Talk:Irish republican legitimism

Irish republican legitimatism
After having reading a lot about Irish republican legitimatism, there are some questions I still do not understand. I would really appreciate if anybody could inform me who were the holders of legitimacy in these dates: Go raibh maith agat Vasconicus, 30th April 2007
 * Between 1916 (Easter Rising) and 1921 (de Valera’s designation as president of the Irish Republic).
 * Between 1926 (creation of the Fianna Fáil) and 1938 (transfer of the authority of the of the Second Dáil to the IRA Army Council). I would appreciate it if you could let me know the names of the presidents of the Executive Council of the Second Dáil in these twelve years.
 * After 1991 (Dáithí Ó Conaill’s death)


 * 1916-21 - legitimacy was based on the 1918 electorate, that elected the First Dail which first met in January 1919 and declared the Irish Republic, backdated to 1916.
 * Basically the members for De Valera's 1922 "council of state" that did not join Fianna Fail.
 * Tom Maguire's letters 1986-87 passed his "authority" to the group (RSF) that was opposed to those who chose to take part in the electoral process at the time (Sinn Fein). Even though his own authority was based on an election....86.42.197.213 (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Current popularity of Irish Republican Legitimatism
The article needs some quantification of numbers holding the view. At the moment there are 4 parties listed as supporting IRL, all of them tiny. Also 94% of the voters in the Republic of Ireland voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. I would therefore say that a small minority held the IRL view. I have tried to put this in but its been deleted twice. Once by Domer48 saying cite sources, and once by BigDunc saying that it is PoV. Well, looking elsewhere at cited sources for the 4 named political parties, and the cited Good Friday Agreement article, it is a small minority of people in Ireland who agree in IRL as defined in the article. As such I am reinserting the line. If you disagree, comment below. --81.132.246.132 22:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are putting in to the article is your opinion please give a reference for this statement and I have left a warning on your talk page re WP:3RR. BigDunc 22:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't my opinion. Did you not read what I wrote above? And the 4 parties mentioned are tiny. Look at their articles and see the votes they have. All of these are cited within Wikipedia. So what I am doing is collating this info from elsewhere in Wikipedia and adding it to the article. You may disagree with the wording that I have used, however according to those sources, 94% of voters, only leaves 6% to disagree. Thats not a large minority, its a tiny minority. So if you don't like what I wrote, how would you sum up the current belief in IRL, using sources? --81.132.246.132 22:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying they are tiny but statements like that must be referenced.BigDunc 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps its a wording change. But the article should say that this belief is not a majority belief. Or if it is, people are joining the wrong parties, and got their votes wrong when they voted overwhelmingly for the Good Friday Agreement. I'll reference up and think of a less contentious way of saying it. --81.132.246.132 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the last section of the article. It says These claims are rejected not only by the majority of the Irish people, expressed by virtue of their participation in elections to Dáil Éireann and rejection of abstentionist candidates, as well as by the majority of nationalists.

''Martin Mansergh, a prominent figure in Fianna Fáil (the largest Irish republican party), has summed up the opinions of most Irish people when he described as "preposterous nonsense" the "concoction of a sort of pseudo-apostolic succession from Pearse to the Second Dáil to the IRA to the Sinn Féin party to the small irredentist movement currently claiming that it, not the elected government of the Republic, is the true government of Ireland". ''

So how should we quantify the number of people in Ireland believing in Irish republican legitimatism? --81.132.246.132 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Damac has provided the figures that were elsewhere in Wikipedia. And looking at them, they are tiny. BigDunc and Domer48, seeing as you both immediately deleted what I wrote, perhaps I should ask you what should go in the article now, as what is currently written is perhaps too long and detailed, but certainly includes cited facts which are referenced in the linked pages. --81.132.246.132 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Damac's edit has just been reverted by me, as it's original research. Editors drawing conclusions from analysis of election figures by is against policy, if someone else has drawn the conclusions they should be cited. One Night In Hackney  303  20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and anyway it's no longer a political argument in Ireland, north or south. It's like asking how many US Americans would like to be ruled by the British again; a tiny minority of cranks perhaps, but not something that deserves attention in a mainstream encyclopedia.86.42.219.131 (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Invalidity of Treaty
I feel it would be useful to link to Treaty, which states that a treaty is considered invalid if there is coercion. While the threat of "immediate and terrible war" surely constitutes coercion, whether the Anglo-Irish Treaty actually falls under this remit depends on whether it is an international treaty, i.e. whether the Irish signatory is considered to have been a sovereign nation. Nevertheless the link shows that legitimatism has some theoretical underpinning, rather than being purely self-serving casuistry. As it stands, all this is pure original research on my part; but perhaps Ruairí Ó Brádaigh or whoever has written something along these lines; in which case a wikilink is justfiable. jnestorius(talk) 16:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the legitimatists it was OK for the volunteers to launch a war in January 1919, without the approval of the Dail, but it was unsporting for Lloyd-George to threaten a rematch in December 1921, months after the Truce had been agreed and the war declared as won. The coercion argument runs both ways, obviously. I've added a link to the civil war (legitimists like to speed past it), corrected the 1922 election result, and for historical exactness I've added another gripe for legitimists at the time, the fact that the Second Dail didn't actually vote to dissolve itself. Given the lengthy Pact negotiations before the 1922 election, it wasn't their strongest argument.86.42.219.131 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The evidence from Robert Barton (a Treaty negotiator who later opposed it) was that Lloyd-George did not threaten immediate and terrible war. Collins first said this in the Dail Treaty Debates to try to make his acceptance of it more acceptable to the anti-treaty side. It was then picked up and repeated by both sides and became the truth, given Collins' status at the time. If the IRA had won the war by mid-1921, as was often said, why would they be worried about a rematch? There was no coercion, it was a messy draw with a messy treaty after.86.42.197.213 (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can this be right?
"On the basis of these views, republican legitimatism argued that: all Irish parliaments convened since the Second Dáil in 1921 are illegitimate as they were established by a piece of British legislation, the Government of Ireland Act 1920;"


 * The Second Dail elections were held under the 1920 Act. So the above is wrong, or, if right, adds to the illogicality of the whole concept.86.42.219.131 (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd think, wouldn't you? The First Dail elections were held under the 1918 Representation of the People Act, just as much a British law.  But it's not the election that's illegitimate, but the Parliament.  Abstentionists stand for election to the Dail Eireann; if they win enough seats (as they did in 1918 and 1920, but not since) they convene completely separately from the parliament they were allegedly elected to, and gather as a Dail in revolution against the official state. Richard Gadsden (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The 7's electoral record
This article says that the seven members in 1938 had all stood in general elections since 1922. Surely the key point is not standing but taking seats? The successive Sinn Feins had all contested seats on an abstentionist platform before the 1969 and 1986 splits. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In a sense Sinn Féin's success in the 1919 and 1921 elections were also abstentionist, as their policy was not to attend Westminster. By 1938 they represented a theory, not any electors.86.42.255.255 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Text dumps
Massive dumps of copyright text are not good for encyclopedia articles. While the sources may be useful for this article, the way in which they are being used at present is not. O Fenian (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

With more respect than you have shown, almost the entire article is one large text dump, so it is silly to make the above comment

Also with more respect than you have shown, in the past a multitude of previous edits by me and by others have been deliberately gutted, deleted or rendered meaningless on the putative basis that "no cites were provided". You cannot now gut and delete them when they are cited and contain valid quotes. I have carefully researched numerous texts, which comment on the issue, and referenced them explicitly.

At some point the unreasoning defence of this article has to stop, to allow people to represent the fact that this is a minority view among Irish people. It is not improved as an encyclopedia article, if all contrary viewpoints and comments are deleted or edited out of all meaning. That is propaganda, not encyclopedic.

Please remember the principle of NPOV. Michael of Lucan (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, and I suggest you read Consensus and also Copyright and Vandalism. Dumping vast tracts of copyrighted works into an article is appalling editing, and is totally inappropriate. I have asked you to discuss this, and in return you just carried on edit waring and made false accusations of vandalism. O Fenian (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section at the end
How does this section contain original research? Quote - "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." See WP:WEIGHT.

Obviously we have to give the minority view here, as the article is about a minority's view of its own legitimacy, but let's face the facts that most of the 1921 electorate had died by the 1990s, and that the 1998 Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998 were won outright by opponents of republican legitimatism. Don't they satisfy Verifiability in any way?86.42.219.90 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and "original research tag"
This article is clearly not an objective description of a political viewpoint. It is obsessive and propagandist, not a suitable Wikipedia article.

I have read through the history of the article. I see that the text, and particularly the "Criticism" section has been gutted, year after year, to remove evidence that it is the view of a tiny, obsessive and very extremist group on the fringes of normal Irish life. The article's protectors carefully remove all cites, all contradictory quotes, almost all cogent text trying to point to the absurdity of the view described in the article or to show its true context in real life in modern Ireland.

Then they add the "original research" tag. How dishonest can you be?

I guess it reflects the dogged immorality of the people who espouse this view. They believe that killing people is a good way to argue their political views. So killing contrary arguments in an article neatly fits with that.

A poor and dishonest article, I'm afraid. The one-eyed Reilly (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1922 election
The article currently states 'The pro- and anti-treaty factions of Sinn Féin attempted to present a united block of candidates for the 1922 general election for the (All Ireland) Third Dáil; 58 pro-treaty Sinn Féin members were re-elected compared with 36 anti-treaty members. Of these, 17 of the 58 and 16 of the 36 were returned unopposed.'

The UK legislation which provided for the 1922 election, Section 1(2) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, http://www.historicaldocuments.org.uk/documents/doc00005-001.html#TextContainer stated 'the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall be dissolved and such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding, in accordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise number of members and method of election and holding of elections to that Parliament, an election of members for the constituencies which would have been entitled to elect members to that Parliament, and the members so elected shall constitute the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government shall be responsible'

The Dail legislation which provided for the 1922 election, a decree of the Second Dail of 20th May 1922, http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1922052000003 stated 'Subject to the agreement arrived at between the Minister of Finance and Deputy de Valera and approved by Dáil Éireann an election is hereby declared for the following constituencies:— [list of constituencies in the 26 Counties] dates as follows:— Nominations, 6th June, 1922; Polling, 16th June, 1922'.

It appears from the above that, in both the UK and Irish Republican systems, the 1922 election was only in respect of the 26 counties. I therefore propose to amend the statement above to read 'The pro- and anti-treaty factions of Sinn Féin attempted to present a united block of candidates for the 1922 general election in the 26 counties for the Third Dáil; 58 pro-treaty Sinn Féin members were re-elected compared with 36 anti-treaty members. Of these, 17 of the 58 and 16 of the 36 were returned unopposed.'

Alekksandr (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there a simultaneous election to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland (aka Stormont), which made this a 32-county election from the anti-treaty point of view? Richard Gadsden (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The first election to the NI Commons was Northern Ireland general election, 1921, and the second was Northern Ireland general election, 1925. Alekksandr (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Legitimism or legitimatism?
Shouldn't the title Irish republican legitimism? I seem to find more Google hits under that name. It would also make the parallel with the monarchist version clearer, which I presume is intentional. MathHisSci (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

All Ireland Third Dáil?
The article currently states that "Following the outbreak of the Irish Civil War, the Second Dáil was never dissolved and the (All Ireland) Third Dáil never convened." As stated above, "The Dail legislation which provided for the 1922 election, a decree of the Second Dail of 20th May 1922, http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1922052000003 stated 'Subject to the agreement arrived at between the Minister of Finance and Deputy de Valera and approved by Dáil Éireann an election is hereby declared for the following constituencies:— [list of constituencies in the 26 Counties] dates as follows:— Nominations, 6th June, 1922; Polling, 16th June, 1922'." The Second Dáil therefore decided, before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War, that the 1922 elections would only take place in the 26 counties. I therefore propose to delete the words 'and the (All Ireland) Third Dáil never convened'.Alekksandr (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now done.Alekksandr (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the comment that "the Second Dáil was never dissolved" is untrue, as the calling of the election by Griffith in May 1922 amounted to a dissolution. His opponents took part, didn't comment on its dissolution, and it is ridiculous that people could take part in, and be elected by, an election, and then complain that it wasn't dissolved properly.78.18.208.178 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)