Talk:Irish republicanism/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV rewrite

I started by correcting the really basic errors in the first half, but by the time I got the second half, I lost the will to live. It is just a sectarian polemic. It is beyond editing, it needs to be completely rewritten. I've tagged the article as {{NPOV}} - maybe hardier souls than I can tackle it. --Red King 11:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I've continued - though you may not agree with all my edits! - I agree that it needs a real rewrite but I am neither enthusiastic nor particularly qualified either. In the meantime, I think I've tweaked it in a couple of places where that was badly needed. Palmiro 15:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Irish Republicanism

Hate to say it, but this article is quite unsatisfactory, at least to me. I do appreciate that the topic is quite a difficult one, but I think it has to be rewritten from scratch.

Example: "In late July 2005, the Provisional IRA announced that the war was over and that their weapons were to be put out of use."

Uh. I mean lads, we're talking something like switching from "not a bullet not an ounce" to documented decommissioning. Do you really want to limit all of that to a single line? I mean, the news was monopolizing the papers for days in Ireland, I think a single line doesn't do justice to the significance of that very event.

Just my 0.02 euros :D

AOC

One sentence is as much as is appropriate in this article - there is a skipful of it in Provisional IRA. Although Provisional Sinn Féin would like to claim the exclusive patent on it, there is a great deal more to the Irish republican tradition than the provos - they are not much more than a footnote to the full story. --Red King 18:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What a tragedy this article represents for republicanism and the history of republicanism on this island of Ireland! - that is, for republicanism in its true, original and broadest sense. If you read the wikipedia article on 'Republicanism' there is no mention of Ireland at all except in the 'See also' section where a link is provided to THIS awful page! I baulk at putting my oar in and venturing to try and 'improve' it. Oz MH 18:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

1921 partition

I replaced references to "slight majorities" and "substantial majorities" in each of the counties at 1921 (which are purely POV) with the raw electoral figures from that year. As this was one of the few elections in the Stormont era that Republicans did not boycott it gives a reasonably accurate picture of the situation then. I was only able to find census figures online for County Tyrone so if anyone else could add figures for the other counties that would be useful. Valenciano 12:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources of Interest

Writing an article an a topic of this magnitude and sensitivity is a daunting task. Though I have not the time (or the patience) to edit this article at the moment, I would like to offer some possible resources for those who would. Some are specific to Republicanism, others cover broader issues in the north, and others are of a more comparative political nature but may guide the interested reader to still further sources.

• Breen, Richard; Hayes, Bernadette C. Religious Mobility and Party Support in Northern Ireland.European Sociological Review, Vol. 13, No. 3. (Dec., 1997), pp. 225-239

• Boyle, Kevin; Haden, Tom. The Peace Process in Northern Ireland.International Affairs (Royal Institure of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 71, No. 2. (Apr., 1995), pp. 269-283

• Cox, Michael.Bringing in the 'International': The IRA Ceasefire and the End of the Cold War.International Affairs (Royal Institure of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 73, No. 4. (Oct., 1997), pp. 671-693

• Garrett, J. Brian. Ten Years of British Troops in Northern Ireland.International Security, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Winter, 1979, 1979-1980), pp. 80-104

• Garvin, Tom.The Anatomy of a Nationalist Revolution: Ireland, 1858-1928.Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 28, No. 3. (Jul., 1986), pp. 468-501

• Guelke, Adrian.The United States, Irish Americans and the Northern Ireland Peace Process.International Affairs (Royal Institure of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 72, No. 3, Ethnicity and International Relations. (Jul., 1996), pp. 521-536

• Smooha, Sammy. Control of Minorities in Israel and Northern Ireland.Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 22, No. 2. (Apr.,1980), pp. 256-280

It is key in the opening of the article to either discuss the impact of the war between James II and William III or at the vary least link to an appropriate article. The facts and myths surrounding this historical event have affected the development of not only Unionist/Loyalist thought but also, by proxy, the Republican ethos we find ourselves in such a quandry to define. Vulvabogwadins 05:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a duplicate sig for Vulvabogwadins here as I have split the post's final paragraph into the next subsection (for which I have just added the title) jnestorius^(talk) 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

• I suggest merging Volunteer (Irish republican), given that is a honorific used only by these types of organisations, and avoids the POV bias a seperate article implies. Astrotrain 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree - this is just an attempt to whitewash the term Volunteer, see here for further details its not an honourific title, it is more akin to a rank - if you looked at the talk page on the Volunteer (Irish republican) you would have known that. You have campaign to have that page and this, and this, this, this, this whitewashed and deleted. I suggest that you should add and expand the Volunteer (Irish republican) page.--Vintagekits 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree with Astrotrain suggestion on this.--padraig3uk 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the consensus is that it's notable enough to have its own article, even though use of the term "Volunteer" elsewhere, and indeed its definition, are disputed. Logoistic 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Irish Republicanism existed for many years before the Irish Volunteers were founded, let alone the modern day pretenders to the title. --Red King 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irish Republicanism → Irish republicanism — There seems to be no linguistic or grammatical reason for the capitalization of the second word. It is not a proper noun. Spylab 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support It's inconsistent with Irish nationalism and Physical force Irish republicanism. However the WikiProject is an entirely different kettle of fish, that requires another discussion entirely. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Irish Republicanism to Irish republicanism as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fianna Fáil liberal?

Does FF really describe its economic outlook as 'liberal'? It might be so in the US sense of the term, but even there I'm sceptical. Furthermore, I doubt the applicability of US political terminology to the Irish context in any case. Would a formula such as "socially conservative, economically populist" do them more justice? QuartierLatin 1968 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably just plain "socialist". Despite the inclusion of conservative devout Catholic nationalists in the movement, the non-sectarian/economically egalitarian outlook of Sinn Fein and other such parties doesn't really fit "social conservatism" in any way that I can see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.61.200.145 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Fine Gael?

Does Fine Gael describe itself as republican? I think this is the defining question. If it does, it should be included. D'o for the PDs.Palmiro 20:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael McDowell: "This Party, the Progressive Democrats, is a genuine party of the Republic. Our values are republican, our vision is republican, our methods are republican. In our political history, we have never deviated from our republican values" [1]

Enda Kenny: "Today I want to offer Young Fine Gael the challenge to lead a debate about finding a new republican model. I want Young Fine Gael to ask the question: can we move the term republic away from the bomb and the bullet and link it to community? Can we move towards a civil republic? One that upholds and practises true republican traditions - freedom, pluralism, justice, equality, brotherhood." [2] Demiurge 11:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes... It's possible to overstate this case, but let's not forget two things: First, the pro-Treaty faction were themselves Sinn Féiners willing to accept a political compromise (as DeValera would do in the decades to come). Collins, for example, accepted partition and dominion status only with the understanding that these would be temporary arrangements. Second, Southern Ireland was declared a Republic under a Fine Gael government. And during the last few decades, Fine Gael has of course operated the within the institutions of that Republic. QuartierLatin 1968 19:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine Gael does describe itself as republican but on the other hand there are few (if any) political parties in the Republic which dont. Even the PD's claim to be republican. There are people who would dispute this but then again there those who dispute that (Provisional) SF are republican. At the end of the day the term has come to mean pretty much what one wants it to mean and I dont recall any politician in Ireland ever calling for the (re)establishment of an Irish monarchy  ??? 80.229.222.48 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of related articles

In addition, Physical force Irish republicanism should be merged with this article - if and when it is wikified - since, by definition, it is a branch of Irish Republicanism. Vulvabogwadins 05:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't and no it isn't in one way. Physical force Irish republicans operate on a fundamentally different view of Irish history and both Irish republicanism and physical force Irish republicanism seek to claim that it is they who are the real the republicans. So Sinn Féin calls itself Irish republican but dismisses the claim to the tag of most other parties, while those parties regard it as being as dubious to count physical force Irish republicanism in its modern variant as it would be to include National Socialism in an article on Socialism. Physical force Irish republicanism is a subset of Irish republicanism whose links with classic Irish republicanism are a source of major scholarly dispute. It makes more sense to explain the different concepts in linked articles than to try to bug everything in together in one mis-mash of an article, where, as is all too often the problem with Wikipedia, one side or other will try to highjack this article to push one view and ignore the other. This article embodies the farce. Modern Sinn Féin gets a longer blurb than Fianna Fáil, even though the latter is at least 10 times bigger. And the main opposition party gets 2 lines, smaller than each of the Workers' Party (which hasn't a single TD for a decade), not to mention Republican Sinn Féin and the IRSP neither of whom have had a TD. It is ridiculous. That is what happens when one tries a bung everything in together article. Interlinked studies allow a greater analysis with the main article possessing a summary paragraph. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)}

It seems the current articles' taxonomy is:

• Irish nationalism
  • Irish Republicanism (BTW why the different capitalisation?)
    • Physical force Irish republicanism

Currently there is a huge amount of overlap between all 3 articles, especially in the History sections; some is inevitable of course, but it needs to be reduced, and of course POV forking stamped on. What would be helpful would be to add some extra contrastive articles:

• Irish nationalism
  • Non-republican nationalism — Anti-anti-Irishism, cultural nationalism, Home Rule, dual monarchy, Dominion/Commonwealth. The current Irish nationalism article covers this pretty well IMO, but needs to refer and link to republicanism in a manner consitent with however the republicanism-related articles are to be arranged. (e.g. this is debatable: "The parties widely recognized as representing the moderate nationalist tradition include Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the SDLP. The main party currently representing Irish republicanism is Sinn Féin.")
  • Irish republicanism — I suggest this article should deal with the history up to the Civil War, and then discuss the dispute over who upholds this tradition.
    • Physical force republicanism — When was the term "physical force republicanism" coined? The earliest in Google books has it from T.P. O'Mahoney in 1977. Was the term borrowed from "Physical Force Chartism", which was contrasted with "Moral Force Chartism" much earlier than 1977, perhaps during the Chartist period itself? Perhaps the term originated with academics, but politicans have latched onto the idea to allow them to reclaim the base term from SF. How FF/FG/PD/etc politicians define their purported Republicanism may not always be very precise or scholarly. Is it inconsistent to distance oneself from current Physical force republicanism while claiming succession from pre-independence Physical force republicanism?
    • Constitutional republicanism — that's just my working title. Whatever it's called, distinguish from the generic "Irish republicanism". Were there any constitutional republicans before FF banned the IRA? Anyone in the First Dáil who condemned the IRA? jnestorius^(talk) 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Ulster Unionists were members of the first Dail but decided not to attend. It would be hard to imagine them supporting the IRA. The First Dail never declared war anyway, but in March 1921 accepted that there was a "state of war", so it is all very ambivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.204.93 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Political Ideology

I really think there ought to be a section on the political ideology of Irish Republicanism. Exiledone (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There was more than one, and they evolved over time.86.42.204.93 (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideology

There should really be section here on ideology, ie what is Irish republicanism? Points to include are:

• Belief in Irish independence and a united Ireland
• Belief in the validity of the Irish Republic declared in 1919 and still existing in the eyes of some republicans
• The use of force, and why it is legitimate, the IRA traditionally believed that they were entitled to use force as they were the legitimate army of the republic, as above.
• Martyrology - a very strong current in republican tradition - the executed 1916 leaders, Kevin Barry, the republicans executed in the civil war , Sean South, Bobby Sands, the Loughall Martyrs etc etc

Jdorney 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I defiently agree with the above points.

Socialism also tends to be strongly tied to Republicanism since the 20th century. It wouldn't necessarily be considered a part of Republican ideology, but it is almost universally viewed by Republicans as the fulfillment of the dream of a 32-county Irish Republic. The AOH and many Irish-Americans would probably not agree, but nearly all of the major Republican documents and philosophers are grounded in socialist principles. There's a good reason that the Eastern Rising is often considered the first socialist revolution in Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.227.49 (talk) 16:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Read Paris Commune and Russian Revolution (1905) and you may be enlightened about the "first socialist revolution in Europe". Have-nots were drawn in for the fighting by those who wanted the republic to be propertied and Catholic, and were then put back to work.86.42.208.131 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Republicanism page

Could someone help with the Republicanism page. There is what seems to be nonsense there about Irish Republicanism and maybe someone with some historical background could help work out what it is about. I have marked it with the 'fact' tag. --Dlatimer (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Dlatimer - even if it took 10 weeks for someone to notice ;-) Even putting it under the heading of "British Empire" was looking for trouble, so I just took it out altogether. Maybe somebody will write a proper section for Ireland some day. Scolaire (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New Ireland Forum Report

Why is republicanism described in the intro as a belief that "all of Ireland should be a single independent republic, whether as a unitary state, a federal state or as a confederal arrangement", with the New Ireland Forum cited as the source? The Forum wasn't a republican assembly, and the report wasn't a republican document. Republicans believe that Ireland should be united, and a republic, full stop. Scolaire (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Let me just re-emphasise how controvertial this topic can be. My name is Adam, I come from Northern Ireland. Ok, I'm a protestant, but I am quite used to the political situation here. You must beware that anything you say about catholics or protestants - even if it is plain fact - can be very offensive. Recently, a catholic woman refused a "woman of the year award" because it would mean sharing a stage with Baroness Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the UK. She claimed that Thatcher had inflicted "injustices" on her country (Ireland) and could not share a stage with her. Similarly, the Orange Order openly supported riots all over Ulster Province just because the government wouldn't let them march down a certain road! The ONLY safe thing to do is to provide BOTH sides. Even if you talk about "Northern Ireland", you will offend Sinn Fein who deny the simple fact that the state of that name exists. For example, "Sinn Fein are widely accused of knowing about the Northern Bank robbery in advance, but they deny the charges". Such issues are extremely controvertial. The Irish President even ended up cancelling part of an official visit, after she compared protestant treatment of catholics to Nazi treatment of Jews. Personally, I was offended, so were major protestant political parties. And rightly so, there could never have been worse a comparison! I do not deny they WERE badly treated, I DO deny that it was anything like Nazi treatment of Jews. I can only caution foreigners to please be sensitive to the situation. I don't expect you to know everything, just emphasise the fact that it may only be one side of the story. - posted by "Adam" at 19:20, 10 November 2005 from 217.51.144.253

Adam, what you say is very valuable. As you can see, the article does seriously need reworking to make it neutral - the current tag at the beginning is a recognition that it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, but nobody really has the time to sort it out. If you can help, please do so. But you need to get your facts right and you need to refrain from descending to the same level as the work you want to improve. You might see that I removed the changes you made, because you made it worse. You confused Republican Sinn Fein with Provisional Sinn Fein. Western, not eastern, counties tend to be nationalist. The "violence and extremism has been said already". The credibility of the Provisional IRA "decommissioning" (possibly even that event itself) is outside the reasonable scope of an article such as this. But do try again. Though you might want to learn the ropes on some less controversial articles first, because this is a minefield! Precise, reliable, references are critical. --Red King 20:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read through this article, and to be honest it is pure rubbish, it is full of errors, it, some of the information is totaly incorrect, for instance the SDLP or Social Democratic and Labour Party are not a Republican party they are a Nationalist party, RSF or Republican Sinn Fein don't regard themselfs as a political party, they call themselfs a political organisation, and those are just minor some of the errors. I think this article should be deleted and started from scratch.--Padraig3uk 06:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Some articles are so bad that they are beyond repair. This is one. If you have the time and energy to start again, please do. If you prefer, put the new draft hear for comment first and then copy it over the old one. --Red King 23:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If I get a chance over the next week I will have ago at it, the major problem about the existing article is it is very lacking in detail on the origins of Irish Republicanism, and little mention of Theobald Wolfe Tone who is regarded as the Father of Irish Republicanism.--Padraig3uk 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It may be the case that there is no "neutral" point of view in the six counties/northern ireland/ulster/british appendage/colony/hole in the ground, and as you can tell from many of the foregoing comments, the protagonists themselves have run out of issues of substance to quarrel over and are forced to squabble endlessly over words. How can you dismiss something as "pure rubbish", just because the author does not bother to split each hair over Republican v Nationalist or Unionist v Loyalist? From a distance the differences blur, until it is even hard to tell the green from the orange or from the people who just don't care. You are all united in three things; stubborn irrationality, lack of imagination and incompetence. Stop squabbling, and get on with it, you are holding the country back.

Adam says that the British treatment of the Irish was nothing like the Nazi treatment of the Jews. No, it wasn't. It was worse! The f***ing English forced us off our own lands so they could claim them, made it a crime to worship as we wished, sold Irish civilans into slavery and massacred whole cities (thank you Cromwell!), treated us as third class citizens in our own country (because the Scots who moved in were the second class citizens), forced farmers to pay ludicrous rents on lands their families used to OWN, and evicted people by the thousands. And then there's Black '47. The people of Ireland starved while massive stockpiles of beef and grain sat in warehouses in Dublin and rotted because the English wouldn't buy it, but they also refused to let the starving people have it. This was the British Empire in 1847!!! The "Greatest and most civilized Empire ever". And it was the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. They let their own citizens starve to death when they could have easily been saved, just because they were Irish. And we were oppressed in our own country for HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!! So no, the treatment of the Irish by England and the Protestants was nothing like how the Nazis treated the Jews. Hitler could have learned a thing or two from Queen Elizabeth, and Oliver Cromwell, and David Lloyd George. - 131.50.151.8 (talk)

Good God. Listen to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.159.36 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

131.50.151.8, you're from the United States, not Ireland, so whats with all this Che Guevara cliche nonsense? You clearly know f**k all about English history if you think Oliver Cromwell is representative of its populance, either historically or today, its not like the country fought a civil war over his peverted proto-Robespierre/Marxist ideas or anything like that is it? England is not a Puritan country, if you knew anything about the fouding of your native county, the United States, you'd know the history of that. Stick to writing about the current War in Iraq since your IP address seems to be from a military base. Ironic for somebody with such a huge victim complex to make a living out of shooting exotic people in a foreign land eh?- True as Blue (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fightin' words, mate, but since you posted it half-way up the page nobody except me will ever read it. Sad or what? Scolaire (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

County nationalist/unionist breakdowns now??

Does anyone know the breakdowns of each county along those lines at the minute, so they could be inserted in the atricle?

I notice Derry and Armagh had slight unionist majorities in 1921, but I'm nearly sure they've both now got nationalist majorities now (well defiently Derry anyway) . Would that be correct and by how mcuh?

I realise its hard to get these figures becasue counties arn't the way constituencies and councils arn't drawn up any more.

In the absence of nationalist/unionist figures....I would be happy enough with Catholic/Protestant figures as they're a FAIRLY decent indication.

I don't think that this is the right article for that. The Troubles article would be a better place.

Jdorney

Demographics of Northern Ireland would be an even better place. Camillus (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to find updated demographics at the CAIN website http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ I disagree that this article, regarless of its conditions, belongs under the heading Troubles due to the fact that Republican ideology and dogma predate what is considered the beginning of the modern troubles in Northern Ireland. vulvabogwadins 14.06.2006

Derry (or Londonderry) city may be said to have a nationalist majoritiy but I dont think the same can be said of the county 213.40.252.2 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the county defiently does have a nationalist majoroty. Sure Derry City Council, Limavady Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council all have nationalist majoirites, with only Coleraine Borough Council being majority unionist (and a lot of those unionists in the Antrim side of the council). The part of Cookstown District Council in Derry would also be nearly all nationalist. Derry Boi (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine gael/Sidebar

Why are Fine Gael (United Ireland party) being removed from the Irish Republican sidebar?

Speaking even as a FFer, they very much are a Republican party and belong on the list, Republican ideals are at the heart of both parties and while FG is less strident on the North and less inclined to support the IRA or Sinn Fein I don't see what justification there is for removing them.

FG's strategy is more geared toward pluralism, and recognising that the Irish nation needs to be reunited in hearts and minds as well as territory.

A different branch of republicanism to FF doubtlessly, but it IS still Irish republicanism.

ConorOhare (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor quality

The article is very poor quality at the moment, it rattles on about Normans in the Middle Ages and all this stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with republicans or republicanism. The first republicans in Ireland were Cromwell and the New Model Army. The movement covered in the article derives from events in the 18th century, when a small cabal of bourgeoise rebels in the north imported from France the ideology of Jacobinism (related to the Grand Orient of France). It needs to better explain in the article how it is ideologically different to various forms of Irish nationalism (a wider house), like the Blueshirts, Maria Duce and other less communist orientated Irish movements. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you do not understand what Irish republicanism actually is then? O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you do not know what Irish Confederates were then? Or what Jacobites were then? Republicanism, as this specific movement, didn't exist in Ireland up until the late 1700s, certainly not in Norman times. All of the dubious misrepresenation and white washing of history in the section about the Norman conquest up the 18th century has nothing to do with the topic of this article; the republican movement. I realise that republicans themselves attempt to manipulate distant history to argue their case, but this doesn't belong in a cronology of the republican movement itself, but rather a section on ideology. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you never learnt not to answer a question with a question? The background of English rule in Ireland has everything to do with this topic. O Fenian (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A background section, separate from the cronology of the republican movement itself, documenting how mismanagement by the British state created a breeding ground for such a movement to take hold is relevent to the topic of the article. A confused, misrepresented section rattling on about Norman feudal lords and Irish monarchists (like the O'Neills and Confederates of 1642) which has absolutely nothing to do with communism in Ireland is completely off topic. This isn't an article on the "general history of rebellions in Ireland" - its specifically about the republican movement and its ideology. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You may find the section is called "History", not "Ideology". And if you maintain 1169 is not relevant to either of those anyway, I can only assume you are trolling. O Fenian (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have identified anybody expousing the cause of republicanism in 1169, then you must be trolling or at the very least WP:SYNTHing to suggest it belongs in an article about republicanism. Its a character assasination and misrepresentation, when viewing the actual demands of the Confederates and their constitution (aristocratic, traditional, monarchist, Catholic) to suggest their restoration movement in the 1600s, had anything at all to do with the values of Wolfe Tone who was influenced by the French Revolution's anti-aristocratic, anti-traditional ideology via Danton. Or James Connolly a Marxist who was a member of the Second International with Lenin and Trotsky. Ideologically these groups come from a completely different worldviews, the former (pre-18th century) were not republicans at all and so do not belong in the article; the thing they have in common is they're Irish and aquired weapons. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republicans: An Oral and Interpretive History by Robert W White (Greenwood Press, 1993) deals with pre-20th century republicanism and dates it from 1169 to 1915, and Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA by Richard English (Oxford University Press, 2005) quotes a Republican Movement document dating the struggle from 1169. That's just two of many that disagree with your ignorance. O Fenian (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to name specific names and documents of 12th century republicans. Funny how theres a complete lack of any republicans between 1169 and the 18th century when it was introduced from France? And the only documented armed risings recorded during that time are either general monarchist (Confederates, Jacobitism) or ones which were fighting protect the sovereignty of Gaelic kingdoms with monarchs which continued to exist until the 16th century (like Thomond, Desmond and others). But I'm willing to be awakened from this ignorance to be presented with these 12th century republicans names; it would surely be a welcome addition to the article.- Yorkshirian (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You asked for sources saying 1169 is relevant, you got them. I am done feeding the troll now, goodbye. O Fenian (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's another self-proclaimed, Anglophobic activist! Hey "Fenian", meet User:HighKing, User:Sarah777, User:MusicInTheHouse and User:Tfz. OMG that was so funny. How many other tricks can you perform? Oh, a single dead horse, kicked into smithereens? Brigitte Bardot would freak! A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here`s a reliable source

It shows that Sean Russell, who was a prominent Irish republican supported Nazi Germany and consequently it cannot be asserted that Irish republicanism is a purely Left-wing movement.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article411647.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.255.99 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how the actions of one man can be used to draw such a conclusion, and neither does it source the text you added to the article. O Fenian (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article asserts that Irish republicanism is a left-wing movement but that cannot be asserted when the former leader of the IRA supported Nazi Germany when they were persecuting Communists.--65.92.255.99 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is your conclusion, please provide a source that agrees with that conclusion. Not a source that simply says Russell had links with Germany, as that is not disputed. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Your source clearly states that one motivation may be anti-english. The Scots and Welsh allied with France to oppose the English, that does not make them French. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but it means that they had ideological symathies with them. Roosevelt could just as easily have sided with Nazi Germany against the USSR but he didn`t because he had more sympathies for Communism than Nazism. Sean Russell, the former leader of the IRA, had the opposite inclination.

So we've gone from providing sources to making assumptions, tremendous. O Fenian (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a gross and inaccurate simplification of Roosevelt's motivations. --Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because Roosevelt supported the British against Nazi Germany even before the war but never supported any country against the USSR when they engaged in imperialism. Furthermore, There are no references backing up the claim that Irish repuclicans have generally been left-wing so if you dislike assumptions so much then you should not want to keep that bit in until it can be referenced.--65.92.255.99 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest some basic reading in 20th C History, I've never heard anyone challenge the left wing nature of Irish republicanism before - many of its founders wrote books that were the staple of many a communist bookstore. --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you feel confident enough to pompously assert that nobody can challenge tthe claim that Irish republicanism is left-wing then you should not have a problem referencing such a claim.--65.92.255.99 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Frriter in "The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000) makes the point in multiple places, starting on p212 and elsewhere. Any Irish history book will say the same. It really doesn't need citation. --Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stalin allied with Nazi Germany so if we follow those arguments to their logical conclusion then he wasn't left wing or a communist. Sounds like faulty logic to me. There are cases in politics when you ally with the enemy of your enemy, it doesn't change your underlying ideology so you'd need stronger sources than the Russell case to make this assertion. The case of Frank Ryan, who fought against the fascists in Spain but later was involved in planning operations against Britain sponsored by the Nazi regime does tend to suggest that the primary motive was fighting the British rather than supporting nazism. Valenciano (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How can Irish republicanism be considered left-wing?

"Against the Red Flag of Communism...we raise the flag of an Irish nation. Under that flag will be protection, safety and freedom for all." - (Sinn Fein: Sept. 30th 1911)

Although Sinn Fein may now be somewhat leftist, that is only a recent phenomenon and for this reason Irish republicanism cannot be stereotyped as a left-wing movemet.--Caoilte (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable and notable sources, add that information to the article. But, do not remove cited information simply because you do not agree with it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a reliable source that contradicts what the reference in the article asserts and that goes into far more detail into the topic.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/cc1913/flag.html

"While James Connolly declared the indivisibility of the of the struggle for Irish independence from the fight for socialism he was essentially a lone voice whose ideology, based on the application of Marxist principles to the Irish situation"

Hence while some prominent Irish republicans have promoted Marxism or leftwing socialism, Irish republicanism can by no means be accurately presented as an overwhelmingly Left-Wing/Marxist movement.--Caoilte (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source, and does not even source the addition you made to the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting that you used an essay by a left-wing Republican who, throughout the essay, denounces those who opposed socialism as enemies of the working class and a detriment to the Republican movement. For 90+ years, the Republican movement has been overwhelmingly left-wing. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that's not the case. The Independence movement of the 1920s was not especially left wing. It had some left wing elements but was on the whole rather centrist. In the 30s the IRA came under the influence of far-left thinking and again in the 60s. In between, in the 40s and 50s the leadership were actually rather on the right. The Provisional movement have espoused left-wing thinking since the late 70s but not before.

Basically Irish republicanism is a nationalist movement which takes a number of politcal influences from elsewhere, sometimes left wing sometimes not. Jdorney (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"That is not a reliable source, and does not even source the addition you made to the article."

It asserts that James Conolly was a lone voice for Marxism in the Irish republican movement, so it actually asserts that Irish republicanism was overwhelmingly none Marxist. I already made a concession by saying that some rather than most Irish republicans have opposed left-wing politics.

"For 90+ years, the Republican movement has been overwhelmingly left-wing"

As Jdorney stated that is simply not the case and even if it was, this article deals with the Irish republican movement as a whole and not just what it has been in recent history.--Caoilte (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion of what the source says, and it is not a reliable source either. Neither is the Prophet of Doom website, please stop edit warring and discuss proposed edits before making them. O Fenian (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Caoilte, you have a point, but go, do some research, come back with some sources and then make your edits. It's better for everyone that way. Jdorney (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

An editor has just made a significant and substantial change to this article under the cover of a misleading edit summary ("copy edit"). He appears to have transported en masse disputed material from the Sinn Féin article. Perhaps he may wish to consider self-reverting, and bringing any suggested changes to the Talk page? Mooretwin (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Political Parties

Isn't there a strong case for the SDLP to be included here? Technically, they are a republican party as they have the ultimate political goal of a reunified Ireland under a republican government. Even the SDLP's senior members can be sourced as describing their party as republican. They should be included in this article with an explanation of the distinction between them and the other Irish nationalist parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WastedTourist (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party

The CPI has been added. Is it a "republican" party in the normal (Irish) understanding of "republican"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I added it on the basis, that it fundamentally considers itself a republican party. It's official 'line' as stated above appears as republican as Sinn Fein's present strategy and analysis can deemed to be. It's slogan for instance is Partisan (Socialist), Patriotic (Irish 'Nationalist') and Internationalist (International Socialism). It's policy throughout the troubles can be contrasted to the other Irish 'communist party', the Workers' Party, who supported the RUC and British State security etc, something the Communist Party never did on the grounds it would be supporting British rule in Ireland, while at the same time opposing the provisionals armed struggle on the basis it was not the correct tactic at that time, and in fact counter productive to achieving Irish unity. While it considers its origins in the 1930s Communist Party of Ireland, which supported the Republican Congress, and in fact formed its major activist base. There is in fact clear lineage between it and the Irish Workers' Party. Peader O'Donnell later spoke on CPI platforms, and members, such as Sean Morrissey, was a former IRA internee in the 1940s for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.197.43 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

email type thing

the following is just an email type thing to wikipedia...check all this out and find someway of leaving an artical that cant be changed! every time someone who, like me has an agenda, popps up it destrys the info...

their has always been connections to irish republicanism and politics that seek to give poor people and working people more power.even in the 1700 republican groups were connected to civil unrest.names like "men of no property" were connected to the republican movement in ireland as early as the mid-1800's.complaints about rent and housing conditions were a factor of the 1960's and the the early 1800's. the most anti sinn fein/ira group in ireland during the ww2 years was a right wing facist group(blue shirts)

Sectarianism/nationalism/racism and irish republicanism? irish republicanism has always had protestant leaders,martyrs, political pioneers. republicanism in ireland was actually born among northern protestants who did not trace their blood line to the irish gaelic peoples.republicans in ireland constantly use litriture,orientation,political speech/dogma to point out that ulster loyalism and the orange order have no pioneers or leaders or supporters who are or have been catholic,they also use the same to point out loyalism and the orange order do not accept catholic members while sinnfein and the ira,more so the inla and the irish republican socialist party, actually have protestant members today and always have had members who stradel and cross the religion/anciestral/racial/class/gender devides more so that their opponents. Irish republicans have written fondly about pro choice/gay lesbian/trade unionist causes,pioneers,heroes,activists past and present within and without their number.irish republicans also sight countless protestant heros,leaders,historical irish and irish republican figures who are not only protestant but "old english"..."norman"..."dane"..."Ulster-scott"..."saxon"..."viking"..."hiberno-french"..."hiberno-spanish" and this can be verified in more accepoted history as to can the republican claim they and the irish have united people of the two conflicetd communities in ulster to a larger extent that their loyalist,orange order,ulster unionist and irish unionist opposition.the writer sean o'callahan(also ire member turned informer) tells a different story about irish republicanism being anti sectarian and his writings are the biggest and most acceptable and modern writtings of their kind on the subject come debate about the ira being sectarian or not sectarian...ocallahan only claims republicanism in ireland is not anti- sectarian in that he tells of how many northern catholic republicans who, are ira members and make up large parts of the ira, are people who have no real political motivation and who no nothing about the guiding philosophy of irish republicanism or the history of irish republicanism.ocallahan claims said people no nothing about the fact republicanism in ireland is, at its core,(its core meaning exactly what its most important documents,speeches,leaders say and from its first appearance in ireland as a political ideology have said)anti-sectarian.o callahan does not argue or disagree with the core princibles or claimed core pricibles that republicanism in ireland is anti sectarian and also sights the fact republicanism has been effected by left wing/working class/civil unrest/ politics more so than any other political/cultural/religious thinking out with the actual republican belief that ireland shoud be independant/united/governed only by those voted for.o callahan disagress with the claim that republicanism is anti sectarian and sights the close relations ship between the ira/ inla and catholic preists who support these groups.ocallahan states that in catholic areas in ulster the ira acts as an armed catholic group which will attempt to kill protestant members of the security forces when ever a catholic is killed. if they can not kill protestant security force members they will kill innocent protestants and their only aim is to even up the numbers of sectarian killings in ireland. is this true? the ulster protestant groups claim with some 'pride' in 'some' litriture that they have killed 2 catholics to every 1 protestant or they have killed more catholics than republicans have protestants and they make no destiction about what catholic or what protestant was killed.the ira make no claims like this...they are almost impossable to find while the protestant groups have went on t.v. and spoke about this and the 'tactic' of killing catholics for no ther reason that a protestan had been killed. their can be no doubt the ira has indulged in the same but it is not in keeping with their claimed aims and objectives in the way the UFF and LVF has said via its members it is their aim to kill catholic in greater number than protestants who have been killed... they have said they did and will kill catholics(any catholic )if protestants are killed.their is nothing with irish republican writtings,speeches,stated claims and objectives that can condon protestants being killed for being protestants.in contrast loyalism and orangism by their recruiment polict and the words they have used in litriture have a leaning to talk about protecting the protestant people by any means etc...between irish republican and loyalists and or the orange order and ulster unionism their is a great differance it words and speech.its almost impossable to find any republican talk of protecting the catholic people of ireland by any means or at any cost,their is little in way of ira members saying or admitting they used a tactic of killing protestants simply to even up the catholic to protestant death ration...loyalism/orangism is different in that you can find people who will admit sectarian tactics...their is much writting about protection of only protestant ulster people...I am not saying you wont find somthing to support ira sectarianism but in proportion its infanitly small when compared to certin braches of loyalism and unionism which are political and the orange order which is a cultural phenomonon.loyalists will also point out the ira has killed more innocent people than all the armed facets of the irish struggle but actual targetting of people over religion or rather admission of this is dis-proportionate. i hope some one will read this and check it and leave an artical which cant be changed...someone from wik? i feel u will find i'm not to far off the accepted historical truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.47.218 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Republicanism" within Irish politics

There does not seem to be a clear enough explanation for where the term "republicanism" actually originates and what it is in reference to in this article. It seems to me that the term came from Revolutionary France but although the article alludes to this it doesn't state it explicitly. To me this seems like a pretty fundamental issue considering that the term "republicanism" actually means something quite different in most other countries. If someone more knowledgeable knows for sure where the term originates I think it should be included in the introduction to this article as I think it would help people understand why the term is used so differently within Irish politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMacR (talk • contribs) 22:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening section

I can't help thinking that the article's introduction could do with being trimmed down by way of removing the second paragraph ("In 1801 ... "). It seems very out of place, and most/all of what is said is mentioned in much greater detail throughout the article. It does contain multiple sources however -- perhaps they could be moved to the appropriate sections of the article? Gaoidheal (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Irish republicanism predated the Act of Union. Wolfe Tone - the "father of Irish republicanism" - died in 1798, and Repeal of the Union was always a separate demand to an Irish Republic. The article as a whole struggles to know exactly what it's about, and this is reflected in the lead. Normally I would say fix the article first, then the lead, but in this case I would support the kind of edit you suggest. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening article

Parts of that opening article especially that speech by Brian Hayes, a member of Fine Gael, is biased in my opinion. I agree that nationalism and republicanism are broadly linked but could clear up that sentence. it doesnt read well and I'd rather have another source instead of a biased party political document. Exiledone (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Something missing?

This article appears to ignore Irish Republican terrorism. There is almost nothing on it in this article. Why is history being glossed over? I came here to suggest updating the article with todays fact that the threat to Great Britain from Irish Republicanism has risen from moderate to substantial, yet i find the article is missing about 70 years of history. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If this article is missing 70 years of history then you have the option of replacing it. Coming on the talk page just to say "You guys ought to write about what I care about" is not particularly constructive IMO. And, by the way, why the link to Great Britain? Do you genuinely believe that there are people who can write a history of Irish republicanism but don't know about GB? Scolaire (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol i just link placenames sometimes for some reason. I mentioned the missing history to get other peoples thoughts on if some more information from that period should be added or not. I like to know if theres going to be support for some form of change. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor can raise an issue here whether they don't have the ability or sources to adequately alter the article if they so wish. If the article whilst i haven't looked at it recently does grossly ignore the more reknowned and known aspect of Irish republicansim that is terrorism pure and simple then it must be detailed in the article to add an evenly balanced viewpoint. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of mentioning political parties positions, there is absolutely nothing at all in the article for the period. It goes from Ireland becoming a republic to the Belfast agreement with no detail in between or after. It looks all the more odd because everything up to that point looks fairly detailed, perhaps some of the text got transfered to the Northern Ireland specific article. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So i see. That means this article is swinging to one viewpoint and its neutrality is suspect so an article tag making this clear should be added until its sorted. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Adding the magic tag does it every time. God forbid anybody should write anything! Well, don't hold your breath. Scolaire (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well in the real world i might have other things to do than improve every article i find that has problems. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Since the tag has been placed, I think we should broaden the discussion with a view to highlighting the wider neutrality issues with the article. As I see it, there are two principle issues:

1. In history, the article presents republicanism as a political creed and an armed struggle that ended happily with the 1949 Republic of Ireland Act, after which a "cordial relationship" was the order of the day. Apart from one throwaway remark, the IRA and Sinn Féin are not dealt with at all in the post-Civil War period. Not only is this a single point of view, it is completely contrary to the mainstream point of view. The "Free State" and "Republic of Ireland" sections should be taken out altogether and replaced with a proper history of republicanism 1922-2005.
2. The "Political parties" section says that the "following are active republican parties in Ireland" (bold in original). The list includes Fine Gael, the modern Workers Party and the Communist Party of Ireland. To call parties such as these "active republican parties" presents a view of Irish republicanism which again is completely contrary to the mainstream point of view. Parties other than SF, RSF and IRSP should be taken out altogether, or at the very least go into a section titled "Parties with a republican background".

Would other editors consider this a fair statement of the issues? Any suggestions on how to address them? Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points you've raised, however i don't exactly know how best to proceed other than a rewrite, with the second point having the parties split up into two sub-section lists. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A re-write should be doable with such a wealth of material already available on WP: Irish Republican Army (1922–1969), Official Irish Republican Army, Provisional Irish Republican Army, History of Sinn Féin, The Troubles etc. etc. Scolaire (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Britain

The word United Kingdom is often replaced as Britain in this article is it just me but Ireland was never part Britain so I would think that it needs to be changed MARK BEGG (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of the point. You can't be independent of something you are a part of; you have to secede, like the Confederate States of America. Irish republicans sought (and still seek) to become independent of Great Britain, while British politicians sought to prevent it. Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

the problem I have is Great Britain is an island and the United Kingdom is a country Ireland was never part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is today part of the United Kingdom but not Great Britain but the article calls the United Kingdom "Britain" like Americans call it England. MARK BEGG (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And it will continue to. It improves clarity and it doesn't break any laws, or even Wikipedia policies. I take your point and it is a perfectly good one but changing any single instance of "Britain" to "UK" (I've checked) won't improve this article. Scolaire (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Improves clarity? Can't become independant of something you are a part of? Seceding equates to independence. Everything that secedes is declaring independence from what they where a part of. Very mixed up language there. Also the United Kingdom equally doesn't break any laws or Wiki policies and is far more clear.

Its also very selective wording to state: Irish republicans sought (and still seek) to become independent of Great Britain, while British politicians sought to prevent it.. So your saying that Great Britain as a whole controlled/controls Ireland/Northern Ireland - hmm i always thought it was a Westminster that was filled up with representatives from both Great Britain and Ireland? For example the Duke of Wellington, from Dublin, was Prime Minister don't forget - was that still Great Britain ruling Ireland? Or was it the British Isles ruling Ireland? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your critique of my posts. I have said all that I have to say, however. Scolaire (talk), 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you've failed to justify the exclusion of the term UK. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. I have said all that I have to say, however. Scolaire (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean all that you have to say on it as you have nothing to justify it? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The correct name of the state is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or before 1922/1927, ...and Ireland). However, Britain is used synonymously. The terms are confusing. For example, while strictly speaking United Kingdom is not the same as Britain, Government of the United Kingdom is the exact same as British government.

There are some who see a distinction been the UK as a 'state' and Britain as a 'nation'. In that sense, in the case of this article, which touches on the concept of nation, and adroit exchange of terms depending on context can aid understanding of there topic.

"No one speaks of the 'Ukes' as a nation. For example, Harold Wilson fought a battle with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to prevent the government being seated at a Commonwealth Conference behind a placard describing it as the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister insisted that he represented Britain." - Understanding the United Kingdom, Richard Rose

--RA (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The correct name of the state is why people shorten it to various terms. It might be nice to have a consistancy in an article to avoid confusion, but there's not a rule per se that it's got to be across all pages. Should be up to the editors on that page to decide. I'm not bothered by either usage.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Room for Expansion

Two things that would probably add to the article significantly would be a section on the history of NI from Stormont up to the GFA and a section explaining and expanding the ideology of Republicanism (it's enlightenment influences, socialist influences ect) Exiledone (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RoI

I re-added the section on RoI that was bizarrely deleted. Perhaps someone could add a sentence or two more about what happened to Irish republicanism in the wake of achievement of the republic, but not mentioning RoI just seems wrong.--KarlB (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into childish arguments on multiple pages by a Wikistalker. Revert all you like. Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Up to you. I don't think it's childish; I just didn't understand why you deleted this section, so I reverted.--KarlB (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, now I'm a wiki-stalker? This page was on my watchlist since a few weeks, and it had nothing to do with you. Don't flatter yourself.--KarlB (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you. Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-write

I hadn't looked at it in several years but now that I do I see this article is an unbelievable mess. It needs to be totally re-written, almost from scratch. Among other massive problems, any mention of the conflict in Northern Ireland seems to have been deleted somewhere along the line.

Where is the explanation of republican ideology as it evolved? The role of violence, democracy, socialism, Catholicism and other influences? Also far too much on general Irish history and not enough on the subject at hand.Jdorney (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Just wish I had the time/initiative to make a start on it. BTW the NI conflict got deleted on 12 August 2006 ! The rationale is here. Now there was a man with a bee in his bonnet! Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is that incredibly convoluted mumbo jumbo rather than any coherent explanation. Am tempted to just put the old version back in verbatim. Jdorney (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not just you, it is incredibly convoluted mumbo jumbo. No harm in putting it back in pending a re-write. Scolaire (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

List of parties

I note that FG is not included on the list of republican parties. Yet it appears to believe that Ireland should be united in an independent republic, which the lead claims is what Irish republicanism is about. So why are they not viewed as a republican party? Furthermore, I question the relevance of having a list of republican parties in the ROI. Since it is a view shared by nearly all significant parties (except the Green party) it seems a statement to that effect would be better. MathHisSci (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The list of "republican parties" is a throwback to six or seven years ago when certain editors aggressively pushed a POV that "Irish republicanism" didn't mean what everybody says it means and that anyone who aspired to a united Ireland (or didn't rule it out) was ipso facto a republican. Fine Gael was included at that time, but somebody along the way apparently decided they weren't republican enough. Of all the parties on that list only SF, RSF and IRSP are republican in the sense that everybody today understands that word. FF is described in the section itself as "a centrist Third Way party"; The CP is, well, communist; and the WP still occasionally uses the rhetoric of republicanism, but is effectively anti-republican. Of course, FF, FG etc. originated as or grew out of republican parties (and FF still has "The Republican Party" in its title), but to say that they are active republican parties (emphasis in article) is rubbish. They should be removed forthwith. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So, what does everybody say it means? ( I am not from Ireland so I would not know.) Maybe the article could do a better job of explaining how everybody today understands the word, if there indeed is such a consensus. This would make it clearer why certain parties are not on list. MathHisSci (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A republican party, in the Irish context, is one whose main plank and raison d'être is the breaking of the link with Britain and the establishment of a 32-county (i.e. all-island) republic. A mere aspiration to reunification does not define a person or a party as republican - especially since, as you say, most members of all parties south of the border have some sort of aspiration in that direction, as well as about half of the parties in the north. There is no question that the article could be better written to explain Irish republicanism clearly. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, for your contributions. What about eirigi, should not they be added to the list? MathHisSci (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've added them. Scolaire (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Plus the FF - FG parties are anti-drugs, while the smaller groups will take money from anywhere, from drugs or smuggling diesel or toner cartridges, and you have child abuse in some "republican" families. It's all very colourful but no wonder they get so few votes. There again, if you're poor, Irish, young, impressionable and under-educated the ideology provides as good a Robin Hood excuse as any for making money.Red Hurley (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And that is related to the improvement of the article how? Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the discussion on definitions earlier. I believe removing FF from the list is ridiculous and disagree with the definition of being an Irish Republican as being only concerned with "Removing the British". It would more appear that those seeking to remove it would be doing so based on party political grounds as opposed to ideology. It is still a party aim of FF to have a 32 county republic and are focused on doing so via building cooperation between institutions north and south. They are registered in NI where they have units and are, if media is to be believed, set to run candidates there in the next elections. Republicanism in Ireland though was established as we know it by Tone about secular republicanism on the French style of the time so arguably FF are more republican that any of the other parties on the list. They should be included. Sittingonthefence (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Scolaire on this one ----Snowded ^TALK 17:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on? As a party they've always promoted a United Ireland. They are the only "Southern" party that regularly comments on Northern matter. Wikipedia should not be a place for a "my republicanism is better than your republicanism" spat between parties. It's childish. I don't care for people's political persuasions but they should not over-ride the facts of the matter. FF's tag line is "the Republican Party" and have always been viewed by the vast majority of the population as same. Remember also that this article is about Republicanism, not nationalism. I believe there is a confusion between the two. As members of the Liberals in Europe FF are the most qualified Republican party in the South. Sittingonthefence (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tackling the lead

I have now added a bridging sentence to the lead, and a corresponding paragraph to the article, to explain the shift of focus from all-Ireland to Northern Ireland. What's needed now is to summarise the entire Republicanism in Northern Ireland section as a single paragraph in the lead. Border campaign, Troubles, Armalite and ballot box, republicans in government, dissident republicans, that's all that's required. No citations needed, since the section is well-sourced, and no special knowledge of the subject, just a facility for précis. Good luck to whoever undertakes it. Scolaire (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody? I didn't think so. I've done it myself. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fianna Fáil edit war

I notice there's an edit war going on over the inclusion of Fianna Fáil as an Irish republican party. Can both sides explain why it does or does not belong here, rather than reverting all the time? I do notice that the Fianna Fáil article states that they are an Irish republican party, linking to this article (apparently without controversy). -R. fiend (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't party to the original discussion, but I imagine it relates to the use of the term in current irish politics. Scolaire can doubtless provide the context. In the meantime I've just enforced WP:BRD. As ever we seem to have SPAs in play on Irish articles ----Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see the discussion at "List of parties" above. So the argument is that FF's primary goal is not an united Ireland, therefore they don't constitute an Irish republican party by tis definition? I don't know enough about contemporary Irish politics to weigh in one way or the other, but that does seem like a rather specific definition, and it isn't really clear that's the one being used in the list. This gives me some qualms about potential original research. If nothing else, I think the line "The following are active republican parties in Ireland" should be more specific about how it's being defined here. It sort of irks me a bit when Wikipedia articles don't agree with one another, so defining them as Irish republican in their own article, but removing them from a list of Irish republican parties strikes me as a bit problematical. -R. fiend (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

FF do aspire to a united Ireland and ascribe to a philosophy of constitutional republicanism. I fear that their deletion may be something to do with the fact that they and Sinn Féin are usually at logger heads over "who's more republicanism" and I'm wary that the deletion is party politically motivated. As I stated above. FF are joined with the liberals in the EU parliament and regularly speak on North south relations more than any party. Their tag line is "The Republican Party". Their omission makes a mockery of this page. -Sittingonthefence (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that explicit tag line of Fianna Fáil not, "Fianna Fáil - The Republican Party"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.50.50 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire is an experienced editor and has not made political edits in the past. Let him explain his reasons then we can look at it avoiding words like 'mockery' please ----Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way way but his original reason above is invalid ("not an active republican party") therefore until he can better explain I move that the paragraph is reinstated. Being an editor on many subject doesn't make you an expert on them. There was no justification originally given for excluding them from the list. I don't know the guy but he hasn't explained himself and therefore I can only theorise as to his reasoning. -Sittingonthefence (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to toss around the possibility that the political parties section isn't really useful in the article. Back before Ireland was a republic it certainly would be relevant, but with a republic established all parties are basically "republican" now (unless there are some monarchists left, but again, not terribly relevant). This is much more relevant historically, and is being used here only in reference to unification of Ireland, which isn't really the subject of this article; it isn't even mentioned in the lead. And since, again, most parties are at least theoretically in favor of unifying the island, it isn't a terribly relevant classification in that sense either. This article is primarily a historical one, and there's no need to muddy it with contemporary controversies about what is or isn't a "republican" party today by certain people's standards. Thoughts? -R. fiend (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section in question, but it's been reverted. I'm more inclined towards to think that it really doesn't belong. If we need to mention any party in particular which isn't covered already I think it should go in the short section on the present. Right now we're looking at a list of republican parties without any definition of what that exactly means. If no one voices any opposition here in the next day or so I'l remove it again. -R. fiend (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently everybody has been asking me to "explain myself", but nobody left a message on my talk page to tell me about this discussion. Strange! I can't really add anything to what's been said already. I'm being asked where I'm getting my definition from. Well, from the article itself. Has anybody read the article? Did you notice it's not about "building cooperation between institutions north and south", being "registered in NI where they have units" or "joining with the liberals in the EU parliament and regularly speaking on North south relations more than any party." It's about actually opposing – whether violently or through political activity – the British presence in Ireland. I would like anybody to point me to any sentence in the article that's not consistent with that. If my definition, based on the article, is OR, then the entire article is OR and needs to be re-written from scratch. Now, Fianna Fáil do not actively oppose the continued British presence in the north. "Building cooperation" and "speaking on North south relations" is as much a "partitionist" activity as a republican one. Fianna Fáil effectively gave up their claim to Irish reunification in 1951 when they returned to government and didn't repeal the Republic of Ireland Act, which enshrined partition in Irish law. The "Republican Party" tag is an anachronism which nobody takes seriously. They should not be labelled as republican in their own article any more than they are here. Sittingonthefence, can you link me to any news item where FF have tried to prove themselves "more republican" than SF? I've certainly missed it. And if you're so concerned that it's a "party political matter" why have you tried to add FF and not Fine Gael? You're not going to tell us they have opposing views on Irish unity, are you? R. fiend, if you don't fully understand the situation there are two things you can do: ask for somebody to improve the article or learn about the subject so that you can do it yourself. Just deleting a section because you don't think it's clearly enough explained is a bit over the top. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You make some good points. However, I'm not sure the sections really adds anything to the article, and is still a bit problematic. The article states at the beginning that the central point is "the belief that all of Ireland should be an independent republic." The focus obviously switches following the establishment of the Republic on most of the island (the establishment of the Republic is not mentioned in the lead; a significant oversight in my view), but by this definition Fianna Fail fits the bill, does it not? I think we can all agree that they are at least nominally a republican party. If we're going to contradict their official line we're going to need some pretty good sources. Honestly, we should be having this discussion over at Talk:Fianna Fáil, as that article says in no uncertain terms that they are an Irish republican party, which, if untrue, is a significantly greater offense than their inclusion or omission from the list on this page, but since my point right now is that the "list of parties" section is unnecessary and controversial, I'll keep the discussion here until we decide what to do about that. This is basically a historical article, and the significant differences are between parties like Sinn Fein and the IPP; one is obviously republican and one is not. The more subtle, post-Republic differences seem sort of out of place. The argument seems to be that Sinn Fein and the like are actively seeking to end partition and Fianna Fail are not, correct? I suppose it might be different for people in Ireland, but me that seems a bit of a judgment call. If we're going to say that failure to repeal the Government of Ireland Act means they are ipso facto not republican I think we'd need some pretty good sources on that, and even then I suspect it will be controversial. What are other parties doing, violently or through political activity? No one's done anything violent in the past decade or more, right? Politically all parties' hands are a bit tied in that the government of the Republic has no jurisdiction over matters in the North.

So here are my suggestions. This being an article primarily on the history of Irish republicanism, we change the list into parties that have been historically republican. Or better yet, get rid of the section and merge it into the body of the article. Of the four parties currently mentioned, Sinn Fein and Republican Sinn Fein are already covered in the article. IRSP and Éirígí can be merged into the "1986 - present" section. FF is covered earlier in the article, and needn't be mentioned in that section. Eschewing "lists of" and crap into articles is generally better form anyway. -R. fiend (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. I don't see this as a history article. It is not a well-written article, and present-day republican activity, philosophy or variants are not properly represented (except in the section that you are proposing to delete), but nonetheless this is an article about a current phenomenon. "Irish republicanism" to a large extent became redundant in the 26 counties when the IRA made the decision to cease its campaign against the southern state, and, as has been said, with the ROI Act 1948 all citizens of that state could call themselves "republican" without it meaning very much. But what happened then was that "Irish republicanism" came to mean the ending of partition, Irish reunification, a 32 county republic. In short, Irish republicanism since the forties is about Northern Ireland, and the belief that the problems there could never be finally resolved except by reunification. The IRA and Sinn Féin continued to fight for this, the "constitutional" parties north and south did not. That is why the various offshoots of the 1960s Sinn Féin count as currently active Irish republican parties and the others do not. This is not just my view, by the way. Here is a very recently published book. It is definitely not pro-IRA in outlook or "party political" in Sittingonthefence's terms, but you'll see that SF, RSF, IRSP and Éirígí are all described as "republican" and FF and FG are very clearly not. That is my idea of a reliable source. This, which is used as justification on the Fianna Fáil article for saying that its ideology is "Irish republicanism", is just silliness. Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when you say that the Fianna Fáil article "says in no uncertain terms that they are an Irish republican party" that is strictly true, but it says so only by inserting the words into the infobox and the opening sentence. There is no discussion of their "republicanism" either there or in the rest of the article. The Ideology section says that "Fianna Fáil is seen as a typical catch-all party. R. Ken Carty wrote of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael that they were ‘heterogeneous in their bases of support, relatively undifferentiated in terms of policy or programme, and remarkably stable in their support levels’." What does that tell you? Scolaire (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If the only part of the article that isn't historical is the small section I removed, then it is basically a historical article; whether or not it should be is a different story. It seems much of what you mention above should be better covered in the article - perhaps eventually even split into two, with the second covering the end of partition, which is basically a separate issue. In the meantime the lead should cover how the term "Irish republicanism" has changed, and the establishment of the Republic in 1949 (which doesn't really seem to be in the article at all now for some reason, which should also be remedied). I think the list of parties section should be merged into the previous section on the current state of affairs, which should be expanded. This lets us avoid which definition of "republicanism" we're using, while covering the platforms of the various parties without having to quibble about whether or not they sufficiently fit the label "republican". I can work on some of this, but it really isn't in my wheelhouse.

As for the second part, well, if the infobox and opening sentence say they're republican, then the article says they're republican, regardless fo what the result of the article says, and if it isn't true it should be removed or qualified somehow. ("Historically republican", "nominally republican", whatever.) Again, a discussion for that talk page. -R. fiend (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

By all means, take it to the Fianna Fáil talk page. I'm certainly not going to let myself get bogged down in fruitless circular argument there. As regards this article, any improvement you make will be welcome, but deleting content because you don't like it is not improvement. You've stated your case, but you haven't bothered to do any research whatever or to present any coherent source- or policy-based argument. I've provided a reliable source for mine. I'm not going to sit down every half-hour to contribute to a stimulating theoretical discussion of what you think this or that might mean, but I want to make it crystal clear that you do not have any consensus for removing the section on current republican parties, whether for the purpose of merging or any other reason. Scolaire (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur ----Snowded ^TALK 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well no one needs a consensus to clarify and reorganize information within an article, which is all I'm proposing right now, so I'm not going to worry too much about that at this stage. The problem with the article is that it gives one definition of Irish republicanism in the beginning, then changes the definition used without really indicating it's doing so. Scolaire writes above "'Irish republicanism' came to mean the ending of partition, Irish reunification, a 32 county republic. In short, Irish republicanism since the forties is about Northern Ireland, and the belief that the problems there could never be finally resolved except by reunification." That could almost word for word go at the end of the lead, and would really clarify things. The problem is I don't know how to cite it, as I can't cite Scolaire as a reliable source here. Then, if we keep the list of republican parties we can explain that this is how they are being defined. I'd still like further elaboration on the specific differences between Fianna Fail's position and Sinn Fein's. What exactly SF has done that FF has not? Likewise Éirígí. It seems to me the main difference is that FF only pays lip service to reunification while SF makes it their #1 priority. Still, both say they favor it, but have accomplished little. Would it be accurate to say that FF has resigned itself to the status quo in a way SF has not?

I still think the information on the republican parties would work better within the section on contemporary republican politics (there's a bit of redundancy there already), and incorporating information into the text of an article is generally better form than rattling off a somewhat arbitrary list at the end. (If nothing else it will discourage more editors from adding Fianna Fail to the list of republican parties.) Turning the list into a paragraph or two on the topic would also allow us to cover the differences in the positions of the various republican and non-republican parties, whereas the current layout precludes any mention of the positions of the two largest parties in the country, since they apparently don't qualify as republican. -R. fiend (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Scolaire's definition of a republican (certainly from 1940's to 1990's) is someone who still supported using force to end NI's status as part of the UK however that is a very narrow definition. Fianna Fáil set about creating a state that would be more prosperous for the North to be a part of than the UK and therefore win reunification that way through peaceful means. Getting the unionists to change tac by showing them that an Ireland outside of the UK is a better place to be and live. SF have always supported a more confrontational policy and Fianna Fáil a more tentative one that was predicated on building trust across communities that very obviously wouldn't work together. Certainly reading Noal Whelan's recent book on that party (FF) shines a light on much of the behind the scenes thinking of Lemass and Lynch in trying to win over O'Neill in the North in order to bring them into the Republican fold. You can't dismiss the very ethos of a tactic whose aim is to achieve reunification because you don't think it's the right one. Building north-south relations is all about showing the people of the North that reunification is better for them than remaining in the UK. It has seen 3 major victories also in the Downing Street declaration (1993), the Good Friday Agreement (1998) and St. Andrew's Agreement (2006), all of which were negotiated by Fianna Fáil and all of which increased the South's influence on the North and moved reunification closer. How can you deny that as being republican even given the narrow definition used in this article? -sittingonthefence (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies Scolaire I only just saw your question regarding FF and FG. The reason I'm for including FF is that on their website there is a clear reference to a united Ireland in their constitution: http://www.fiannafail.ie/content/pages/5097/ however I cannot find any similar message or aim on Fine Gael's as of this date.sittingonthefence (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute anything you have said. The philosophy of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would be consistent with the label of "republican" in a global context, and nobody has ever denied that all parties in the south would work to bring about reconciliation with the north, and aspire to Irish reunification as a republic. But "Irish republican", in news media, history books or anywhere else, refers specifically to those who are members of, or in sympathy with the general aims of, the IRA or one of its offshoots. The "narrow definition" is not mine, it's everywhere. When have you ever seen Mícheal Martin described as a "republican leader", or the Progressive Democrats as "dissident republicans"? Your definition of republicanism is not wrong. It is admirable. But Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Article content must be determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. --Scolaire (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

While it is true that the lead is too long, reducing it to a single sentence is the opposite extreme. Also, the single sentence reflects only the opinion of one person; it does not reflect any consensus. The addition of sidebars is unnecessary, and the Socialism sidebar in particular is cdompletely out of place. Scolaire (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede needs some reworking and gives undue weight to some "specific factors":

“ Irish republicanism (Irish: Poblachtánachas Éireannach) is an ideology based on the belief that all of Ireland should be an independent republic. The development of nationalist and democratic sentiment throughout Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was reflected in Ireland in the emergence of republicanism, in opposition to British rule. This followed hundreds of years of British conquest and Irish resistance through rebellion,[1][2] and union of the crowns of both countries since 1542. Discrimination against Catholics, attempts by a subjugating power to create an impression of inferiority and subdue or eliminate cultural identity, and a feeling that Ireland was economically disadvantaged and subservient within the United Kingdom were among the specific factors leading to such opposition. ”

Irish republicanism was born out of the failure for reform of the Irish parliament via political means, especially for the discriminated Presbyterians, leading the United Irishmen to advocate republicanism. As far as I am aware isn't modern republicanism directly descended from the United Irishmen? Also the attempt to eliminate cultural identity was primarily a Tudor issue. In the Plantation, about half the Scots who came over spoke Gaelic and Gaelic-speaking Protestant ministers where frequently sought after. By the 1780s/1790s it was fashionable for Irish Protestants, including Lord Castlereagh, to look like Gaelic scholars/students - heck one of the main men behind the Belfast Harp Festival to preserve the art of Irish harp music was pro-British. Always ignoring the stuff that doesn't make the Brits look quite as bad. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's implicit in both the lead and the History section that modern republicanism is directly descended from the United Irishmen. For the rest, I would broadly agree with you, especially as regards that last sentence in the first paragraph. Firstly, there was discrimination against Catholics and non-conformists. Secondly, "attempts by a subjugating power to create an impression of inferiority and subdue or eliminate cultural identity" is very soap-boxy and needs to be re-phrased to be more factual and neutral. Finally, "and subservient" is superfluous as well as soap-boxy and that whole phrase near the end of the sentence should be replaced with "the belief that Ireland was economically disadvantaged as a result of the Act of Union." I would disagree with you, however, on the fact that Irish culture was under threat in the 19th century. The Irish language, Irish music and dancing, and Irish history were not taught in schools. Irish speakers were disadvantaged when it came to getting jobs etc. and you basically had to "act British" to get on. That's why the Gaelic revival was of such significance. The revival was not itself a republican thing but republicans were both influenced by it and influential in it. Scolaire (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the sentence in line with the above, and also taken out "and union of the crowns of both countries since 1542" from the previous sentence, where I don't think it particularly added anything. Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article looked a lot better after I edited it and I don't understand why you reverted all of it. You removed the Republicanism side bar which belongs here, the terminology of Irish republicanism being a political ideology as opposed to just being an ideology. Irish republicanism today is also a socialist ideology, which is why I included the side bars which you also removed. This article stagnated and the changes were made, the article looked much better but now its back to what it was. The so called introduction (essay more like) mostly makes references to physical force republicanism and dissident republicanism, which have their own articles and the history of the state and republicanism which already have section devoted to them. Then on the Republicanism, I wrote a section on Irish Republicanism and Republicanism in Ireland (that for some reason never existed before because editors who are supposedly interested in the subject never saw fit to do so or even think about), then you just delete it calling it a "garbled history essay" instead of helping to develop it. Then I have users like AllTheStrongBowInTheWorld accusing me of being bitter over the result on Michael Gambon when that was the lede I wanted in the first place, then calling me an anti-British racist paddy, a troll and POV pushing (I regret not reported him now) along with hims and JonC occasionally stalking and reverting my edits.

Whats the point in me contributing when almost everything I do is reverted or deleted by the same editors? I spent hours editing only to see it undone. Ranting over. I am pulling out of this for a while to avoid further frustration and to calm down, Wikipedia has not been a wholly positive experience for me. ÓCorcráin (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you feel you're being "got at", and I regret that. The fact is, however, that I disagreed with every one of your edits, including formatting ones such as bolding and adding quotes. I could have criticised each of them in turn but that would probably have looked even worse, and it would have taken up more of my time than it was worth. Please believe me when I say that it was the edits that I disagreed with in all cases, not the editor.

I think a problem that is common to both this article and the Republicanism article is that we have never had a definition of Irish republicanism that (a) has consensus among editors and (b) can be backed up by reliable sources. Adding a section on Ireland to the Republicanism article is pointless unless and until we have an agreed and useable definition. That's why I deleted the section rather than trying to "improve" it, because merely re-phrasing it or making up my own definition would not have been an improvement. I don't know whether anybody is willing to go out to their local library and try to find a source for this or not. In principle I'd be willing; in practice I probably won't have the time. Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is difference between purposeful elimination and ignoring something. Though Spain and France amongst other countries were and still are the same giving primary focus to the state language ignoring regional dialects or native minor ethnic languages. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And there are separatist groups in the Basque Country, Brittany etc., which are republican in nature, fighting against the suppression of their culture. Remember that the question is not how you view the culture issue, but how republicans view(ed) it. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's any help, I went through Richard English's "Irish Freedom" again last week and he gives this definition on page 509:"In specifically Irish use", "Republicanism in a modern Irish context should be understood to indicate either specific attachment to a republican form of government and/or an aggressive pursuit of such an arrangement in Ireland." I can recommend the entire volume to you as a guide to a much better understanding of Irish nationalism as viewed by academics, or at least one academic. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Normally I rate English fairly highly as a writer, but the sentence you quote really says nothing more than "republicanism is either an attachment to republicanism or the aggressive pursuit of republicanism." To call it circular would be an understatement. I was hoping for something a bit more tangible. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also it only applies "in a modern Irish context", this article deals with before what we'd assume to be the modern era. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest that's not how I viewed his comments. In particular, "specific attachment to a republican form of government and/or an aggressive pursuit of such an arrangement in Ireland." It's exactly the same as the dictionary meaning. It can be summed up as easily as saying: an Irish republican is someone who wishes to see the establishment of an all Ireland republic - some Irish republicans are prepared to use force to achieve this aim. Regardless of the period in history the meaning and intent is the same, or isn't it? You can argue that the term also applied to pro treatyists in the 2nd Dail who were prepared to work towards a 26 county republic because their original ethos was for an all Ireland republic. I would also argue that republicanism is a modern concept given that it only emerged in the late 18th century along with Irish nationalism. Having just reread Irish Freedom it's all kind of fresh in my mind and from that I would venture that there wasn't any concerted effort prior to 1798 to establish any concept of nationalism or republicanism, despite the argument that's it's been going on since the 12th century. There simply was no consolidated effort before then, just local struggles for supremacy in religion and power. Unlike nationalism however I would argue that there is only one kind of republicanism. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Who argued from the 12th century? Only the most naive and ignorant minds would make such a stupid statement. Modern Irish republicanism as far as I am concerned relates to the 20th century from 1916 onwards. The republicanism of the late 18th century for me is not in the same bracket. Nationalism however did exist prior to 1798 and the United Irishmen, albeit only decades earlier in the form of the pro-British connection Irish Patriots and Volunteers (though the more radical elements became United Irishmen). Mabuska ^(talk) 12:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing anyone here of the 12th century argument but we all know some do assert this. I can see why you'd argue for the modern period to be from the early 1900's but that's moot because in historical terms the 1770's are still modern, industrial revolution times, but if you want to draw the line at 1916 that's fine by me but wouldn't you then be ruling out the IRB and its spread to Ireland with the resultant physical force expression? Nationalism, I would argue is emergent in the 1770's. Richard English doesn't see a potent expression of it however until the 1840's. Setting those arguments aside though and returning to the issue of what Irish republicanism actually is, I fall back on my comments above the it is an expression of someone who wishes to see the establishment of an all Ireland republic - with some republicans prepared to use force to achieve this aim. Take all the factions since 1900 and I think they fall neatly into that once sentence. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but...no. For instance, I think we'd all agree that the SDLP wishes to see a united Ireland. I think it's safe to assume that they would not envisage a united Ireland as a monarchy. Therefore they wish to see the establishment of an all Ireland republic. But the SDLP is not a republican party. You might even define an NI republican as a nationalist who doesn't support the SDLP. Therefore, republicanism is more than just that. What we need, anyway, is not a snappy, one-line definition, but rather a fair-sized paragraph, with sources, on what makes Irish republicanism different to simply Irish nationalism, and what makes it different to republicanism in other countries.

@Mabuska, republicanism certainly changed in nature between 1791 and 1916, but that doesn't mean they don't come under the same heading. It was evolution, not one version shutting up shop and then a different version appearing 100 years later. Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"changed in nature" is all I'm splitting it by. If a good synopsis on the United Irishmen, republicanism in the 19th century, 1916 onwards and GFA onwards can be done, I think it would go a long way to defining republicanism in it's variosus different shades. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your point Scolaire. Upon reflection then I would moot that modern (from 1770's onwards) Irish republicans manifest in two forms, constitutional and non-constitutional. Those who are non-constitutional advocate physical force republicanism. There are examples of shifts between both stances such as Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cutting down the waffle

This article is full of tautology and needless waffle that is covered in linked too articles. I've made an attempt to cut down the United Irishmen section, and adding in some glanced over facts that helps balance it a bit. I will add sources later. Other sections such as the Act of Union need a serious look at too, as it can be easily cut down to me succinct. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This:

From 1919–1921 the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was organised as a guerilla army, led by Michael Collins and fought against British forces. During the Anglo-Irish War (or Irish War of Independence) the British sent paramilitary police, the "Black and Tans" and the Auxiliary Division, to help the British Army and Royal Irish Constabulary. These groups committed atrocities which included killing captured POWs and Irish civilians viewed as being sympathetic to the IRA. The most infamous of all their actions was the burning of half the city of Cork in 1920 and the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1920. These atrocities, together with the popularity of the republican ideal, and British repression of republican political expression, led to widespread support across Ireland for the Irish rebels.

Is as clear an example of republican propaganda as I have seen in a long time on this site. Yes the Black and Tans etc. committed heinous acts, but where is the even-handed approach here? I must dig out my copy of Pearse Lawlor's "1920-1922 The Outrages", gives some lovely accounts of republican atrocities and explains how each side where basically doing tit-for-tat. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on the need to cut down the waffle. As regards the content you removed from the 1798 section, I think the edit was excellent. I also agree that the paragraph you quote from the "Nineteenth century onward" section (what an awful section heading!) needs to be completely re-written as regards both factual, informative content and neutral point of view. I am very doubtful, however, about the desirability of balancing atrocity with atrocity as a way of achieving "neutrality". It is better to cut such emotive language out altogether, especially since, as you point out, this is not an article on the War of Independence but on republicanism. Atrocity is not essential to republicanism, any more than it is essential to Christianity, and the atrocities of the Crusades or the Inquisition are not given prominence in articles on Christianity. For that reason, I would like to see, not only a citation, but a less emotive wording, for the sentence you added to the 1798 section: "A series of sectarian massacres of Protestants in County Wexford saw more Protestant United Irishmen abandon their revolutionary radicalism." I also don't think it is particularly neutral to talk of "a change of feeling amongst some of Ulster's Presbyterians leading up to and during the rebellion" before mentioning the rebellion. That sentence would sit at the end of the paragraph much better than at the beginning. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph concerning Protestants' abandonment of republicanism before and during 1798 was added two months ago with the edit summary, "will add sources for new stuff later." Since the sources have not been added I have, with some reluctance, removed the paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems, I'll get around it at some stage. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Idunno

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:F98E:4400:68F3:720E:395D:1C1A (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Irish republicanism

Irish Republicanism is mostly just the idea of being a republic and not a component of Britain, isn't it, and the idea of a whole Ireland being in the Irish republic is instead called United Ireland. The meaning of Irish republicanism and United Ireland, as told in the articles, is identical, when they are either two different ideas, or should be a single article. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In other words, there needs to be clarification about two ideas of republicanism, one the idealism where the whole island is a republic, or the freedom cause where there is an Irish republic on at least part of the island. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Irish republicanism is:

a. the promotion of a democratic republic in Ireland

b. the ideal of a whole-island republic of Ireland

-Inowen (nlfte) 03:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Views on British rule in Ireland

I propose to add the following sentence to the lede:

Irish republicans view British rule in any part of Ireland as inherently illegitimate.

buidhe 05:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is hardly controversial in itself but wp:LEAD says that the lead/lede is a summary of the body, so body text that gives a more detailed background would be needed too. --Red King (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Something like this:

Irish republicans view British rule in any part of Ireland as an inherently illegitimate, foreign regime. A variant of this is Irish republican legitimism, which also rejects the Republic of Ireland because of its tacit acceptance of partition and continuing British rule in Northern Ireland. The illegitimacy of British rule extends to all institutions of the British state. This includes rejection of the British parliament (abstentionism), and rejection of British police and court systems, which has led to republicans developing alternatives.

I still need to find sources, though. Done. buidhe 16:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Second para needs to read "This belief in the illegitimacy of ... ". --Red King (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

These really need a cleanup, they're massive. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

New IRA

I've recently created a article draft for the New IRA. Feel free to contribute to it. Charles Essie (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Republicanism in Northern Ireland

The section on Republicanism in Northern Ireland seems to be under developed. The section goes in to detail about pre-Troubles Northern Ireland (which is fine) but skims over the Troubles and doesn't mention anything post 2005. I think this makes the section redundant given the Sinn Fein are now the largest party in Northern Ireland, and 17 years of History are left completely untouched. Any ideas about how this issue can be improved? ApatheticName (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)