Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 1

message: :(The election also was under Britain's unproportional 'first past the post' electoral system which can create massive majorities under minority vote levels (eg, Thatcher in 1983, 1987, Blair in 1997, 2001), again adding an additional distortion that would not have occurred under a more accurate and proportional electoral system.) 
The earlier part of the 1918 Election paragraph has already suggested that Sinn Fein's 70% of the seats corresponds to 45-53% of the votes.  The technical discussion of the demerits of FPTP is unnecessary detail and couched in POV language Joestynes
How do you pronounce the name of this organization?  An entry in IPA would be extremely helpful.
How do you pronounce the name of this organization?  An IPA entry would be extremely helpful.
It's pronounced Shin Fayne
I disagree with the idea of it being a political party, it is more a terrorist group.
----
Re the above comment (by someone who did not sign their name) - Sinn Féin is 100% a political party. A political party is a structured organisation, with decision-making properties, a leadership, a body of rules and a structured participation in the political process. Unlike the rest of the parties on the island, however, it does have its own so-called army that breaks the law, commits crimes and kills people. Because it follows special rules vis-a-vis its own armed wing, it cannot be treated just as any other normal political party. But notwithstanding the extra bits to its armoury (if you'll pardon the expression) it is a legal and legitimate political party. 159.134.137.114 07:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of other readers, the anon above is entirely correct. IRA/Sinn Féin live in an alternate reality - one they wish to usher in both North and South of the border. zoney ♣ talk 10:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: first past the post NPOV 

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

message: Why is this article tagged as "current event"?
It doesn't seem like there's a lot of editing going on on a frequent basis...
--Taramul 11:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
: Current event doesn't mean that a lot of editing is/should be going on, it means the article's subject is in the news and so the information might be out of date. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  current event tag 

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

message: It is unnecessarily and unforgivably POV to have a page on "Sinn Féin" relating to an organisation styling itself Sinn Féin which broke the Constitution. The appropriate and correct thing to do, given the reluctance of people here to have an article which actually relates to Sinn Féin, would be to have a disambiguation page.
:A disambiguation page would be the worst of all worlds. Common usage of "Sinn Féin" in a contemporary context almost exlusively refers to Gerry Adams's lot. Indeed this other "Sinn Féin" has "Republican Sinn Féin Poblachtach" on the front of their Dublin headquarters (as shown on the frontpage of their website) and it's similar on their Belfast HQ. So why on earth should a tiny little splinter who of people who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference have stronger claim to the organisation's name over the far larger group that almost everyone calls "Sinn Féin"? Timrollpickering 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean Anti-Treaty Sinn Fein, a splinter of people led by Éamon de Vaalera, who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference in 1921? or Provisional Sinn Fein, a splinter of people led by Rúarí Ó Brádaigh who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference in 1970? or Republican Sinn Fein, a splinter of people led by Rúarí Ó Brádaigh who walked out because they lost a vote at a party conference in 1998? --Red King 00:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Since they are a breakaway of a split of a breakaway, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. --Red King 00:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Content and location

message: These comments have previously been deleted, but keep getting restored. They are totally POV and unacceptable. Ian Paisley's DUP might be uncompromising and hateful, but a front for paramilitaries they are not. It's just stuck in there by republican sympathisers as a dig at unionists, and really isn't relevant to Sinn Féin. Fact: DUP are very obstructive about going into government with Sinn Féin, because they say they are linked to the IRA. That is enough.
OTOH, Sinn Fein has well established links with IRA. Indeed the government of Ireland, hardly what you would call a biased Unionist source, named McGuinness, Adams, and others, as members of the IRA army council.  87.74.12.83 14:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV comments about DUP links to paramilitaries

message: First things first. I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I reject the claims made Sinn Féin, Republican Sinn Féin and the Workers Party to be the legitimate and only successors to the 1905 Sinn party.
I'm proposing these mergers as the party we all know now as Sinn Féin is registered in  the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom under that name. Not Provisional Sinn Féin or Sinn Féin (Kevin Street) or anything else. As such, these articles contain information that rightfully belongs here - in fact most of it is already here - and should be merged with suitable redirects added. --Damac 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  That is, as you say, your view.  But it is not neutral.  My view is that Sinn Féin became Cumann na nGael in 1922, but I don't expect that to be the only view reflected on Wikipedia.  Get used to it. --Red King 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Red King, please read what I wrote. I stated that I reject the claim of the Provos to be the legitimate and sole successors to the original Sinn Féin party. I also reject Fine Gael's claims to the same. However, in the Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom, there is one party registered as Sinn Féin and that is the party led by Adams. That is not POV, but a statement of fact. It is also a fact that Provisional Sinn Féin/Kevin Street SF and the party led by Adams are the same organisations. Nothing POV there at all. --Damac 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that two different people wrote the intro to this section!  So my reply was phrased accordingly.  Your further explanation makes sense of it, so I will withdraw my opposition provided that the History of Sinn Féin proposal passes. But it will remain necessary to have be a Provisional Sinn Féin since the term was widely used in the past and has come back into use again.  Even if it is a misnomer!  (It could redirect to History of Sinn Féin#Provisional Sinn Féin, of course. --Red King 00:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Support, given that this article deals primarily with the current party there is no need whatsoever for the other articles mentioned. Palmiro | Talk 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Support.  I see no purpose being served by the other articles and they should be merged with this.--Padraig3uk 00:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: oppose. Don't see the point. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to elaborate on your position, Man of Ireland?--Damac 08:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger from Provisional Sinn Féin/Sinn Féin (Kevin Street)

message: Considering the size of the Sinn Féin article as it stands and its relevance for many more articles (almost all Irish political parties), I'm suggesting that the history of Sinn Féin be removed and included in a new History of Sinn Féin article, to which the articles on FG, FF, SF, WP, RSF etc could refer to. (I've just noticed that Padraig3uk has suggested this on my talk page, so take the latter idea as his proposal with me as seconder).--Damac 09:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support  as it is a way to break the PoV impasse.  --Red King 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: On another note in all this, where exactly did Clann na Poblachta fit into the family tree of splits and divisions? Timrollpickering 23:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CnaP did not split directly from Sinn Féin. Many of its founding members were involved in the IRA in the 1930s, which at that time had cut all links with what was then an insignificant party. CnaP members had been active in Córas na Poblachta, which was a political party that sprang from the IRA rather than Sinn Féin. The majority of CnaP members came from Fianna Fáil. --Damac 08:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clann na Poblachta

message: Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment