Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sinn Féin & I.R.A. are one and the same thing!

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))

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)

Have any sources? Talrias (t | e | c) 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Irish Foreign Minister has said that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are on the IRA Army Council, its safe to say that Sinn Fein/IRA are much the same thing.

By that logic, if someone said that Tony Blair was a member of M.E.N.S.A., then it would be safe to say that the British Labour Party and M.E.N.S.A. are the same thing... Mícheál 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if Tony were head of MENSA too, which he is not.

There is absolutely NO proof that Gerry Adams is head of the provisional IRA, and linking the two articles toghether is rather silly as both have different methods of achieving a united Ireland, rather the person that started this is a biggot and really should do a bit of reading before talking bollocks. It should also be noted to the person that said "The Irish Foreign Minister has said that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are on the IRA Army Council, its safe to say that Sinn Fein/IRA are much the same thing." that irish ministers see Sinn Fein as the opposition to their seats in the next election and it's what we call electioneering - scaring voters. Jim-ie 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

They can't be merged as they are two differnt groups, although I often describe Sinn Féin\IRA as one myself it's not accurate. The IRA too has changed face many times over the past 150 years so the artcile would be way too long and cover way to many topics. There is too much history in the past, I would like to see the Sinn Féin history divided so the Sinn Féin of pre 1940/20s is in a different article or section to the Sinn Féin of today. Aidan I am trying to work out where you're coming from, I would also suggest you read up on your history, you too are coming across racist with your comments. I'm not a fan of Gerry Adams either and anytime I see him I get the flash back of him carrying the coffin of IRA suicide bomber Thomas Begley. But times have moved on, the war as the IRA called it is over. N. Ireland needs to move forward.--Beep82 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team?

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)

There have been many Ladies and Gentlemen from Ulster representing the UK team which highlights the importance to refer to the country by its correct short form, The United Kingdom. As France is referred to as "France" not "la Republic.." and Sweden is called "Sweden" not Könikrik Sverige" or Kingdom of Sweden and... then the team should be the UK team.

How many MLAs currently?

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)

Francie Molloy is still a member of the party, not sure if the suspension has been sorted out, will try and find out the latest on that, as for the DUP I think Paul Berrys resignation does cause problems for them if the assembly is reinstated without new elections as they would lose the extra places they were claiming on the policing board, and could lose a Ministerial post on the executive as well. Sinn Fein are intitled to three places on the policing board as far as I can remember, the Home secretary has plans to give these other nationalists if the party dosen't take them which seems to be the current opinion within the party.--Padraig3uk 01:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Francie Molloy was elected to the Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle at the Ard Fheis, at the weekend so that should indicate the suspension is lifted.--Padraig3uk 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Added

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)

Adams and the Infobox

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)

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)

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

Split article

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)

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)

Catholics voting for Unionist parties

'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)}

How did Paisley get votes from Tory island when its part of Donegal in the republic of Ireland and Paisley never stood for election there?

Well so you might say so... but what numbers are we talking about here? I'm not saying that no Catholics voted Unionist in this period, I'm merely saying that so few as to be irrelevant. 'Small numbers of Catholics' might have also voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party or the Natural Law Party? But so what... it doesn't mean that it should be included within this article. It's a distraction.

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)

Provisional Sinn Fein Propaganda Passed Off as Unbiased Truth

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)

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)

The 1983 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, passed a motion to end the ban on debate and change of any part of the Sinn Féin Constitution, Ó Brádaigh supported this move as it was necessary to allow the debate for candidates to stand for EU seats under the Sinn Féin name. So all changes and debate in relation to abstentionism from that time were within the Constitution of the party. In 1986 a small number of those that opposed the ending of abstentionism walked out of the Ard Fheis and formed a rival organisation, RSF, by doing so they were deemed to have resigned from Sinn Féin of their own accord. So before you accuse people of revisionism you should check the facts of your own claims--padraig3uk 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis

++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)

[personal attack by User:Donnchadh removed]

Post on 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis not a "Party Political Statement" but a personal view

The argument I wrote under the title "The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis" was not a party political statement but my own composition. As I am not even a member of any political party it is difficult to see how my contribution could be regarded as a "Party Political statement." An editor deleted my argument and gives a link to a political debate site where I also posted the same argument. Why should Wikipedia users be directed to a political debate site to read arguments that were composed for this site and then, later, posted on the debate site. That my composition was posted first here on this site can be seen by checking the time of posting my argument here and checking the time I posted it on Politics i.e. I think "genuine Wikipedia" users can make up their own mind about the motives for deleteing my composition. Needless to say it 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)

Some observations

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)

Translation

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)

Not really it translates as Ourselves Alone or We Ourselves and was in the original Arthur Griffith conception and indeed in later versions meant to indicate independence, looking after our own affairs, self-governemnt, self-sufficiency. Gramscis cousin 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sinn Féin Amháin does not translate into "Ourselves, ourselves alone" amháin is the Irish for one, one day = lá amháin. So I can only suggest that slogan Ryano, may mean something along the lines of Sinn Féin One, or vote Sinn Féin number 1 or something along those lines. Amháin can also mean exclusive or only I have never heard of it being used as alone. The problem here is that many non Irish speakers are looking up both words in a dictionary and assuming that’s the translation, or plucking the words from sentences and assuming the translation, my understanding of Irish is that sinn féin when spoken together means "ourselves".

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)

Policing

Should a section in this article be dedicated to the issue of policing? Frainc 19:27 28 January 2007

Opening of Article

I changed the opening of the article because I felt it was obtuse, and I thought it was silly to introduce SF as a "series of political movements" when the article should be primarily about the political party.

Two Parties/Organisations claim the name Sinn Féin

'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)

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). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Pronounciation?

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)

3rd largest party in Ireland

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)

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)

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)

I'm probably stating the obvious but don't they make the claim to be the largest party in Ireland to emphsise that they don't recognise the border? While i'm herecan i just add theat the article doiesn't seem to make any mention of the most recent declarations that the war was over and the decommissioning of what both governments feel was they remainder of their article. Both of these were actions taken by the IRA but the article mentions several negative actions taken by the 'RA in recent times so in the interests of fairness shouldn't these be mentioned also? Also, again, while i've thought of it shouldn't the fact that the attacks on Sinn Fein by the present Irish Gov. are politically motivated be mentioned? Because they are - hence Berties inconsistant position on getting SF into power sharing up north but refusing to even consider sharing power with them down south.

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)

It maybe the largest when the votes of the Republic and Northern Ireland are counted together, but they are two different countries so this can't be done. In the Republic of Ireland Sinn Féin is a minor party and according to Feb 2007 opinoin polls its fifth, the order is: FF(38), FG(22), Labour(14), Greens(8), SF(7), PD(4). In the 2002 elections it was fourth, but perdictions for the 2007 elections is that the Greens will overtake them. I would strongy urge Wikipedia editors not to mention that Sein Féin is the 3rd largest party in Ireland as it isn't telling the whole truth and not accurate history. The simple fact is that the Republic of Ireland and the North of Ireland are two different countries.--Beep82 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinn Fein 1905=Sinn Fein 2005 ... Not?

Can anyone tell me why this direct line of descent is so important to Sinn Fein? I've nearly had my head taken off on a number of occasions for suggesting otherwise? Surely they can see that there is next to nothing in common with Griffith's Sinn Fein and that of 2005, beyond their shareing the same name? 83.71.162.221 15:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is quite common for political organisations to seek clear roots and traditions in the country's history so as to maximise their appeal and legitimise them as a pre-existing force. By asserting themselves as the Sinn Féin that brought independence to Ireland they can claim a legitimacy and draw on a long line of "standing up for the country's interests".

For similar effects, look at the US in the nineteenth century, where the opposition to Andrew Jackson called themselves the "Whigs" after the traditional British opponents of George III. The modern Republican Party used the name of the one of Thomas Jefferson. Or for a darker example, Hitler's Germany was called the Third Reich to root it in the country's history and not appear an abberation. Timrollpickering 16:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See my reply to this point in the paragraph above this.--Padraig3uk 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is very true Sine Féin before the 1940s is totally different to today's Sinn Féin but the problem is trying to tell Sinn Féin supports this. They are a different party and have no direct ties only in name. I also think that the main Sinn Féin history page (when/if it's created) shound make a clear distinction between the different version of Sinn Féin. There is a lot of history sourrounding Sinn Féin, The Anti-Treaty IRA (different again from today's IRA), the Irish Civil War and a lot of it is interwoven with Irish history of the early 20th century, this cannot be confused with Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland and their politics from the 1970 onwards. Ideally an independent author should look into this with advice from both sides of the argument.--Beep82 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism?

The assertion of Sinn Féin as a fascist movement as defined above has been made (by an anon editing List of fascist movements by country). I don't think the suggestion has much merit but others are likely to be better informed. -- Stlemur 19:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous suggestion, I don't think even Ian Paisley would go so far as to call Sinn Fein actually fascist. Well, maybe he might, he did call the previous Pope the Antichrist. Anyway, Sinn Fein aren't fascist if you ask me. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nov 2000 Ian Paisley compares Austrian Freedom Party to "Sinn Féin/IRA" "..these two essentially fascist parties.." here

March 2006 Wilkinson & Stirling (DUP) from Ballymena Council attack "fascist Sinn Féin" and label their supporters as being like "brownshirts" here

As far as I remember, there was a mention of Sinn Féin being "fascist" in every DUP media interview at one point in the period 2000-2001. This campaign may be ongoing- hence the request to have Sinn Féin added to the category. Its an old political trick you get used to in NI political scene- guilt by word association. Fluffy999 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: Sinn Féin/I.R.A....are definitely fascist organisations, as Sinn Féin/I.R.A. have been actively involved in 'ethnic cleansing' of Protestants from both parts of the isle of Ireland since 1916 - (Aidan Work 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

It is my evaluation that Sinn Féin does not qualify as a fascistic organization as defined on Wikipedia, in that they've never advocated any kind of corporatism (being generally of a socialist bent economically), nor advocated totalitarianism except in perhaps the very loosest of senses, nor is their flavor of nationalism, whether we call it racist or not, of the exaltative kind found in fascist states -- there is, not so far as I know, any "Irish superman" rhetoric. Is there consensus for this assessment? --Stlemur 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, this is extremist loyalist propaganda. I doubt the vast majority of unionists would go so far to call Sinn Fein "fascists". A separatist organisation sponsoring terrorism, perhaps, but not fascist. Aidan Work misunderstands the nature of Wikipedia, I asked him for sources but he said, in effect, the evidence speaks for itself. Well, not only do I disagree, but a claim of this nature definitely needs to be verifiable and referenced. See my talk page for the discussion Aidan and I had. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not. Sinn Fein does not fit the definition of any of the criteria listed above, Mr. Work's views not-withstanding. Mr. Work will probably suggest they be listed as a Communist organisation next. Mr. Work is an expert on postal-orders, coins, and stamps. He should stick to that. Wikipedia is not a soap-box for any user's own particular views, but a place for verifiable facts. Camillus (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Again it's obvious that "Aiden" is anti-Sinn Fein from the start and will jump at any chance to victimise people at Sinn Feins expense. Like it or not Sinn Fein are elected representatives and hardly where involed in "protestest ethnic cleansing" when the IRA actively targetted RUC and the British Army, and not the protestant people. There was certainly no collusion on their part, ey? Fascist organisation? Don't make me laugh Jim-ie 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• The above is absolute nonsense and you know it. It makes me so angry to listen to this. Here is the listing regarding the Bessbrook masacre.

"The worst incident of terrorism in Bessbrook's history occurred on 5 January 1976 when ten workmen were shot dead at nearby Kingsmills, purely on the basis of their religion. The men were regularly transported by minibus to the textiles factory in Glenanne where they worked. Their minibus was stopped by Provisional Irish Republican Army gunmen and the occupants were ordered to state their religious denomination. The driver, a Roman Catholic, was released, whilst the passengers, all Protestant, were shot with automatic weapons. Ten died at the scene whilst one man survived despite being struck eighteen times. "

Now if you are telling me that is not ethnic cleansing then what exactly is??

Sorry to wade in, but in reference to above unsigned comment- if you check the article for the PIRA Chief of Staff at the time Seamus Twomey it carries some context:

"..Seán O'Callaghan claims that on 5 January 1976, Twomey and Brian Keenan and gave the go-ahead for the Kingsmill massacre, when 10 Protestant workmen were machine gunned to death by the Provisional IRA in retaliation for the earlier [previous day] loyalist murder of five Catholics in the same area. It was Keenan's view, O'Callaghan claims, that “The only way to knock the nonsense out of the Prods is to be 10 times more savage”."

Savage and futile? Yes, but then so were 'killings' of the 5 Roman Catholics by the UVF the previous day. Just down the road from you in Whitecross & Ballydougan. Happy to bring them to your attention at the top of this CAIN project page.

As to the thread about ethnic cleansing being Fascist. I don't believe "ethnic cleansing" actually has any relevance to Fascism (as far as I recall the textbook definition of the term). Isn't Fascism the grouping of the ruling elite and business interests? Is this Sinn Féin? Nazism would be fascism with a racial philosophy at its core but then you'd need to factor in all that stuff about establishing a "Democratic Socialist Republic." Not sure it makes sense to try that. See Roger Griffin's work on the phenomena: The Nature of Fascism (St. Martin's Press, 1991 ISBN 0312071329, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0415096618) Fluffy999 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that some members of Sinn Feign dabbled with fascist ideas before and during World War II, but as I know little about it, it may have been a case of my enemy's enemy, as indeed it can be argued for the influence of the communist party on Sinn Feign. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am in no way denying that loyalists tookpart in ethnic cleansing also. The loyalisy policy may explain to some extent but in no way whatsoever excuses what the IRA did. The IRA were also responsible for a policy of ethnic cleansing and targeting people solely on the basis of their religion and however you like to put it they were significantly more sucessful in their aims than the loyalists. Facism has different meanings not just one from one textbook but the fact that the IRA took part in ethnic cleansing of some sort and always believed in the supremacy of the army council over the governments would them a facism movement. Secterianism is of course on the exact same level as racism and of course racism and fascim are very closely linked.

I see your point of view and im prepared to support your argument if you can get the 6/7 vote by eliminating 1 out of these 2 emphatic 'NO's for Sinn Féin.

1. advocating totalitarian systems.
2. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, etc. movement.

Fluffy999 21:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a national socialist movement for sure

This is the problem in N. Ireland both sides drift back to the past with ease and play the blame game. Both sides committed terrible atrocities. Aidan's point does appear biased, but I don't know his history or how the IRA may have affected his life. But there are many people on both sides of the community in N. Ireland who distrust the other side and have bad experience of each other. Over the decades there were many killings and retaliation killings on both sides, we can pull example after example and go through the death of everyone killed in N. Ireland on both sides. The term 'ethnic cleansing' is extremely strong and neither side in my opinion can be labelled with this. I don't want to be associated with either side here, but I imagine many will think I’m a republication, but I’m not and certainly do NOT support a United Ireland, although I hope that both the UK and Rep of Ireland can form better economic ties with N. Ireland to the benefit of all. For decades there was no one-man / one-vote for Catholics in Northern Ireland and in the late 1960s this led to the civil rights marches of Catholics. This caused huge tensions and it peaked in the summer of 1969 when many Catholics were burned from their homes by loyalists mobs and they were very fearful of the 'B Specials' this all led to British troops being deployed in N. Ireland for the first time, 1969 Northern Ireland Riots. I will also point out the Irish government had to set up refugee camps along the south of the border for the many Catholics driven out of their homes, and asked for UN intervention. The riots of 1969 caused deaths and injuries on both sides, but most agree that the Catholics suffered to a greater deal. Most can agree that this is when 'the troubles' began, at this time the IRA were not active or armed in many areas of Northern Ireland and were considered to be in a weakened state. The trouble of 1969 many believe led to the formation of a stronger IRA and increased their support among Catholics, Bloody Sunday in 1972 cemented this and resulted in a terrible time for Northern Ireland of killing, bombings, intimidation and hate crimes. More than thirty years later it looks like N. Ireland are moving on and with the recent elections maybe it’s time for a new Northern Ireland which will prosper and bring both sides of the community together. Anyway back to the main point, Sinn Féin is more of a national socialist movement than anything else and some of their economic policies lean that way.--Beep82 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

106 and British troop deployment

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)

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)

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)

The troops were sent it to bring law and order with an even hand as the RUC/B-Specials were unable to do this as they were biased to the Loyalists. The British Army was mainly brought in to mainly protect the Catholics from attack and at the Bogside in Derry they were a buffer between the RUC/B-Specials and the residents, MP Bernadette Devlin, August 1969: "we are in here (Derry Bogside), the police, the B-Specials are right out (pointing beyond the Bogside) and the army are between the two of us, and that is the way we want it, and that is the way we will keep it". British Home Secretary James Callaghan addressed the Bogside residents in the same month the army was deployed: "I will try to ensure that there is justice and equality, and lack of fear and absents of discrimination in this country in which you live" speaking from a window, the speech was greeted with applause by Bogside residents. There are many photos and videos of Catholic residents offering members of the British Army cups of tea and biscuits as they were so happy to have them there to protect them.--Beep82 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)