "this is so" for the 100th time doesn't make it more true than saying it for the 99th. It's still only a point of view. Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "point of view": it's an established fact, supported by all the reliable sources. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia to inform readers; not a cryptic maze where we hide from them important facts because a certain political POV disagrees with those facts. I notice that the Holocaust article doesn't avoid stating that it was a genocide of 6m Jews: by your logic it should avoid stating this because it is a mere "POV", of equal standing to the POV of Holocaust-deniers. To deliberately refuse to use the term "Provisional SF" is also ridiculous - how will that help readers to understand the split? Your "split" section isn't much different to what Domer48 had written! Mooretwin (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That aside, I'm content for you to insert your rewrites into the article as I'm happy with 90% of it. At least that will narrow down the areas of dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I want to work on the "1983 to the present" section for the next week or two, and then I promise to come back to the "formation" question and see if we can find some middle ground. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We could/should remove the history text completely from this article, leaving just a

. There we have a detailed article and we get around the problem of trying to write an NPOV summary. --Red King (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll understand if I'm less than enthusiastic about that idea, having spent the last three weeks working on a rewrite of this section :-) The History of Sinn Féin article is a disaster! I'd like to work on that article as well, but that would be a longer-term project. Anyway, if you think my efforts so far have NPOV issues you can point them out to me. Mooretwin is 90% happy with it—which I'd be very happy to get in an exam. The remaining 10% relate to issues that we still have to tackle regardless whether there is a History section or not. Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already commented that any pre-1970 history should be included merely as "Background", otherwise it gives the impression that the current party existed before 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment noted. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to move Scolaire's rewrite into the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note what I said above, we will have to merge the (pre-1970) sections with History of Sinn Féin, not just delete the current text. I would rather wait until I have finished my proposed edit (1983 to the present), then I will be happy to do the work myself. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what you envisage being involved in the merging? If you mean scrapping the History of Sinn Féin article and redirecting to here, then that would be a controversial move. Mooretwin (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging is not scrapping. There is currently text in the history section of this article that is not in the History of Sinn Féin article. It needs to be merged into that article in a specific way, as set out in WP:MERGE. If you're willing to do that, and you're sure you can do it right, then great! Go ahead and do it, with my full blessing. Scolaire (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Mooretwin (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted the merge. Mooretwin (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede wording

I've restored the pre-3rd November lede, which had been stable prior to Domer48's arbitrary edit on 3 November (which resulted in the edit-warring). There was no consensus for his edit, which was made without discussion. It was also incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources. Onus is on the person changing the text to seek consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What Scolaire said. POV forks are against policy. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur, we also need to address the question in the info box. Many political movements split and reform in different ways. The naming convention tends to go to whoever wins out. While in 1970 there were two movements who could claim the title there is now only one (although others can claim origin). Mooretwin demonstrates his political position with the "Background" proposal above. I am going to attempt a compromise edit on the info box. --Snowded 09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please retract your accusation. I don't demonstrate any "political" position. I seek the article to be accurate and NPOV. Those trying to impose the Provisional POV are, by definition, demonstrating a "political" position, contrary to all the reliable sources. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded that the "two dates" infobox is more useful than the "no dates" one. It may be that it could be better worded, but that is something we can all think about. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'two dates' solution is great. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What is Current 1970 supposed to mean? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That the party in its current form, i.e. minus the Officials, dates from January 1970. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The only date in the infobox should be 1970: that's when the current party known as SF was formed. To include 1905 is indulgence of those seeking to push a POV. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And to assert that there is no continuity with the 1905 foundation is to indulge a different POV --Snowded 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's asserting that there is "no continuity with the 1905 foundation"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are --Snowded 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong there, because I'm not. Can't see anyone else making such an assertion either. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Dunc 'n' Domer have restored the arbitrary 3 November edit against consensus. This will have to go to WP:3O to avoid the continuation of the edit war, which seems to have begun again. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have begun with this edit, notwithstanding the trotting out of all the buzzwords. Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The edit-warring began on 3 November, when Domer48 arbitrarily changed the stable, compromise version of the lede. Mooretwin (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true! Look at the opening paragraph on 1 January 2009. It was not I who arbitrarily changed the stable version. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, on the 1 January (as the link you have provided demonstrates!) the lede said formed in 1970. On 3 November you changed it against consensus. You should change it back. Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another issue I have with the lede is the sentence "In the 2009 European Parliamentary elections Bairbre de Brun was elected with 126,184 first preference votes, the only candidate to reach the quota on the first count." Since the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and since the de Brun election result is not mentioned in the article outside the lede, I suggest it be removed from the lede, or is give some prominence in the article. --BwB (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the sentences from the lede to the section on the election results in the 2000s. We can consider whether or not to leave the sentence in the lede, or to expand the section in the election results area. --BwB (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Scol for expanding and reorganizing the EU election section. Nice job. --BwB (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer no dates in the infobox, but would support both dates with better wording than present. Regarding the first paragraph, how about just saying:

Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland. It is a major party of Irish republicanism and its political ideology is left wing. The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA. The name is Irish for "ourselves" or "we ourselves", although it is frequently mistranslated as "ourselves alone".

The formation can be dealt with in the main body. It's the first paragraph that's causing problems, we're making collaborative progress on the main body. So let's just remove the problem. BwB, I think I inserted that sentence about de Brun. The article previously said something like "Sinn Fein are the largest party in NI as of 2009", using her election victory as a source. This seemed misleading to me - they have less MLAs/MPs. So I changed it. Open to suggestions, but the fact that they topped a poll for the first time should be mentioned somehow. Stu 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The 1905 foundation of the party has to go into the lead. BigDunc 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree Dunc! It's obvious. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that Dunc and Domer. --BwB (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Below is the current opening paragraph.

Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland, founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, and while there are a number of Parties with origins in Sinn Féin the current party is led by Gerry Adams. It is a major party of Irish republicanism and its political ideology is left wing. The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA. The name is Irish for "ourselves" or "we ourselves", although it is frequently mistranslated as "ourselves alone".

Brief version. SF is an Irish political party, founded in 1905, a number of parties have their origins in the party. The current party is lead by GA its political ideology is left wing and SF translated is "ourselves".

Now the only problem I have with that is there is no mention of it originally was in favour of duel monarchy. Everything in the first paragraph is covered in the main body of the article per WP:LEAD. So what's the problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my take on this: There are two points of view here, that the party originated in 1905, and that the party in its current form dates from 1970. As far as I'm concerned, both points of view are correct. Nobody (surely!) is denying that there is a single thread between the party of 2009 and the party of 1905-1917. The fact that there are other parties with origins in Sinn Féin is a matter for other articles, not this one. Nobody (surely!) is suggesting that the party that had its Ard Fheis in October 1970 was identical with the party that convened its Ard Fheis in January 1970. Something came out of that day that was different to what went in, and that something went on to become the party that is now led by Gerry Adams. Now, we can leave all of that out of the lead, as Stuart suggests, but nature abhors a vacuum, and the alternative dates will almost certainly continue to alternate. What's needed is an agreed wording that will take in both points of view, without offending either. "Emerged" seemed to work for a good while, but obviously it's no longer enough. I suggest something on the lines of:

Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: ) is a political party in Ireland. Originating in the Sinn Féin organisation founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, it took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party. Sinn Féin is led by Gerry Adams. It is a major party of Irish republicanism and its political ideology is left wing. The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA. The name is Irish for "ourselves" or "we ourselves", although it is frequently mistranslated as "ourselves alone".

Scolaire (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is reasonable effort, Scol. I support it. --BwB (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All going well till "Nobody (surely!) is suggesting that the party that had its Ard Fheis in October 1970 was identical with the party that convened its Ard Fheis in January 1970." What came out of the Ard Fheis in January 1970 was a leadership challenge not a new party. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Per The Lost Revolution: The Story of the the Official IRA and the Workers' Party, Brian Hanley & Scott Millar, Penguin Ireland (2009), ISBN 978 1 844 88120 8, Pg. 149. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your personal theories aren't relevant. Only reliable sources will do. Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I didn't say it was a new party and I don't believe it was a new party. I said it was different to what went in. It wasn't led by Tomás Mac Giolla and it didn't contain anti-abstentionists or Marxists. Therefore it took a new form at this time, and that is the form it has today (although it did later end abstention by a democratic vote). Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if the Provos didn't form a new party, then the Provos and the Officials must actually have been part of the same party. Are they still part of the same party? If not, when did they split, if it wasn't 1970, and have you any sources to back up this claim? Mooretwin (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well? Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Where, Scolaire, are the sources that contradict the view that the current party was formed in 1970? You're triangulating here - trying to give equal weight to dozens of reliable sources on one hand with the POV of a small number of editors on the other, and then arguing for a "compromise". The current party was formed in 1970, when it split from the 1905 party. That's what happened. That's what the sources say. Why should the article not say that? Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a hunch you were going to raise the "sources" again. This is what I feel about the sources:

1. In deciding whether a source is reliable in relation to a paticular fact, it’s not enough to establish that it was published by a reputable company. It would need to be clear that the author had reasonable grounds for stating that fact, viz. That he or she had access to primary documents. A sequence of authors each saying the same thing because the previous one said it, or because some journalist somewhere said it, does not make an overwhelming number of reliable sources IMO.
2. We can't look at Sinn Féin in isolation. At least two major writers – Tim Pat Coogan and J. Bowyer Bell – treat the IRA as one continuous organisation from 1919 (or 1913) to 1994. So unless you're going to suggest that "Provisional" Sinn Féin left Sinn Féin but the "Provisional" IRA didn't leave the IRA...
3. What do the sources actually say? Only you say that they say a brand new party was set up. Domer says that they merely differentiate between factions. Valenciano says there is disagreement between sources and sometimes within sources themselves. Stu agrees with Valenciano.

So I'm not balancing sources against POV, I'm balancing POV against POV with due regard for the sources. Scolaire (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, no time now but some time tomorrow I'll put forward the quote you were looking for above on the introduction of the different terms that says they merely differentiate between factions.. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

1. You've got a load of reliable sources, many written by experts in their field, saying the current SF party was formed in 1970 when they walked out of the SF conference and set up a new party.
2. So are you going to suggest that the Provisional IRA article should be rewritten, beginning in 1919, and the other IRA articles deleted?
3. The sources actually say that a new party was formed. Read them. Domer48 isn't a reliable source.

Bottom line - you have no source to contradict the fact that a new party was formed in 1970 - only your interpretation of how Tim Pat Coogan and J. Bowyer Bell treat the IRA. Mooretwin (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble accepting the 1970-only position you seem to favour. Sinn Féin have an official line on when their party was formed. It may not be decisive, or even terribly weighty, but it can't be ignored, can it? On the subject of the official party version of reality, what does the Workers Party version of history say happened? No self-respecting Marxist party could ever be without a party line on almost everything, so it must be in print somewhere. And what are we to make of of books like Sinn Féin, 1905-2005: in the shadow of gunmen and Sinn Feín: a hundred turbulent years? I have no idea of their contents but their titles seem to speak for themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Who has said SF's own position should be ignored? (Well, I guesss Scolaire favours that, but I certainly don't.) The Workers Party AFAIK say that the minority broke away from the majority and formed their own SF. As for the two books to which you refer: as had already been discussed, they both describe the new SF party being formed in 1970. Both are quoted among the list of sources above. Have you any sources to contradict what the quoted sources here say? Do you deny that the Provos walked out of the SF conference in 1970, and set up a new organisation, with its own headquarters? Do you deny that the rest of SF continued without the Provos? Mooretwin (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Workers Party web site contains a history section, which has a paper on the history of the party. It doesn't describe the events of 1970, but does say: "It is a matter of historical record that the outcome of the vicious opposition to these changes was to culminate in the creation of the Provisionals in 1969 by an alliance of elements in Fianna Fail, rightwing Irish Americans, northern sectarian Roman Catholic nationalists, and embittered ex-members of the Republican Movement from the 1940s"; and also describes the Official IRA ceasefire in 1972 as "a major decision by (official) Sinn Féin and the IRA" - the use of the parentheses indicating their position on the split. A biography of Cathal Goulding on the site says that he was "a life-long member of Sinn Féin and was instrumental in bringing about fundamental change in that organisation, culminating in the name change to Sinn Féin the Workers’ Party and the building of the Workers’ Party into a force in Irish politics". Mooretwin (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with your wording today Scolaire. Stu 09:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Took its current form in 1970" - what does that mean, and - applying Scolaire's unusually strict requirement for referencing - where's the source that says that it "took its current form"? This reads to me like the 1905 party made some structural or constitutional change in 1970, but is essentially the same 1905 party. That is not what happened in 1970, and so the lede is misleading. Why should readers be misled just because of a vocal minority here who - for whatever reason - wish to pretend that the current party did not split from the main SF party in 1970? Also, why has the reference to the connection with the Provisional IRA been removed? Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It means, as I said previously, that the party in its current form, i.e. minus the Officials, dates from January 1970. It is fully referenced in the History section, and will continue to be when the History section is edited. Now, It's time to stop talking about a "vocal minority". You, Mooretwin, are in a minority of one here. The majority is in favour of reaching a consensus based on two dates. Your arguments about sources have been answered repeatedly and patiently. There comes a point at which repeating the same thing stops being reasonable, and begins to be disruptive. Please don't cross that line.

The deletion of the "IRA" sentence was a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the majority are in favour of reaching a consensus on two dates - I have a feeling Domer or Dunc will revert so that 1970 and any mention of the split isn't in the lead again. But while I (partially) agree with Mooretwin, I think this is a good solution. Stu 11:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You, Valenciano, BwB, GoodDay and myself (at least) have expressed support for consensus based on two dates. Is that not a majority? I'm aware that you partially agree with Mooretwin's point of view; that's why your continued support of a consensus solution is so welcome. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The original consensus text (which I proposed some time ago) contained two dates. It said the party was formed in 1970, but traces its origins to 1905. What was wrong with that? It seems to me to be perfectly accurate and fair. Mooretwin (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To Scolaire:

1. Given your very strict requirement for precise references in respect of how to explain the term "Provisional Sinn Féin", why does this requirement not apply to the explanation of "took its current form"? What source uses this terminology? The sources make it clear that (P)SF split from (what became O)SF in 1970 as a new party. No sources have been offered to contradict this, but because a vocal minority get excited about it, you have decided that there must be a "compromise" between the sources and the unsourced opinions of certain editors.
2. When I refer to a "vocal minority", I am not referring to those in favour of your "compromise", I am referring to those who wish to pretend - with no sources to support their view - that the current party was not formed in 1970. Those who support your "compromise" presumably do so because they wish to avoid an edit war which would be caused by the vocal minority reverting any text that supports the sources. Articles should not be written to appease the personal opinions of determined editors: they should be written according to policy.
3. My "arguments about sources" (whatever you mean by that) have been answered neither repeatedly nor patiently. Where are the "answers"? Where are the sources that say that the current SF party did not, in fact, split from the main SF party? I asked you before - and you refused to answer: if the Provos didn't form a new party in 1970, then are you saying that the Provos and the Officials were actually part of the same party (if so, where is your source?). Are they still part of the same party? If not, when did they split? Mooretwin (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So far I have consistently assumed good faith on your part (and I resent your assertion that I haven't answered your arguments or that I haven't been patient), but given your ongoing practice of 'I didn't hear that' I must now reluctantly assume that you are being deliberately provocative. As of now, I am ignoring any posts from you on this question, and I earnestly recommend that other editors who are genuinely interested in improving this article do the same. Goodbye. Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Such arrogance. I've read through the discussion again, and you haven't answered the issue about the lack of sources supporting the claim that the current party wasn't formed in 1970. Yes, you have responded to my comments, but the responses do not answer the point. I have attempted to engage you in dialogue, but you have arrogantly chosen not to engage - ironically I didn't hear that applies to you. Seeking dialogue is not attempting to be provocative. I do not understand your position here, and I am trying to rectify that through dialogue. I had a high opinion of you, but your refusal to engage here and your efforts to equate sources with the opinions of editors create doubts over your credibility. Your response here is very disappointing, but I will not respond in kind. I will always remain willing to discuss with you and anyone else. Mooretwin (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, below is the sources I'd said I would provide. I'm only half way through the book but this is the gist of it:

Now it goes into the faction fights and what have you but also discusses how some cumman were still meeting and contained members from each. There was also cooperation during military engagements. Now what is of note below is that the 'Officials' would later formally adopt the media term 'Official' and become Official Sinn Féin.

Now all the sources support the section on the split. It was a faction fight within both the political and military wings of the republican movement. There was no new party created! Now everyone agrees that the terms used were to differentiate between the factions, and that is all they were. Within two years the 'Provisional' section of the Party had claimed the ascendency in both the political and military wings, and the ousted leadership went on to form Official Sinn Féin. Now the only question I have with the Lead is why just highlight 1970? Why not 1986? Both dates re: splits would be equally important in my mind although for different reasons. Why not mention the the party was originally in favour of duel monarchy, one would think that should be mentioned in the Lead.

Sorry for the delay with the sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source on Provisional Sinn Féin. That is useful. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you claim that "there was no new party created". How do you explain, then, the walk-out; the setting up of new, separate headquarters; the election of a new leader; the establishment of a new party newspaper; and all the while the majority SF party continued as before (albeit minus the Provos)? How do you explain all the sources which describe PSF as the "new" party? Where is your source to support the assertion that SF "ousted leadership" "went on to form Official SF"? When did this happen? We await sources to back up these claims with interest. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re 1986, it was not a split in the same sense as 1970, when you had, as you say, two organisations or factions, one of which took the form that today's Sinn Féin still has. Hence, "it took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party." In 1986 Gerry Adams's Sinn Féin did not change; all that happened was that a small number of members left to form their own party (which stayed small).
Re "dual monarchy", not only would I not mention it in the lead, I wouldn't mention it at all. It's not much talked about in the modern literature. It was once popular to talk about it, as though it showed that Griffith was a monarchist. He wasn't. He was a former member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood! The "Sinn Féin policy" advocated following the example of Hungary, which set up its own legislature in a state known as the Dual Monarchy. There was no bar on republicans joining Sinn Féin, and Griffith himself said he would be perfectly happy with a republican form of government. Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll address the points you raise later, but for now I agree on ignoring Mooretwin's disruptive antics. They have conceded the fact that the term 'Provisional' was used to differentiate between the two factions within Sinn Féin not once but twice. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I am a single person: not plural; and I am male, so please refer to me as "he". Second, your interpretation of what I have "conceded" is disingenuous to say the least. Third, your failure to explain or source the rationale for your claims is noted. Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I have come to this party a little later than others and have not been involved in the discussion for very long, but it seems to me that we are splitting hairs and playing semantic games a little bit. There is no doubt that the current SF party had its roots in the original SF party of 1905. Now what happened in 1970 is the point of contention. We can say that there was a disagreement in the party and a split occurred - on this, I think we are all agreed. Now if we want to say that the split "created" the Provisional Sinn Fein, there are references to support this view. Or that PSF was just a continuation of original SF and then later OFS was set up, there are references to support this position also. Perhaps we do not need to say that the current SF party was "created" in 1970, rather that after the split the 2 factions went their separate ways, one faction evolving into the current SF party, the other into the Workers party. Would this be a reasonable compromise? --BwB (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While there was a parting of the ways only one faction went and formally adopted a new title for their faction. This has all been dealt with and no amount of word games will change that. . --Domer48_'fenian' 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to play any word games - simply trying to reach agreement. Up to 1970 there was the Sin Fein party. At the meeting in 1970 a split occurred. Was a "new" party formed? If not, was it a continuation of the SF party? Then later did OSF branch off and rename themselves the Workers Party? Where can we agree? --BwB (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We've already agreed that the "true Sinn Féin" argument is pointless. No new party was set up in or after 1970. It was a split, as in mitosis. This Sinn Féin continued, the other Sinn Féin continued. The other Sinn Féin is not the subject of this article. The current wording reflects that, without laying the whole discussion out for the reader, who doesn't care. Do you have a problem with the current wording? If not, why not just draw a line under this discussion? Scolaire (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks to BwB for his comments - you're very welcome. No-one is disputing that the original SF started in 1905, nor that the current SF can "trace its roots back to 1905" (to quote the original lede-wording before Domer's edit on 3 November). So you are correct that what happened in 1970 is the point of contention. I think you are correct i in saying that we are all agreed that the party split in 1970, but it would be helpful if Domer48 confirmed that he agreed with this. You are right that there are sources to say that the split "created" Provisional Sinn Fein. But I have yet to see any source to support the view that "PSF was just a continuation of original SF and then later OFS was set up". I would be surprised if any source existed, since this is not what happened. What actually happened was that the minority faction (the Provisionals) walked out of SF and set up their own party, which they also called SF. There were, then, two SF parties. The Provisionals eventually grew bigger, and the Officials later changed their name (first, to Sinn Fein The Workers Party and later to The Workers Party). There are sources to support this. As I understand it, Domer48 is arguing that the Provos didn't set up their own party, but there was some kind of "reorganisation", but this is not supported by any sources. Mooretwin (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Scolaire's argument that the split was mitosis, i.e. an "equal" split, rather than the Provos splitting away from the main party, that is certainly one interpretation of events, but only one. Most of the sources describe the Provos leaving and setting up their own party, while (what became) the Officials continued constitutionally as before. The current wording merely says SF "in its current form" began in 1970 which, I think, greatly plays down the fact that they left and formed a new party (or, if "mitosis" occurred, two new parties were formed out of one). The current wording implies - despite what Scolaire asserts - that the current SF is the sole, direct continuation of the 1905 party. I ask again - what was wrong with the previous wording, i.e. that "the current party was formed in 1970, but traces its origins back to 1905"? We also have a proposed history section which doesn't actually tell the reader anything of what happened in 1970, and deliberately avoids even mentioning the term Provisional SF! So we have important information excluded from the article, so as to avoid upsetting Dunc 'n' Domer and a few other strong-willed editors. Mooretwin (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I fully agree with BwB that we are "splitting hairs and playing semantic games." We could stop right now if we chose. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly semantics, when the article gives a wrongful impression of a party which does not match the sources. It's not semantics when we have a (proposed) history section which avoids properly explaining the split to the reader, and doesn't even explain the term Provisional SF. What if a reader reads about Provisional SF in another article, clicks on it, is directed here, and there is no mention of it? It's not semantics when we do not make it clear to readers what happened in 1970. It's not semantics when the reliable sources are ignored in the interests of appeasing editors. It's not semantics when the article lists leaders from before 1970 of a party which wasn't formed until 1970.Mooretwin (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were nearing agreement here. Let's not get too fired up about this and move along together to see if we can come to some text that can encompass most of the divergent viewpoints. How about something like "the current party was formed in 1970 when the party split with Official Sinn Fein, but traces its origins back to 1905"? Thanks to all for keeping the discussion lively but friendly. --BwB (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you again, BwB, what is it that you object to in this wording in the edit I did three days ago? When I first proposed it here on the talk page you said you supported it. What has changed? Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Scol, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have no objections to the edit you did a few days ago. However, it seems that others have and I was trying (perhaps unnecessarily) to try to get others to agree. Sorry if I have caused you any confusion. I am happy with the version of . --BwB (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And it looks like everybody else bar Mooretwin is as well. Scolaire (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Do you want to make the changes to the lede in the live article now? --BwB (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Either you or I are out of touch with reality! I'm pretty sure the link we both posted is to where I already made the changes in the live article! Am I wrong? Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

BwB, I would support your proposal "the current party was formed in 1970 when the part split Official Sinn Féin, but traces its origins back to 1905". This is supported by the sources, is accurate, and is much clearer for the reader. Mooretwin (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, Moore. How do others feel about this? --BwB (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1970s and 1980s Section

I have done a little work to clean up this section. However, I feel it needs some work to create a more "encyclopedic" tone. It reads more like narrative rather than an encyclopedia, and it could also be condensed somewhat. Most of the material is taken from Brian Feeney's book. This is not bad, I just feel the material could be presented in a better way. --BwB (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, BwB, but you've already wasted too much of your time :-) Please see Proposals for editing the History section and Proposals for editing the History section, part 2. I'm just waiting to finish "History 1983 to the present" till I replace the whole lot (consensus permitting of course). Scolaire (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, silly me!. I should have checked. Don't worry, I'll participate in the ongoing discussion. --BwB (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Per WP:EL "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links", I am going to clear out a few of the links on the page. --BwB (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit of History section, part 3

Thanks to Mooretwin for merging the old history section into History of Sinn Féin. I have now added the re-write according to my earlier proposals, including adding in the GFA and susequent developments and making Organisational structure, Electoral performance and Links with IRA free-standing sections. I have not kept the pictures of Griffith and de Valera, for a good reason: while the current party hails its roots in the 1905 Sinn Féin, it would not regard either Griffith or Dev as major heroes; it would be misleading, therefore, to have an image near the top of the article that suggests that Griffith was the fons et origo of the current party. I suggest instead using an image of the Round Room of the Rotunda (aka the Ambassador Cinema), if one can be found. Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Bell (1997), p.366; Feeny (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8; Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5
2. Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
3. Ferriter (2005), p.624
4. Bew & Gillespie (1993), pp.24-5; Feeny (2002), pp.249-50; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Bell (1997), p.366; Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281
5. Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.281; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
6. Kee (2005), p.237; Ellis (2004), p.2811
7. Bell (1997), p.363; Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; Anderson (2002), p.186
8. Anderson (2002), p.184
9. Anderson (2002), p.186
10. Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
11. Anderson (2002), pp.187
12. Feeney (2002), pp.250-1; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
13. Bell (1997), p.366; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186
14. Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
15. Bell (1997), p.367; MacDonncha (2005), pp.131-2; Anderson (2002), p.186; Coogan (2000), pp.337-8
16. Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
17. CAIN Abstract of Organisations: entry under Workers Party.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Start-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Misplaced Pages requested audio of pronunciations
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Selected anniversaries (November 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2006)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment