Jump to content

Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

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 ’Bout ye! 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 [presumably he means PSF] 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: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) 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: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) 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: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) 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: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) 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: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) 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 Wikipedia. Did someone forget to sign in? Stu ’Bout ye! 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 TALK 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

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
    • [Sean Mac Stiofain] 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) [synonyms: Provisional Sinn Féin]: 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 ’Bout ye! 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 [and that the remainder (majority) party was not], 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:

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 TALK 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: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) 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 ’Bout ye! 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 TALK 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 TALK 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 Wikipedia 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 ’Bout ye! 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 ’Bout ye! 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. [1] [2] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia 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 ’Bout ye! 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 ’Bout ye! 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 [annual conference] 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 ’Bout ye! 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 Wikipedia. All Wikipedia 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 ’Bout ye! 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 ’Bout ye! 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 Wikipedia 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 ’Bout ye! 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 Wikipedia. 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. [3] [4].
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."[5]
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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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 TALK 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinn_Féin/Archive_5&oldid=1140124573"