Talk:History of Sinn Féin

message: I might be completly missing something here, but to me, the following sentence doesn't make any sense: "It was rescued by the mistaken belief among the British administration running Ireland from Dublin Castle that it had been behind the 1916 Rising, an unsuccessful attempt to establish an Irish Republic."  Why would the British Administration rescue an entity that it believed was behind an uprising?  I am not overly familiar with Irish politics, or Irish history (hence why I was reading an article on the subject), so I could very well me missing something, but this sentece needs to be edited to either rephrase it or to add more information, a la why the British would help the them.  Wolf   63.76.209.49 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that the British rescued them, or intended to rescue them. It just says (in the passive voice) that "it was rescued".  It could do with rewriting, but I presume the thrust is that being blamed by the Government meant that SF could take the credit for being behind the 1916 rebellion, even though it wasn't. (Because, after the executions, the nationalist population felt sympathetic towards the rebels and did not share the Government's view that the rebels were bad.) Mooretwin (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Question 

message: Sinn Féin translates as "ourselves" or "we ourselves" - sinn: "we" and féin: "self".  "Ourselves alone" would be sinn féin amháin.  "Sinn féin amháin" was itself a popular slogan a hundred years ago, and that's where the "ourselves alone" phrase came from.  But it is not the English translation of Sinn Féin.  Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The translation is simply "ourselves". Compare mé féin ("myself"), tú féin ("yourself"), etc. "We ourselves" would be translated as sinne féin. --MacTire02 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Translation is not simply looking up words in a dictionary.  Chuaigh mé féin, for instance, would not translate as "myself went", but as "I myself went" or "I went myself".  Similarly, you can't say in English, "ourselves will govern Ireland".  Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ourselves alone 

message: Where the only citation in support of a statement is a reference to Joe Cahill's book, we need some kind of health warning.  He is clearly not a WP:NPOV source, being a leader of the Provo side of the 1969/70 dispute. --Red King (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations from Joe Cahill's book 

message: Does anybody have "Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers' Party " (ISBN-10: 1844881202, ISBN-13: 978-1844881208) and/or "Official Irish Republicanism, 1962 to 1972" (ISBN-10: 1430319348, ISBN-13: 978-1430319344)? as (judging from the reviews) these will provide the citations for Sinn Fein's Marxist dialectic analysis. --Red King (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Domer said somewhere that he had this book. BigDunc 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the first one. Give me a few days.--Damac (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I split the two sections into 1930s to 1947 and 1948 to 1969. While the history of the party during the 30s up to 47 isn't of much importance, the latter section definitely needs to be expanded (which I'm trying to do). If anyone can go through Hanley and Millar's the Lost Revolution and put the important points up it would be helpful. Coogan's The IRA would be also useful.
Exiledone (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for section "1930s to 1968" 

message: Recent posts on Talk:Sinn Féin have raised the questions of whether Sinn Féin can properly be said to have been founded in 1905, or to have been founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, or even to have been 'founded' at all.  Never one to shirk a challenge, I have done some reading and I present some facts and ideas below.  I would welcome comments on my comments and/or ideas on how to treat the subject in this article in a manner that is both verifiable and readable.  Any possible effect on the Sinn Féin article could be considered later.
The various organisations on the one hand, and the term Sinn Féin’ on the other, appear to have quite separate histories, so I am treating them separately here.  As to the organisations:
#Cumann na nGaedheal was set up with the help of Arthur Griffith (Brian Maye, Arthur Griffith, p. 39) or at his suggestion (Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Ireland, p. 21) in 1902.
#The National Council was set up in 1903, with Edward Martyn as chairman, specifically to coordinate opposition to the king's visit to Ireland, but continued in existence and held its first annual convention in November 1905 (FSL Lyons, chapter 5 of A New History of Ireland, volume VI, p. 115).
#Bulmer Hobson and others set up the Dungannon Clubs in March 1905 (Laffan, p. 21).  They and the National Council became rivals (Laffan, p. 24).
#The National Council convention of 1905 voted to organise nationally (i.e. to set up branches) against the opposition of Griffith and other Dublin delegates (Maye, p. 40).  However, I can see no suggestion that Griffith regarded this as a personal defeat, or that other delegates saw it as a defeat of Griffith, or that Griffith did not continue to dominate the organisation in the following years.
#The Dungannon Clubs and Cumann na nGaedheal merged in April 1907 as the Sinn Féin League (Laffan, p. 25).  Later the same year the National Council and the Sinn Féin League merged.  Laffan says that "in effect [Griffith] took over his rival and forced it to adopt his policy" (Laffan, p. 26).  In 1908 it changed its name to Sinn Féin.
As regards the term Sinn Féin:
#The first use of Sinn Féin to describe a policy or movement was on 28 November 1905 at the annual convention of the National Council when Griffith presented what had previously been called his 'Hungarian policy' as The Sinn Féin Policy (Lyons, p. 115; Maye, p. 101).  The convention had been called "to launch the policy...formally and to establish a new organisation to carry it out" (Maye, p. 40).  It is on this basis that the Sinn Féin Party is said to have been launched by Griffith on this date.
#The Dungannon Clubs, although set up by IRB members, initially espoused the same policy as Griffith (Laffan, p. 21; Lyons, p. 115; Maye, pp. 101-2).  Hobson's newspaper The Republic said in December 1906 that the Dungannon Clubs were part of 'the Sinn Féin movement' (Laffan. P. 23).
#Griffith called his 1906 newspaper Sinn Féin.  Laffan (P. 25) says that he thereby "appropriated" the term, but since Griffith had himself coined the term in its modern sense, it's difficult to see how he could "appropriate" it.
#In March 1907 Joe McGarrity, in reference to the three competing organisations, said that he would favour merging the 'different Sinn Féin Clubs' (Laffan p. 25).
#Also in 1907, Nationalist MP C.J. Dolan resigned his North Leitrim seat in order to contest it as a 'Sinn Féin candidate'.  Dolan did not align himself with either organisation, and was supported by both.  His candidacy was a factor in the unification of the organisations (Maye, pp. 103-4).  Even at this point, therefore, the term 'Sinn Féin' had a separate existence from the parties that used it.
So, definitely not straightforward, but definitely worth tackling.  What does anybody think?  Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding it that SF considers its founding date as 1905. It depends, if this article is about one political party's history or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If Sinn Fein was first used on 28 November 1905, then 1905 is the year we can accurately state that the party was founded. There shouldn't be any objections.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is when the movement was founded.  But it is not clear that what was founded was a yet political party. When did it change from just being just a movement to actually adoping the aparatus of party politics?  1907 Bye-election? --Red King (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can say that the movement was founded in 1905, but did not become an actual political party until 1907. Perhaps somebody has a book that can pinpoint the exact dates?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of books, but no exact dates.  That is the nature of history.  Anyway, I'm not trying to say that we have to change x to y, but rather that we can edit this article to better show the complexity of the situation, but in an accessible way.  To answer Red King's question, it became a single 'party' with the merger of the three organisations in 1907, and became Sinn Féin the following year, but when it actually adopted the aparatus of party politics is another question again - probably not until the 1917 Ard Fheis.  Scolaire (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting stuff, which certainly merits being drawn out in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great summary there Scolaire.  Seems to me that we have an origin in 1905, but firmly established as the dominant opposition to British rule under the leadership of Griffin by 1907.--Snowded TALK  05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure we can make the huge jump from what Scol is saying to "firmly established as the dominant opposition to British rule under the leadership of Griffin by 1907", can we?  I think Boleyn's statement seems more applicable. --BwB (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say that by 1907 it was the only separatist political organisation in Ireland, and therefore the dominant force in advanced nationalism.  Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And if we have references I am OK with this text, Scol. --BwB (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Foundation' of Sinn Féin 

message: Until that dispute is resolved, 'tis best not to add any. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: :It's amazing to come back to the talk pages of these articles after some time away and to see the same editors squabbling over the same points again and again and again and again.........  It seems like it will never end. A bit tiring and disappointing. --BwB (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When did you go away? Why not first go away for some time and then come back and add something useful. --Domer48'fenian' 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, Domer.  Earlier attempts to add material resulted the same sort of edit wars with the same editors. --BwB (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "adding material".  Since Mooretwin merged in the text from Sinn Féin before Christmas we've had this edit, which wasn't reverted, this one, which wasn't reverted, and this one, which was quickly reverted because it added a number of Workers' Party leaders to the list of Sinn Féin leaders.  If you yourself had ever added material (as opposed to copyedits), or even argued a point of view (rather than "Mooretwin has a point there"), your complaint about people "squabbling" might carry more weight.  As it is, I agree with Domer: it has no obvious use other than to raise the temperature.  Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: tiring and disappointing

message: I have done a complete rewrite based on this discussion.  Comments and suggestions welcome.  Scolaire (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1905 to 1917 

message: I split the two sections into 1930s to 1947 and 1948 to 1969. While the history of the party during the 30s up to 47 isn't of much importance, the latter section definitely needs to be expanded (which I'm trying to do). If anyone can go through Hanley and Millar's the Lost Revolution and put the important points up it would be helpful. Coogan's The IRA would be also useful.
Exiledone (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any expansion of this section is very welcome. Brian Feeney and Kevin Rafter have both written books on Sinn Féin; these should not be overlooked.  Scolaire (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1930's to 1946 and 1947 to 1968 

message: This edit has a number of problems with it, as I pointed out when I reverted. But the major problem is that while it may have been "actually a highly important case in terms of separation of powers", that has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of Sinn Féin. What is relevant, that the judge ruled that the 1945 Sinn Féin was not the direct successor of the Sinn Féin of 1917, is removed by the edit. The separation of powers aspect might well be dealt with in a separate article, Sinn Féin Funds case, but if somebody is to attempt it, a bit more research might be in order. This edit summary, "Laffan is clearly wrong", is ridiculous. Laffan is the source that is being cited in this sentence, and if he is clearly wrong (which he's not) it needs a reliable source that says he is. While it's true that "the 1947 Sinn Fein Funds Act was declared repugnant [to the constitution] by the judge", the case was not primarily about the act; it was about the funds. The document linked to in the citation relates to "an ex parte application, made on behalf of the Attorney General of Eire, for an order of the High Court pursuant to s. 10 of the Sinn Féin Funds Act, 1947", not to the original action by Margaret Buckley and others. The judgement in the case itself, surprise, surprise!, was what Laffan said it was.  Scolaire (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinn Féin Funds case 

message: What does it mean to say that Sinn Féin is left-wing? That's a rather broad term, especially for a resource like Wikipedia that can be read in any number of different countries where left-wing refers to markedly different things.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-wing?