Talk:Éamon de Valera/Archive 5

Capital/lowercase D in de Valera
This is a minor point, but throughout the article 'de Valera' and 'De Valera' are used interchangeably. I can't tell which is favourable, but I think the article should be standardised, whether it's to 'De' or to 'de'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salomoh (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that de rather than De is correct.--Paschal Lehany (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not used interchangeably, it's de Valera in the middle of a sentence, and De Valera, capitalised when at the start of a sentence. Snappy (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Snappy, I'm certain that there are at least two mid-sentence "De Valera"s, with a majuscule D, although I do admit that browsing the article, what you say is the general consensus. Salomoh 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salomoh (talk • contribs)

NPOV issues and questionable Reliable Source in this context
Repeated edits from a dynamic IP persist in inserting extracts from William Shawcross' The Queen Mother: The Official Biography to characterise de Valera from a particular POV.
 * The first statement; "At no point during World War II did de Valera ever criticize either Adolf Hitler or the Nazis", while possibly true, implies support for the Nazi regime. The refusal to publicly critizise any of the belligerents was strictly in keeping with Ireland's formal neutrality.
 * The second extract has been modifies a number of times when challenged. It first appeared as this edit. When asked for de Valera's purported quote, this edit was provided, with edit summary "This is his actual quotation", implying a direct quote from de Valera reported in the source. Having checked the source, and finding this not to be the case I tagged it as with edit summary "  'quote' is unref'd footnote by author". Some time later I removed the material with this summary "  rem erroneous 'quote' - actually an unreferenced editorial footnote by author". The modified text was again inserted here. My question is this; can Shawcross, in a passing comment be considered a reliable source, or does his POV on de Valera's position during the War carry more weight than any other non-expert commentator? I should add that in Shawcross' monumental tome on his subject, this is the only fleeting reference to de Valera. At no point does the author quote de Valera and no reference is provided by him for his comment. RashersTierney (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that sufficient has been written by people more familiar with de Valera than Shawcross to render him redundant as a source, particularly as the book is not even about him. If it is so significant to this biography of de Valera, then it will have been written about in a biography of de Valera. The first part is clear editorialising to imply a non-neutral stance. O Fenian (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite not sending soldiewrs to aid the war effort, de valera could still have criticized Hitler and the Nazis. His silence on the matter throughout World War II is as controversial here as the Pope's silence on the Holocaust. That was de Valera's actual quote, although the book mentioned simply gives the "wise" part of it. Shawcross is most certainly a reliable source. (92.11.167.224 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * The book most certainly did not give the "wise" part as a quotation by de Valera.. If you persist in adding doctored 'quotes' here, you may rest assured your edits will be considered disruptive. If you genuinely do not understand why your 'modifying' of source material is inappropriate, I suggest you take a look at Verifiability. As for your views on the Pope, that has nothing to do with this article or issue under discussion. Shawcross is clearly an authority on Kissinger and the subject of this current bio, but nothing indicates his expertise on de Valera, the subject of this article, nor has he ever made such a claim AFAIK.RashersTierney (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I will find the reference in another book then. De Valera's Nazi sympathies were by far the most controversial aspect of his life story and have damaged his reputation and legacy as much as Lloyd George and the Duke of Windsor, so it should be mentioned. The fact that he never once publicly criticized Hitler or Nazism, even when the horrors of the regime became known, is certainly notable since speaking out would not have in any way impaired his supposed neutrality. (92.1.87.30 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree fully with your interpretation that the State could have, and should have done more to accommodate Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. My opinion is that not doing so is a national disgrace that reflects particularly on the then Department of Justice and to some extent on de Valera too. That is not the same as claiming that he was a Nazi sympathizer. The funding by the Irish Jewish community in the 1960s of a memorial garden in Israel in honour of President de Valera (unpublicised at his request, Ferriter p263) suggests that those best placed to judge this issue obviously thought so too. RashersTierney (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Decision to sign Anglo-Irish Treaty
Was this made at 11.15am on 5 December 1921 or 11.15pm? Drutt (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Garvin
Please provide the full quote from page 26 that supports the text added, the page concerned appears to make no mention of "social" or "conservatism". The same applies to O'Brien also. O Fenian (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * both sources say explicitly he was a pious Catholic, which was the issue originally raised. In the 1937 Constitution de Valera was "trying to placate pious people with expressly Catholic" points and "patriarchal Catholicism" says Paul Bew, Ireland: the politics of enmity, 1789-2006 (2007) p 455. Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So none of the sources say "social and cultural conservatism rooted in his pious Catholicism"? Classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS then. Him being a pious Catholic is one thing, but please either provide quotes that directly support the sentence you have just constructed or self-revert. O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The quoted source (Bew) explicitly used the terms "Catholic", "pious", "patriarchal," and "social" in dealing with de Valera and the 1937 Constitution. As for "conservatism" Bew used "traditional". It's historian Bew in his RS who did the synthesis and we just report it.  If you find other historians with different interpretations, please add them as well. Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK so all the words are there, but are they in the same phrase?  Can we have an extract please? -- Snowded  TALK  19:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, on p 444 Bew writes, "There was little appetite for social and cultural change"  and on 455 he refers to "traditional", so I rewrote that as "social and cultural conservatism"--does anyone disagree with that rephrasing? Wiki does not string together quotes. We rewrite what the RS say-- and condense it to a much shorter summary--the article's bibliography has thousands of pages on de Valera and we MUST condense by 99%. The opening lede itself has to condense the whole article into a few paragraphs. In my opinion the current version clearly expresses the views of Bew and most historians.  Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the quotes provided, Bew is talking about other people's pious Catholicism, not Dev's. That does not in any way support "social and cultural conservatism rooted in his pious Catholicism". How can "There was little appetite for social and cultural change" possibly be transformed to be about Dev? The sentence is not even about him in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have excised the word "his" in reference to "pious Catholicism". (Whether it was his or other people's, pious Roman Catholicism was the motive). Dreary Steeples (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend you provide a source that supports your claims, as right now there are none. O Fenian (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I doubt if one could be found. His motivation was never that simple -- Snowded  TALK  20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall be removing the disputed content tomorrow, unless sources are provided. I shall also be removing the lengthy quote, as I do not see why it is in the lead. O Fenian (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
I reverted the vandalism that was here previously (dated 12 July). I am not a de Valera supporter in any way but it was particularly repugnant vandalism and all vandalism has to go. I'm surprised no one caught it before me today. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

De Valera's parents' "marriage"
In case anyone thinks de Valera's parents were actually married in 1881, I would point to the following references, sorry for the extreme length but I know there are those who want to whitewash this and I can't babysit this article indefinitely:
 * De Valera to Rev James A Hamilton, 19 December 1962, and Rev Hamilton's reply 8 January 1963, UCD Archives P 150/227: "As late as 1962, de Valera made another attempt to trace a marriage record for his father and mother in St Patrick's Church, Jersey City, in 1881. The priest replied in the negative, suggesting diplomatically that there may have been 'neglect of entry', but that after such a long lapse of time the task of ascertaining the fact of marriage seemed 'well nigh impossible'."
 * "Born in New York City in 1882 to an Irish mother, he stated that his parents, Kate Coll and Juan Vivion de Valera were married in 1881 in New York. However exhaustive trawls through church and state records by genealogists and by his most recent biographer, Tim Pat Coogan (1990) have failed to find either a church or civil record of the marriage. Furthermore, no birth, baptismal, marriage or death certificate has ever been found for anyone called Juan Vivion de Valera or de Valeros, an alternative spelling. As a result, it is now widely believed by academics that deV (to use his nickname) was illegitimate. While this fact might seem irrelevant to twenty-first century eyes, one result of illegitimacy in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century was that one was barred from a career in the Roman Catholic Church. Éamon de Valera was throughout his life a deeply religious man, who in death asked to be buried in a religious habit. There are a number of occasions where de Valera seriously contemplated entering the religious life like his step-brother, Fr. Thomas Wheelright. Yet he did not do so, and apparently received little encouragement from the priests whose advice he sought. In his biography of de Valera, Tim Pat Coogan speculated as to whether rumours surrounding de Valera's legitimacy may have been a deciding factor. It is worth speculating about how different Irish history would have been had de Valera been able to enter the priesthood or religious life rather than politics."

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Either way, unfortunately the source you are quoting from cannot be regarded as a reliable source because, as stated at the bottom of the page, "It uses material from the Wikipedia article Eamon de Valera" and they have no reference to support the quoted prose. In fact, if you used that here you could easily regard it as a self-reference. ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Which source states it uses Wikipedia material? I did not notice this. In any event there are two different sources and just in case anyone tries whitewashing the issue again in the future. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record the very last line of the "Biography Base" page states "It uses material from the Wikipedia article Eamon de Valera". ww2censor (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The other source is someone's personal website as well, so neither source is any use. O Fenian (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually and in reality, the "other source" comes from the archives of University College Dublin (8 January 1963, UCD Archives P 150/227); there is no reason to impeach it if you are going to give free reign to the personal opinions of biographers (Coogan, Ferrister) which are unsourced and biased expressions of opinion, no more and no less. Also, it might interest you to know that the "other source" is the same source already included as the source of the entire following paragraph:"De Valera was born in New York City in 1882 to an Irish mother; his parents, Catherine Coll (subsequently Mrs Wheelwright), an immigrant from Bruree, County Limerick, and Juan Vivion de Valera, a Cuban settler and sculptor of Spanish descent, were reportedly married on 18 September 1881 at St. Patrick's Church in Jersey City, New Jersey, however, archivists have not located any such marriage certificate or any birth, baptismal, or death certificate information for anyone called Juan Vivion de Valera or de Valeros, an alternative spelling. On De Valera's original birth certificate, his name is given as George De Valero and his father is listed as Vivion De Valero. The first name was changed in 1910 to Edward and the surname corrected to de Valera."
 * I guess we will have to strike this entire paragraph. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Monarch
User:MFIreland keeps changing in the article the words "Irish monarch" to "British monarch". If he could please prove that the Irish Free State was, after 1931, still a colony of the United Kingdom, his edits can remain as sound (as his last edit summary read "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there was an Irish monarch", maybe he could show where in the constitution it said there was a British monarch?).

However, I doubt that's possible since the Statute of Westminster, 1931, ended any right of the British executive (the King in his British council) or legislature (the King in his British parliament) to legislate for the IRF without the latter's expressed prior request. After that point, only the king in his Irish council and parliament could have effect in the IRF (the same situation that exists in the Commonwealth realms to this day). MFIreland's position is all the more curious given that the article explains exactly this just above where he keeps changing "Irish" to "British", as well as outlining the need for Irish legislation to effect the abdication of Edward VIII from the Irish throne, the British laws having no effect (Edward was even king of Ireland for a day longer than he was king of anywhere else). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And it seems that, four months later, he's still at it, now even despite the term "King of Ireland" being properly sourced:
 * "In 1927, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act changed the title of George V from that of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to that of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and separately King of Ireland."p. 85
 * "A reform of the King's title, under a Commonwealth Conference decision, changed the King's role in each dominion. No more was he King in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Instead he became King of Ireland, Australia, etc."
 * Further, here we have the Irish minister for External Affairs in 1927 admonishing a British official for incorrectly referring to the King as "His Britannic Majesty": "His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State regarded the description as anomalous and contrary to the recommendations of the Imperial Conference and the usage established since then"; even at that time, giving the King a British identity outside of Britain was wrong.
 * Given MFIreland's total lack of participation in discussion, one can only wonder at what it is that makes him believe Ireland wasn't independent in 1937. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After 1931, George V, Edward VIII & George VI were each indeed 2 seperate concurrent monarchs (British & Irish), with George VI's Irish reign ending in 1949. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing information
Shouldn't the article mention the fact that de Valera admitted he would join the war on Germany's side if Hitler invaded Northern Ireland? (92.12.137.18 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC))
 * It is not included because it is not true. --Red King (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't feed the trolls! Snappy (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true, he actually told the American ambassador he would join the war on Hitler's side if German paratroopers landed in Derry. (92.13.58.20 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Well then, if you say its true (but don't provide any proof) then of course we'll take your anonymous word alone. We have no standards here. Snappy (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The source added is a distortion of the book. What is written is "On 6 July 1940 de Valera discussed affairs with Gray. He went to the map of Donegal Bay, where Lough Esk extendes north of the border, 50 miles to the north-east, the head of Lough Swilly. 'If I were the Germans,' he said, 'I would land at these points and proclaim myself a liberator. If they should do that, what I could do, I do not know'. [He might had added that in 1804, another potential invader, Napoleon, also saw the strategic significance of Lough Swilly]. Then he added: 'Please don't mention that to anybody. It might get around'. Gray was impressed by de Valera's tone, and his view of the Taosieach as a genuine anti-Nazi was reinforced." O Fenian (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why?
I don't understand why the following was removed:"As Bew (2007) concludes, in the Constitution of 1937 he was 'trying to placate left-wing Republicans with national phrases and pious people with expressly Catholic bits' and 'patriarchal Catholicism.'" As no valid reason was provided I restored it, albeit to a more suitable location in the text. I agree with the removal of the other quotation as based on the above it appears to have been seriously distorted and truncated. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If Bew's research is without value, then so too are the personal musings of Coogan and Ferriter. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Barry
The article currently states that Dev taught Kevin Barry at Belvedere. However, the UCC article used as a reference for the statement Dev taught at Belvedere implies he did so from 1904 to 1906. Considering Barry was born in 1902, this makes it impossible for Dev to have taught him, unless he later worked at Belvedere again. (I'm also pretty sure Donal O'Donovan doesn't mention any such connection in his biography of Barry, but I'd need to double-check that.) Is there any evidence that Dev taught at Belvedere in the 1910s when Barry was a student? 131.111.1.66 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete the reference. No one has suggested any source for Dev working at Belevdere in the 1910s, which would be the dates needed to overlap with Barry, not 1904-05 ANB (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

More Sections
Why is it that there are sections for "President of the Dáil Éireann," "President of the Republic," and "President of the Executive Council," but no separate sections for Taoiseach and President of Ireland? Surely these are as important in Dev's life as the others. Msclguru (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am now making these changes as suggested. Msclguru (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

De Valera and the Holocaust
Shouldn't the article mention that de Valera's refusal to ever publicly criticize the Holocaust and the Nazi regime was controversial, especially since he knew all about the death camps from at least as early as January 1943? (92.4.39.9 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC))