Talk:All-for-Ireland League

Untitled
The {WP:IR} Republicanism tag doesn't really relate as this party/movement had no part in winning an Irish Republic. The AFIL had a different concept for All-Ireland independece.Osioni 18:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Tone?
I have added a query about whether this article is encyclopedic in tone. In particular, the statements in the Résumé appear to amount to advocacy on the AFIL's behalf, not an even-handed summary of the different views expressed about the party's achievements and failures. Perhaps the article could also be challenged on NPOV grounds. I should stress that, on the whole, I heartily agree with the assessments expressed in the article, but I do not think that, in its present form, it meets Wikipedia's style requirements. Todowd (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have deleted the referenced section "Résumé", incorporated some points elsewhere, re-defined introduction and re-texted some sections. Should now be at least up to a "B" (if not "A") quality rating?  Osioni (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC).  It might be added that rating assessments appear to be largely politcal, nationalist articles generally rated low.Osioni (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the changes. They address all the concerns I raised. Perhaps it would be wise to have some sort of conclusion, with an encyclopedic tone and without endorsing or criticizing any of the political views or actions of those mentioned. One point which could be made is that the AFIL's professed attitude towards unionists foreshadowed a later strand in Irish nationalism - represented by figures such as Frank MacDermot, Garrett FitzGerald and Conor Cruise O'Brien (as he expressed his views in States of Ireland (1972)). I don't think that would be controversial.Todowd (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On the same point, the conclusion was a political essay. It might very well be that the AFIL were a progressive tolerant form of nationaism, but this is an encyclopedia, not a soap-box. I'm sorry to have to cut it so drastically but this is not the place for expanding political argumentsJdorney (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted "Conclusion" by Jdorney in main article reinstated below. A retrospective assessment is not a "political soap-box" Osioni (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So including a personal political judement from around 100 years later is not a political soap-box? Sorry but I'm afraid it is.Jdorney (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All history is retrospective, inevitably politically judgemental, always written from the present-day standpoint of the author (or Wiki-editor), seldom, indeed never written from the standpoint of the those involved at the time (see Ireland and World War I)Osioni (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
The AFIL saw that Home Rule, on an all-Ireland basis, was being made impossible by the nature of the Irish Party. The AFIL denied the party a universality of representation to which it thought itself entitled and attempted to make all-Ireland Home Rule at least possible by establishing a national movement of a new kind – one which might attract protestants instead of inevitably repelling them. The AFIL failed, but it was a worthy failure. Catholic-nationalism is no longer enough for the society it produced, in which historians have written the AFIL out of its history. Minds are reaching out for something else, but there is nothing in the known history of the Republic to sustain those who are reaching out for something beyond Catholic-nationalism.

But if the AFIL failed, what triumphed? Redmondism followed by Sinn Féin triumphed, in the sense that they were the dominant political parties in Catholic Ireland. They did not succeed in the sense of achieving by antagonistic methods what the AFIL failed to achieve by conciliatory methods. The New Ireland Forum proposed by John Hume in 1982 was made almost in an "All-for-Ireland" spirit. His idea was that nationalist Ireland should make a realistic proposition to the Unionists and say what changes they were going to make in order to make it possible that Unionists might consent to a united Ireland, or at least cease to be repelled by the Republic.

Modern Ireland did not take the shape that any of its shapers desired. It was not only O’Brien and Redmond who were defeated. The Union, the cause for which alone Carson had struggled was wrecked. The Republic of All-Ireland for which the precursors, Stephens and Devoy, toiled and suffered, and for which Clark, Pearse and Connolly died, has not emerged. These facts must prevent us from looking at the point of view of ‘those who turned out to be right’. Nobody turned out to be right as far as the politics are concerned. Our best rule in choosing subjects is not to be guided solely by the canon of success – acknowledged posthumous influence – but to look at those who had in fact an influence on their contemporaries.


 * Without wanting to get into an edit war, that is still outrageously pov. "It failed but it was a worthy failure". "Catholic nationalism is no longer enough for the society it produced". "Minds are reaching out for something new but there is nothing in the known history of the Republic to sustain those who are reaching out for something beyond Catholic nationalism" etc. These are not facts but povs. If they are ascribed to Brendan Clifford or Conor Cruise O'Brien then lets have exact quotes. Moreover, how do they relate to the AFIL? The second paragraph in its entirety is a political essay and just does not belong here. I you were to write something like "Conor Cruise O'Brien argued that the AFIL etc". That would be much better Jdorney (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we going to get a new conclusion or what? We can't leave it as it is.Jdorney (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion as offered by Jdorney (moved to here): The AFIL argued that Home Rule, on an all-Ireland basis, was being made impossible by the nature of the Irish Party. The AFIL denied the party a universality of representation to which it thought itself entitled and attempted to make all-Ireland Home Rule possible by establishing a national movement of a new kind. They hoped it would attract Protestants.

The AFIL failed to become the major nationalist party in Ireland. "Redmondism" eclipsed it in the short term, followed by Sinn Féin.


 * Comments: Understandably there are those who have difficulty with Brendan's or Conor's truths (quoted exactly !!). But there are also very many who fully grasp the points they make. No way were the AFIL out to primarily attract a minority of Protestants, they were dependent on a majority of open-minded unbiased Catholics supporters, who admittedly outside of Cork were lacking, and under clerical influence. The AFIL were not eclipsed the Irish Party, in the last by-election the split vote of the two AFIL candidates well exceed the IPP vote. The AfIL suppported Sinn Féin, stepped down asking its supporters to support SF, absorbed by SF but not eclipsed.Osioni (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. Succint, factual information. Let's have that info in the artilce.Jdorney (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lost source to Cardinal Logue's statement opposing legislative veto rights for Protestant Ulster. The Church's opposition is mentioned in the article. Also that O'Brien sided with (Griffith's) Sinn Féin in and out of parliament. Would prefer to round off here. Osioni (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm happy with it. Good work. Jdorney (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see this topic has been raised before and certain changes have been made previously but I was just reading the conclusion segment and the last paragraph is editorilizing which is a breach of policy. To make it compliant it either needs a re-write or needs deleting altogether. 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:492A:5151:65A9:C1D8 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)