Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 2

message: The article about the I.R.A. should also be merged into this article as well, because Gerry Adams is both the head of Sinn Féin & the I.R.A., given the fact that he is a subhuman racist who has killed people himself. That is a fact! - (Aidan Work 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging Sinn Féin and Irish Republican Army would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your statement is a double non sequitur, by the way. --Kwekubo 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Have any sources? Talrias (t | e | c) 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sinn Féin & I.R.A. are one and the same thing!

message: Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?
see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics
--Mais oui! 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team? 

message: Has Francis Molloy's suspension ended yet? I haven't seen anything lately on this and no-one else has updated the list on Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly which still has him as "Suspended from Sinn Féin".
Also given the tight numbers game in the Assembly, how many places on any future Executive, the Policing Board and other key bodies are Sinn Féin entitled to, both with and without Molloy? (Now that Paul Berry is out of the DUP they seem to have lost their entitlement to some places.) Timrollpickering 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many MLAs currently? 

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

message: Do we really need Adams image in the infobox, considering that his is the only one out of the at least the major parties articles of either Ireland or the UK in which their image of the leader appears in the infobox. To me it just looks out of place. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's been almost a week, and no one has objected, so i am going to move Gerry's images out of the infbox, and to somewhere else in the article. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh but his image is already somewhere else in the article. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adams and the Infobox 

message: This article needs to be split up. It has been done successfully for the various IRAs, it should be possible to do the same here.
Even if there is a single parent article, the major content like Provisional Sinn Féin should be on seperate articles with merely a summary on the parent article.
zoney  ♣ talk 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be used to refer to the party led by Gerry Adams, which is the only registered party with the name of Sinn Fein, all the history of the party and the various groups that came from the splits etc should be in a seperate History of Sinn Fein article linked from this one.--padraig3uk 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: 'Small numbers of Catholics also voted for the leading unionist parties, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the shortlived Unionist Party of Northern Ireland[citation needed].'
My immediate thought was that the number of Catholics who voted unionist in this period were so few in number as to be irrelevant. If this statement as it reads can't be backed up with facts then it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.14.83 (talk • contribs) 
:Look at the votes Paisley got in Catholic areas of the North in European elections. He even picked up votes on the Catholic Tory Island. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that as many protestants voted for Sinn Fein then catholics voted for the UUP or DUP, but what revelence that does it have in this article.--padraig3uk 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholics voting for Unionist parties 

message: Provisional Sinn Fein Propaganda Passed Off as Unbiased Truth:
I tried to correct the Republican Sinn Fein page but was accused by the powers that be of "vandalism" , I dont know who wrote the "official version" of the page but they are obviously die hard Provisional Sinn Fein Supporters.  In Ireland Provisional Sinn Fein and Republican Sinn Fein are rivals but, for some reason, the "official versions" of both the PSF and the RSF pages are both written totally from the PSF point of view. Indeed the page titled "Sinn Fein" is also devoted to PSF. Maybe PSF has made a big donation, I dont know, but Wikipedia is really letting itself down by allowing itself to be used as a tool of PSF propaganda.  I might also say that, as no health warning is given, you are doing an injury to genuine people who look up Republican Sinn Fein in Wikipedia, only to find visious Provisional Sinn Fein propaganda being passed off as unbiased truth.  Anyone from Ireland will see through it straight away, but people from other countries should not be so grossly abused.
An example of this bias is the fact that you say that Republican Sinn Fein was founded in 1986, as if this was a simple statement of fact.  On the Provisional Sinn Fein page, which you have now converted to the simply "Sinn Fein" page, you say PSF founded in 1970 (original party founded 1905). How has PSF more connection with the original party than RSF?  Specially since RSF has exactly the same function and policy as it has had since 1917 (when republican sinn fein took over from the monarchist sinn fein of Arthur Griffith) and provisional sinn fein has adapted exactly the policies and beliefs that Sinn Fein fought a civil war against in 1922, i.e. accepting the legitimacy of British created partitionist assemblies which usurp the functions of the 32 county Irish Republic.
Another inaccurate statement that is being peddled as truth is that RSF is a splinter group of PSF.  According to the Sinn Féin constitution in 1986, discussion of entering Leinster House was banned. Before Adams and Co. put forward a motion to enter Leinster House they needed to change that rule by a majority vote. They did not do this so Mr. Adam’s motion to enter Leinster House was breaking the existing Sinn Féin constitution. In fact the article said that no member who even discussed this could stay in the party, so Gerry Adams disqualified himself from membership of Sinn Féin. There was no question of Ó Brádaigh forming a new party - he preserved the old one in tact. The word Poblachtach was added to emphasise the republican beliefs of the party. This was not a new idea. The addition of the word "Republican" had been discussed in the early part of the 20th century when many republicans in Sinn Féin were dissatisfied with Arthur Griffith's monarchist views. No doubt Mr. Adams considers small details like rules and constitutions a needless waste of time - but for lesser mortals they provide a structure which gives the ordinary party members a say in their party, and serves to contain the egoism and ambition of some of their leaders. I might also say, that by the logic of the "official wikipedia history", there is no reason to put the pre 1970 history of Sinn Fein into the PSF page. By your logic Ruirí Ó Brádaigh also founded Provisional Sinn Féin - since he lead a minority of delegates out of a Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in 1970 and also chaired the caretaker executive of PSF. It would be more logical to put the full history of Sinn Fein into both PSF and RSF pages - or into neither.  But I suspect that logic has nothing to do with it, and PSF sympathy everything to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnchadh (talk • contribs) 09:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of Irish political parties have one link or another to some incarnation of Sinn Féin; that has no bearing on the fact that, as has been discussed before, Provisional Sinn Féin is currently registered with the UK Electoral Commission and with the Oireachtas as Sinn Féin, and no other party is entitled to that name for electoral purposes. Republican Sinn Féin is of course unregistered and its candidates stand as independents. The first two paragraphs make it quite clear that the name has been and is used by others, and the full details are explained at length. I agree though that it would be nice to break this page up into multiple articles, but it would take serious discussion on where to draw the dividing lines, if the comparatively straightforward Irish Republican Army is anything to go by.--Kwekubo 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provisional Sinn Fein Propaganda Passed Off as Unbiased Truth 

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

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

message: I've just read through this article forthe first time and I would like to point out some weaknesses.
*1917 to 1922. A distinction needs to be made here between Sinn Fein andthe Volunteers/IRA. I know this may look like a replica of the present day situation with PSF and PIRA, but in the 1920s, these really were seperate organisations. Quite a lot of SF people did not actually believe in physical force. In any case, their political activities need to be seperated from the IRA's actions as this article is about SF.
*The 1918 election. it is generally accepted that there was some intimidation in this election, but the article here seems to go out of its way to emphasise this at the expense of the very real support SF received at this election.
*The 1922 split. This section needs not only a summary of the arguements involved, but who lined up on which side, why they did so and what they did as a consequence. This means discussion of the 1922 election pact, the election itself, the formation of the Provisional Government of the Free State and the republican opposition "government" formed during the civil war.
*The 1921-1960s period. There is no discussion of this period here at all and there are some important points that need to be mentioned. First of all, a very important point. From 1922 until 1949, SF and the IRA were actually seperate, sometimes mutually hostile, organisations. This means that they had different leaderships and different policies. The IRA until the late 1930s actually banned its members from also being members of SF. SF's line in this period was that they, the remnants of the anti-treaty TDs of the Second Dail, were the actual, legitimate government of Ireland. The IRA's position was the while the Republic had been temporarily suppressed, its army (the IRA) was still in existence, waiting for a chance to re-establish it. These two pieces of political theology were not reconciled until 1949, when the two organisations merged and an IRA Army Council member was made leader of SF.
*1956-57, SF's role here is passed over in one line. What happened here was that SF polled well in the 1956 general election in NI, which encouraged the IRA to launched its border camapign late in that year. During the campaign, SF won four seats in the Republic against the background of the high profile deaths of two IRA men, Sean South and Fergal O'Hanlon. However, this brief burst of republicanism south of the border did not last.
*Re Modern SF/PSF. What this section needs is a quick history of PSF's political evolution. Specifically, its changing ideas on federalism (Eire Nua), socialism, abstentionism, the use of force etc. Some of these things are alluded to here, but some are not.
That's it. Thoughts welcome.
Jdorney 11:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some observations 

message: I've read somewhere Sinn Fein translated as "Our Thing" - as in "Cosa Nostra". Any Irish speakers care to comment on the validity of the translation? 84.242.86.47 12:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sinn means "we", and féin means "self". Sinn Féin therefore translates as "we ourselves"; it does not mean "ourselves alone". A short section on the name wouldn't go amiss in the article (if only to move that Columbo thing out of the leading paragraph); I'll write one later if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Kwekubo 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've stirred the pot a bit at Sinn Féin (19th century), which see. That should perhaps be renamed Sinn Féin (slogan) and linked from the intro-section as well as the banner-redirect. jnestorius(talk) 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe there was a version of the slogan (predating the formation of Griffith's party) which went "Sinn féin, sinn féin amháin," which would translate as "Ourselves, ourselves alone".  I know this is used by the Citizen character in Ulysses, and according to this An Phoblacht article was used by other organisations also.  This could perhaps be worked into any commentary on the Sinn Féin name, as it explains the "ourselves alone" translation, which is still fairly common despite being erroneous. --Ryano 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sinn Féin means 'we ourselves' this is also the translation used by the Sinn Féin party, it dosent mean ourselves alone.--padraig3uk 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: 'Provisional' and 'Republican' Sinn Féin both claim the name 'Sinn Féin' since the 1986 split.
The information here upto 1986 is also valid to the 'Republican Sinn Féin article and should be entered there.
As such both articles are entitled to the name 'Sinn Féin'. A simple solution is to title each article appropiately as 'Provisional' Sinn Féin and 'Republican' Sinn Féin. Pointing out the dispute over the name.
Otherwise you have a POV which is 'Provisional' Sinn Féin saying they are the one and only Sinn Féin, when clearly this is not the case.Seán1905 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with you; while you are correct that RSF claims the name, they are an ineffective party that hasn't won any major (or even minor) elections, as yet.  In common usage in Ireland, Britain, the US, and the rest of the world, Sinn Féin is the political party led by Gerry Adams.  As such, I don't believe that this article is POV or that it should be moved to PSF (which the Gerry Adams-led SF does not even recognise as an appropriate name/label). gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such party as Provisional Sinn Féin, whereas Republican Sinn Féin is the name adopted by that party when it was formed in 1986, so your wanting the article on Sinn Féin renamed is your POV, also there is no dispute over the name.--padraig3uk 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Parties/Organisations claim the name Sinn Féin

message: Why are there two pronounciations? Any time I've ever heard the name pronounced by anyone who is speaking in Gaelic, it sounds exactly the same as it would sound if they were speaking in English. It is, after all, a Gaelic phrase! Surely there shouldn't be two different IPA pronounciation guides in this article then..? --Mal 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation? 

message: Could someone supply data to back up the claim that SF are the third largest party in Ireland. I've been having difficulty comparing NI to ROI results. According to some of my calculations the DUP or Labour are the 3rd largest parties in Ireland.
:Using figures from RoI 2002 general election and United Kingdom general election, 2005, it seems to be true. I make it FF 770846, FG 417653, SF 295569 (121039 RoI + 174530 NI) , DUP 241856, Lab 200138. Demiurge 10:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but this makes little sense given that there is no single political entity for the island of Ireland. One could say the "largest political party in Europe" is the one that gets the most votes, presumably an electorally strong party in one of the largest countries (anyone know which this is?), but it's an utterly meaningless out of context description. Timrollpickering 09:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, Tim, but I disagree – first of all, this is a claim Sinn Féin and their supporters keep making, so it may as well be included and nuanced, rebutted, etc as Wikipedians see fit. Second, it is politically relevant in that most of the political establishment in the Republic, along with the ruling party in Great Britain and the nationalist parties in the North, both desire and intend a United Ireland in the fullness of time. (And of course Sinn Féin, following their own logic, actually contest elections on both sides of the border.) Third, even if Ireland were merely a geographic expression, devoid of political meaning to anybody, I don't think it would irrelevant to make this point. If the UK Labour Party is the biggest in the British Isles, or the SPD the biggest in the EU (pending next month's elections!), it's at least an interesting bit of trivia. The Congress Party of India is the world's largest subscription-based organization, while the Chinese Communist Party is the world's largest membership organization of any kind. Might not be terribly important facts, but you can bring them up at cocktail parties! ;-) QuartierLatin 1968 00:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if the number of votes defines the size of a party.  A party's size is defined by its membership which in the UK and Republic of Ireland is a separate thing to number of votes.  It might be more accurate to discuss number of seats in the Dail or House of Commons (and their respective upper chambers), but even this does not determine size.  Do we have some figures for membership?  Alternatively the article should be reoworded Dainamo 23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd largest party in Ireland 

message: This article says "Ireland's 106 seats" but Irish (UK) general election, 1918 says "Of the 105 seats in Ireland many were uncontested". Please could someone fix the discrepancy or if it is not a discrepancy explain it in the articles.
"and British troops were sent in to support the (largely Unionist) Royal Ulster Constabulary." is a bit simplistic and misleading, there is also the element of using the British Army to protect the Catholic population against the B Specials and the Irish government's influence on British troop deployment. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That interpretation is sort of backed up with the history of events.  If you watch Peter Taylor's "Provos" you will see that he makes the point about the Bogside quickly becoming too much for the RUC/B-Specials to handle.  Taylor indicates that troops were sent in to protect the RUC/B-Specials from rioters, not the other way around although he does also mention the vulnerability of nationalists in Belfast. CAIN quoted.
"Thursday 14 August 1969 - After two days of continuous battle, and with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) exhausted, the Stormont government asked the British government for permission to allow British troops to be deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland... ..There was a tacit understanding between the British Army and the Derry Citizens Defence Association (DCDA) that if the RUC and the army remained outside these areas there would be an end to the rioting." Fluffy999 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, see a synopsis of released Wilson State papers from the time here.  The concern was the state dissolving into anarchy, and even annexation by the RoI. So there are any number of interpretations available to choose from.  I think the statement in the article is fine as it is. Its accurate- the priority of both Wilson, Healey, and O'Neill was a return to 'law and order'. Fluffy999 11:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  106 and British troop deployment