Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 7

Leaders since 1970
I agree that changing "Leaders" to "Leaders since 1970" is more in keeping with the concept that "the article is about the current party"; History of Sinn Féin has a list of all the leaders. However I do think that a change of this nature should have been discussed on the talk page first. Why have megabytes of discussion on one section and then just change another one without so much as a by-your-leave? While we're on the subject, Parties with origins in Sinn Féin has no place in this article if this article is about the current party. Let it be moved to History of Sinn Féin as well. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This needs to be discussed, plain and simple. The previous leaders of the Party are just as much a part of the party history as the current leadership. -- Domer48 'fenian'  22:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does need to be discussed. Since the focus of the article is on the current SF party, perhaps we do not need to list many of the leaders in the very early days, and refer reader to the History of Sinn Féin article instead?  And I agree with Scol, if we are going to agree a framework of focus for one section, then we should either adhere to that framework for all sections, or at least discuss changing the framework for another section with other editors.  In this way we can have collaboration. --BwB (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We've had endless discussion. As Scolaire says, it's simple logic that the pre-1970 leaders are covered in the History article, given that this article is about the current party (i.e. post-1970). To include them here is to subscribe to a POV. I also agree with Scolaire that the "Parties with origins in SF" is not appropriate for this article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Lest there be any misunderstanding, Scolaire also says that to make such a change unilaterally and without raising it here first is "to subscribe to a POV". Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. There's no logical connection whatsoever between a "unilateral edit" and POV. Mooretwin (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is when the editor makes the edit simply to support his own POV. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, given your accusation, the opposite motivation was behind the edit: to avoid POV - as discussed at length above. The inclusion of pre-1970 leaders subscribes to the Provisional version of history and is therefore is best avoided. Mooretwin (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about Sinn Féin. The History of the Party has noe got it's own article with this one having a very small historical introduction. This article is not Sinn Féin post 1970. -- Domer48 'fenian'  09:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree this is not an article about SF since 1970. BigDunc  10:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the hatnote. Mooretwin (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The list of Sinn Féin leaders should definitely be snipped - maybe keep the link to History of Sinn Féin, note that SF as we know it now traces its origins to 1905, mention the December 1969 split, the January 1970 Ard Fheis and go from there, highlighting Adams, McGuinness' role in the North, and Mary Lou's role in the EP.   ocee  Conas tá tú? 10:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable step. Snip the leaders - redirect readers to the History of SF article which will also include "Parties with origins in SF." Those interested in the history can read it there. Valenciano (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this is the article on Sinn Féin! Now could editors explain why the leaders of the party should be cut to 1970? It is starting to seem like editors are creating a POV fork, and if that was the case the history section will have to be merged! -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking a question to which you know the answer? You've read all the discussion above, and seen all the sources. Mooretwin (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I could very well be wrong, and do correct me if I am, but it seems as within this discussion, there is a fundamental disagreement on whether this article should simply be about SF as the world knows it today, that is, an Irish political party that traces its roots to 1905, but is a manifestation of the IRA's "armalite and ballot box" strategy and has evolved to enter mainstream Irish, British, and European politics. The alternate view seems to be that the article should give precedence to the party's assertion that they began in 1905 and have existed ever since.  While my heart certainly subscribes to the latter viewpoint, my head subscribes to the former, as post-1969 SF is fundamentally and even ideologically different than its former manifestations   ocee  Conas tá tú? 14:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. If this article's main focus is SF the modern party since 1970, then I fel it is unnecessary to list leaders earlier than that.  However, there seem to be an ongoing debate about what this article is about. Can we all agree to keep the focus of the article to post-1970 SF with some mention of roots, origins and history?  I feel the way the article is currently constructed is good, but we do not need a long list of leaders. --BwB (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. The article is about the current party known as SF. There are other articles dealing with other parties that evolved from the 1970 split, e.g. Workers Party of Ireland. There is a History of Sinn Féin article to deal with the pre-1970 party. Mooretwin (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the consensus, keep the leaders to post-1970. Stu   ’Bout ye!  10:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Sinn Féin! Now if you want to get consensus for a POV fork well say that is what you want. -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the hatnote. Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than Dunc 'n' Domer, everyone seems content to cut the leaders to post-70 and get rid of Parties with origins in Sinn Féin. Mooretwin (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Mooretwin (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you were premature there Mooretwin. Especially as you elsewhere removed the reference to this article on the History article.  I suggest you self-revert in both cases.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been several weeks of discussion on this, with a clear consensus that the article deals with the current (post-1970) party. On this specific part of the article, five editors are in support of the edits, with only Dunc 'n' Domer opposed. As regards the History of Sinn Féin article, there was no consensus for Dunc's edit, which is contrary to NPOV (as per discussion at that article). Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly not, but there is not clear consensus the other way and you appear to be attempting through multiple small edits to disconnect the post 1970s from the pre. We need a balanced approach here. -- Snowded  TALK  11:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-added the link to the history of SF article, but the word choice seems awkward ("previous manifestations"), so if anyone can think of the proper diction, that'd be solid  ocee  Conas tá tú? 11:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "before the split in 1970"? Mooretwin (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, after re-reading the discussion, I'm not sure if there was consensus to keep the link to History of Sinn Féin - I think it's good for the article, but if I misread the discussion, obviously feel free to revert  ocee  Conas tá tú? 11:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See no need for it, as readers are already directed to the History article by the hatnote at the very top of this article. Mooretwin (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about SF and must contain all the leaders of the party. BigDunc 12:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already been advised that the article is about the current SF party, which began in 1970. Read the hatnote. The pre-1970 history is at History of Sinn Féin. Consequently, your recent edit is unhelpful and goes against consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, it is your opinion that the current party started in 1970s. It is not yet agreed here that this is the case, its not that simple as an either/or.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no personal opinion either way on how this article is written, but based on my review of the discussions at the talkpage, it does appear that there is consensus that the pre-1970 leaders should not be included, at least in the way that they are currently being listed, as part of the "Leaders" section.  Hopefully having a consensus determination will now put this particular matter to rest, and allow the editors here to move on and find some other appropriate way to deal with the information.  Whether this means to move the names into a separate list or to another article or present the information in some other way, I'll leave that up to the editors here to figure out. Best, --Elonka 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't there is no consensus. BigDunc  19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its about 5:2 with a couple of us arguing that this is not the real issue. Not sure if that is a consensus or not to be honest.   I'd be less worried about it if was not for the parallel attempts to separate pre and post 1970 Sinn Fein.   At the moment this is another proxy battle and that may need a discussion page with a list of the affected articles and some more editors involved.  Whatever it needs to be resolved in the round not case by case.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the SF website say? founded in 1905 or 1970? If the former, add the pre-1970 leaders. If the latter, exclude. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ongoing dispute there GoodDay, hence my concern above
 * I gotta be honest with ya'll, I've little knowledge of this political party (or is that parties), therefore the dual founding dates are confusing to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And that is the outcome of the POV being pushed by Mooretwin, an editor who knows nothing about this party is completely confused. The party that Adams is the leader were not founded in 1970 but 1905. BigDunc  20:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as founding is concerned, the consensus is that the party dates from 1905. There was a split in 1970 leading to two Sinn Féins, one of which is no longer Sinn Féin by name or by nature, etc. etc. That is all in the discussion above (and in multiple archives no doubt). As far as the Leaders section is concerned, that is an editorial matter to be decided by consensus based on what best suits the article. What I can say for sure is that consensus will never be achieved as long as Mooretwin continues to present the 'Leaders since 1970' option (which does have a majority at the moment) as a victory for his POV (which it most certainly is not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scolaire (talk • contribs)
 * Please stop making personal attacks and trying to misrepresent what the reliable sources say as "my POV". All the reliable sources say that the current party was formed in 1970 when the Provo faction walked out of the SF ard fheis and formed their own rival party. The majority SF continued, dubbed Official SF, and later changed its name. There is no "POV" involved here: these are the facts, backed up by the sources. Both SFs claim to be the "legitimate" or "true" successors of the original SF party - to side with the Provo interpretation is to side with the Provo POV. To side with the Official/WP interpretation is to side with the Official POV. NPOV means siding with neither - present both the current SF party and the Workers Party in the same way, i.e. beginning in 1970, with a separate article dealing with the unified pre-1970 SF. Mooretwin (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you do have a track record you know, so I wouldn't protest too much and you have argued common use against reliable sources in other contexts. That aside there is no question that major events happened in 1970, however the issue of continuity is a more interesting one as the sources are mixed on that subject. Like many political issues this is not one where there is a simple right/wrong answer its far more nuanced that that.  Its pretty clear that whatever happened in the 1970s, Sinn Féin now means the current party of that name, and there is continuity of membership and ideology (including the collaboration/non-collaboration issue) which come up frequently.  There are two POV positions that I think are unacceptable.  The first is to say that there was a break in 1970 and the current Sinn Féin is a new entity.  The second is to say that the current Sinn Féin is the historical Sinn Féin and ignore the other groups that arose in teh 1970s.  I wonder if we should centralise this discussion, and the implications for what is or is not in play? -- Snowded  TALK  11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, try to keep the personal comments out of it. No-one is disputing that the current party is called Sinn Féin: nor that the article about the present party should be at Sinn Féin. NPOV is that the article about the current party should start with its formation in 1970 and not become a POV fork to give the impression that there is uninterrupted singular continuity from 1905. Similarly, the Workers Party of Ireland article should start in 1970 (even though, constitutionally, that party is uninterrupted from before 1970, since it was from that party that the PRovisionals split in 1970). Happy for there to be a centralised discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin the reliable sources do not support your pov. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They do. Read them and stop POV-pushing. You still haven't come up with any source to refute the many sources provided here. Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I supplied most of the sources not once but twice that you have decided to ignore them is hardly an issue among editors. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your essay didn't include sources that refuted the Provisional split in 1970. Indeed, you even acknowledged the split. Mooretwin (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to just go back and forth on this issue without any really meaningful discussion. I am glad to see Snow has joined the discussion and has presented a slightly different option that I feel is worth some discussion and consideration.  Are you willing to make some recommendations Snow?  What do others think of Snow's approach? --BwB (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean having a centralised discussion, I've already expressed contentment. Mooretwin (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Centralise discussion? I wasn't aware of any other discussion, apart from the one at Talk:History of Sinn Féin.  Are there arguments at other articles about whether parties have continuity with the original Sinn Féin?  Could somebody show me a link to them, please?  Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if Snowded - the proponent of a centralised discussion - explained more clearly the nature of his proposal to resolve this dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that was a response to Mooretwin on my talk page. I did however reverse a double change before going to bed last night as it did not seem to be that the claimed consensus was here.  I also think there is a difference between including the historical leaders of the party and the parties spawned by it.  That said a lot of these battles are proxy ones for the 1905/1970 issue for some but not all editors.   As far as I can see we have conflicting sources on that one and need to reach some general agreement on principles then some wording.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. You stated it here (read above). Have you a proposal for resolving the dispute or not? Also, where are the sources that "conflict" with those which say the current party was formed in 1970? This resistance to the sources is Kafka-esque. Mooretwin (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok here then there are so many threads to this conversation. I find Domer's summary of material useful and it has multiple links to material. In practice what we have here is a sectarian battle by proxy. Its not surprising given the history of events, but it means that both sides can find supporting material which presents a problem. Denying that there was a split and there was perfect continuity would be a POV in my opinion as would denying any continuity. There is an interesting precedent here if we look at the split in the British Labour Party over the formation of a National Government in the 1920s. In this case words have to be found which reflect both continuity and split. I agree aspects of this are Kafka-esque but that term does not apply to some refusal to accept sources, but rather to selective use of sources and claims of consensus before one has been formed -- Snowded TALK  13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am OK with Snowed proposed approach to find wording, supported by references, that shows a split and formation on current SF party, but also a continuity. Does anyone (maybe Snowed) want to draft a proposal for all the review? --BwB (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried reading the article? The History section does show the split and does show continuity; so does the lead; so does the Leaders section.  Why do we need a draft proposal for what's already there?  Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Scol, you started this thread with the statement "I agree that changing "Leaders" to "Leaders since 1970" is more in keeping with the concept that "the article is about the current party"; History of Sinn Féin has a list of all the leaders. However I do think that a change of this nature should have been discussed on the talk page first.  Why have megabytes of discussion on one section and then just change another one without so much as a by-your-leave?" It was within that context that I have been making my comments.  Then Snowed chimed in with a view on the article above, and in response, I asked him for a suggestion on text.  Perhaps the request to Snowed was redundant. --BwB (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Agree Scolaire that the current wording is OK, the issue is to get a statement in place in the header of talk pages that is agreed by the community. That then can be used to prevent disruptive editing.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I just point out that this section would be completely pointless? Do people creating these pointless sections have any experience in actually writing a decent encyclopedia article that has the potential to be a GA or FA? 2 lines of K  303  13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would it be completely pointless? Seems like useful information to me. Mooretwin (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - (1) How is this battle "sectarian"?? (2) Why do you find Domer's "summary of material" useful, and which of his linked material contradicts all the provided sources saying the party was formed in 1970? (3) I'm interested that you view the 1931 split in the Labour Party as a precedent, because the National_Labour_Organisation article - about those who left the Labour party - does not purport that National Labour was the singular continuity of the 1906 Labour Party. (4) You say you want "a statement in place in the header of talk pages that is agreed by the community" - BigDunc has arbitrarily changed the statement - have you anything to say? Mooretwin (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) depends which contribution you are talking about really. But the question of when Sinn Fein started has become a sectarian issue, like so many other issues.  (2) cause its well written with lots of references and they support the continuity point which is not the same things as 1970 (3) At the end of split, the dominant position was known as the Labour Party (4) I'll look at in the morning.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) I'll ask again - in what way is it a "sectarian issue"? (2) Why is Domer48's "interpretation" of the sources useful, but the actual sources aren't? Which sources "support the continuity point", and what do those sources say? (3) In the Labour Party split, the splitters left/were expelled and formed a new organisation and the Labour Party carried on. If you are to draw an equivalence with the SF split, then it was National Labour who were the equivalent to the Provos, not the Labour Party which carried on. (4) BigDunc has removed from the hatnote, the bit that said this is "about the present-day Irish party led by Gerry Adams". There was no consensus for this change and since you do not consider 5-2 in favour of change as representing a consensus for change, presumably you will revert the edit as you have done other edits. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As there was no consensus for BigDunc's editing of the hatnote, I intend to revert it. Mooretwin (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done that now. Mooretwin (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * O Fenian has now restored BigDunc's non-consensus edit. It's funny how some edits that don't have consensus get to stay, while others that are supported by 70% of editors are instantly reverted because there is "no consensus". Wonder why that is. Mooretwin (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your consistent inability to post comments on this Article Talk Page without it containing some comment on editors motives is and has got very stale. Now if you are not capable of simply posting comments on content, and not on the contributors instead creating drama which is not directed at improving the article its time you got told to go off somewhere else! Now read the talk page guidlines and then have a read of No personal attacks. If you have a problem there are a number of places to go if you have a problem like WP:RfC, Wp:ANI etc, just keep your personal grips of the Article Talk pages! -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Parties with origins in Sinn Féin
It's my own fault, I suppose, for raising it in the previous section, but I feel that the question of the "Parties with origins" section has got mixed up with the "Leaders" issue, when in fact the two are totally unrelated. Simply put, this is an article about Sinn Féin; a section that is nothing but a list of other parties doesn't add anything to it. The fact that FF, RSF and all the others came about as a result of splits within or walkouts from Sinn Féin is clearly stated in the History section. This section at the end is therefore redundant at best and totally off-topic at worst. I'd like to see it deleted, and stay deleted, without waiting for the other discussion to be resolved. Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would be appropriate for this section to be at History of Sinn Féin. Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is not about Sinn Féin after the split in 1970, its about Sinn Féin period! The history of Sinn Féin article simply goes into more detail. Now if the intension is now to simply create a POV fork, I'll propose we expand the history section on this article and have the fork deleted. This information can be placed in the form of a graphic and placed at the start of the article or expanded upon in the article text. Once again this article is not simply about SF since 1970, and if the intention is to create such a POV forked article it should be addressed now. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the hatnote. Mooretwin (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The hatnote means nothing. BigDunc  12:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It explains that the article is about the current party, and not the pre-1970 party. Mooretwin (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems we are having this argument again. Has it still not been decided one way or the other?  can we come to an agreement? --BwB (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Dunc 'n' Domer will ever agree to anything other than this article giving the impression that the current SF party is the singular and legitimate continuation of the pre-split party. Under WP:V, however, we have to go with what the sources say - these are listed above. All Dunc 'n' Domer have is the current party's own history, and two book titles (the texts of which actually refute what they are claiming.) Mooretwin (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In 2005 Sinn Féin celebrated it's 100 Anniversary (Céad Bliain) with three histories of the party published to coincide with the event, Sinn Feín: a Hundred Turbulent Years by Brian Feeney, a source that is considered to be reliable likewise Sinn Féin, 1905-2005: in the Shadow of Gunmen by Kevin Rafter in addition to the parties own publication Sinn Féin A Century of Struggle by Mícheál MacDonncha with the Party planning a year of events to celebrate its founding. Now unless Mooretwin provides quotes there is no need for discussion! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out to you, both Feeney and Rafter describe Provisional SF as splitting from SF in 1970. The party's own publication naturally puts forward the Provisional POV of events. There are dozens of sources describing the new party formed in 1970 (as you know) listed above.
 * Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan, p.96
 * MacStiofain and his supporters had prevented the constitutional change but they were in a minority. They quickly departed to form a new organisation that would shortly come to represent the traditional republican doctrines and a majority within the militant republican constituency on the island. The new movement pledged its 'allegiance to the 32-County Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 ... etc.
 * After the split in the republican movement in 1969-70, Adams sided with the newly established Provisional movement. (p.9)
 * ... nobody, and no party, has a monopoly on the legacy of 1905. (p.18)
 * Brian Feeney book "A hundred turbulent years...", p.251
 * In early 1970 neither the Provisional IRA nor its political mouthpiece Provisional Sinn Fein, had much of an existence outside west Belfast. Its new Dublin-based leaders had almost no followers. There were of course, pockets of support around Ireland where various individuals in the republican movement, emotionally spurred by the events of August 1969, gave their backing to the breakaway group, which as yet had no organisation on the ground Mooretwin (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Woah! How did we get back onto "started in 1970" again?? The section I'm talking about deleting is redundant regardless whether Sinn Féin started in 1905 or 1970.  All it is is a list of parties that are not Sinn Féin.  How does taking out a list like that make the article a POV fork?  Scolaire (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. Mooretwin (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't do that! You are repeatedly making it look as though I am coming in on your side. It was you that raised the "started in 1970" issue in a discussion where it doesn't belong.  If you want to agree with me then say, "you're right, 1970 is a red herring".  If not, you don't need to say anything!  Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't raise "started in 1970" in a discussion where it doesn't belong. I raised it at "Leaders since 1970". Domer raised it here, where it doesn't belong. Mooretwin (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever! If it doesn't belong here please don't discuss it here. Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree to remove the section on parties with origins in SF. Not relevant. --BwB (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's three editors in favour of getting rid of this section (and possibly moving to History of Sinn Féin, and unclear contributions from Dunc 'n' Domer, although, presumably they'll be opposed. Any other views? Mooretwin (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If this article is about the 1905 founded party, then keep them all. If this is only about the 1970 founded party, then exclude the pre-1970 leaders. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, please read before you post. This is not about leaders.  Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin wants to include the SF leaders pre-1970, in this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So comment in the Leaders since 1970 section, not here. Scolaire (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll comment where I please, thank you. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you prefer being disruptive to being constructive? Pretty well what I thought.  Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First you're biting, now you're baiting? It's time to ignore you (hope you do the same with me). GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, please stop trying to provoke Domer48 and BigDunc. Your "pet name" is against WP:CIVIL, and your presumption that they'll automatically be opposed is against AGF.  You seem to be doing everything in your power to prevent an agreement on this.  Why is that?  Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a safe bet that they'll be opposed! And I'm not trying to prevent agreement: quite the opposite - hence my recent posts. Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your recent posts, as far as I can see, are about trying to establish a majority in favour of your POV and marginalise - as well as provoke - Domer48 and BigDunc. I don't see any attempt at reaching agreement.  Scolaire (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like a request for a proposal to resolve the dispute to me. Mooretwin (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, the reference to Kafka kinda of confirms Scolaire's judgement here. -- Snowded  TALK  21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a clear request for a proposal. The reference to Kafka is an expression of my frustration at the inexplicable ignoring of multiple sources by several editors, including yourself. An entirely reasonable and understandable reaction to what appears to be very bizarre behaviour by editors who otherwise appear to be fairly sensible and reasonable. Mooretwin (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can hear from Dunc and Domer on this issue? --BwB (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a few queries.

 * Should the lead read something like “Sinn Fein is a political party that operates in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland” or something along those lines?


 * Left wing, but what part, middle, far, ect ect ect…


 * I like the bar chart showing how many seats they have in various governments, but the numbers look faded. Perhaps a small improvement…

--Misortie (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The political views section, should each part be ended with a full stop instead of a comma? And also, several of the points need to be clarified and better cited (Well, that’s why the tag is there)

If post 1970
If the article is really about SF post 1970, then perhaps we don't need to have any text about events on or pre-1970. That way there can be no arguments about past leaders and we can simply refer readers to History of Sinn Féin and Sinn Féin (19th century), as the header suggests. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Others think you should read the blessed discussion!!! The article is not about Sinn Féin post 1970, it is about Sinn Féin, founded 1905, focussing mainly on the present-day (i.e. 21st century) Sinn Féin.  Nobody but Mooretwin wants it otherwise. For God's sake, please stop coming up with ideas without making any attempt to find out what the issues are.  Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Scol: How do you define "present day" here? Also, are you saying that the "present day" SF was founded in 1905? If so, how do you classify the events of 1970? --BwB (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to upset you, Scol. the banner reads: "the present-day Irish party led by Gerry Adams|the history of the party|History of Sinn Féin|the 19th century use of the term|Sinn Féin (19th century)".  I have been involved in the discussion for several weeks and it seem to me that there is still a disagreement on the content of the article.  Are you sure that Moore is the only one not in agreement? Please help me understand that if "Nobody but Mooretwin wants it otherwise." why we keep having editing wars on the list of leaders, etc? --BwB (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is though, apparent conflicting sources about wheither SF (founded in 1905) still exists, or if there's currently 2 SFs (the original & a splinter). GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article starting in 1970 it is about SF. BigDunc 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@BwB: we are having edit wars because Mooretwin is still trying to edit it so that it is "about SF post 1970". Nobody else but him is doing those edits. You say you have been "involved" in the discussion for weeks, but it seems to me you have had no success in following it. Scolaire (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Scol if I am a slow learner. Getting the picture now.  Thanks. --BwB (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scolaire is not the arbiter of this article - he has shown himself to have a particular POV, not backed up by sources, and (for some reason) a personal agenda against me. This article is about the current party which, according to the events of real life and the sources, was formed in 1970 when it split from Sinn Féin. To present the current party as the singular continuity of the 1905 party is to turn this article into a POV fork (i.e. supporting the POV of those claiming that the current SF party inherits singular continuity from the original SF). The sources do not support this. We have editors referring to "contradictory sources", yet (a) failing to provide sources that contradict the 1970 formation, and (b) even though they acknowledge the pro-1970 sources, still seeking to have this article as a POV fork. BigDunc has edited the hatnote - who is going to revert him, or have those favouring 1905 decided to close ranks and throw policy out the window? Where are the sources contradicting the formation of the current party in 1970? Scolaire's or anyone else's personal interpretation cannot trump the reliable sources. Mooretwin (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the interest of clarity, Mooretwin is not the odd one out, he reflects the national consensus in Ireland. No matter how often Provo SF tries to insist that it has an unbroken line back to 1905, it does not. It was founded in 1970 by a breakaway group.  These are incontrovertible facts that are fully sourced from neutral sources.  The continuity [or should I say, Continuity] claim has no citations outside Provo SF publications.  Wikipedia operates on WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.  If a statement does not have a neutral external citation, it can't be made.  We can certainly say that PSF argues that it has continuity, since certainly it does. But we can't say that it is true, indeed we must say that it is not. --Red King (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, RK. We probably have a majority of editors who understand this, although I have recently been left alone to argue this. What can be done to get this article to adhere to policy? There appears to be a minority of editors who give prominence to their own unsourced opinions ahead of reliable sources. Mooretwin (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * national consensus in Ireland yeah right, nice bit of OR. BigDunc  16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redking, like you and anyone else, is entitled to express his opinion on the Talk page. The difference, however, is that, unlike those denying the 1970 formation, he is not proposing to include his opinion about national consensus in the article. Those who deny the 1970 formation are basing their view on original research, i.e. their own interpretation that subsequent events mean that retrospectively the 1970 split was a mere "reorganisation" or some such. (At least that's my best understanding of the 1970-deniers' position.) Mooretwin (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the disagreement (itself) over what actually happend in 1970, can be included in the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What disagreement? If you mean the current SF party view, it's already been said that this should be mentioned. As for the views of BigDunc, Scolaire, Snowded and Domer48, they aren't notable. Mooretwin (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Scol: How do you define "present day" in your comment above? Also, are you saying that the "present day" SF was founded in 1905? If so, how do you classify the events of 1970? --BwB (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Recentism?
Why is there only three paragraphs covering the first 65 years of Sinn Fein. Scholair mentions that it focuses on the present day. Isn't that WP:Recentism? Jack forbes (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current party was only formed in 1970 (see sources below). The pre-1970 party is covered at History of Sinn Féin.
 * Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
 * Traditionalists like Mac Stiofain saw the way things were going: taking about a third of the delegates with him, the Provisionals’ Chief of Staff departed, reassembled in a pre-booked hall for another meeting, formed what became Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) and announced publicly that a Provisional Army Council had been set up to reorganize the IRA.
 * Jonathan Bardon (2005), A History of Ulster. Blackstaff Press Ltd, p. 675
 * [Sean Mac Stiofain] led the coup that split the movement in December 1969. The breakaway group, as an interim arrangement, elected a provisional executive just before Christmas, with Mac Stiofain as chief of staff and Ruari O Bradaigh as president of Provisional Sinn Féin, its political counterpart. Ten months later they stated that this temporary period was over, but the names Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA remained with them ever since.
 * Brendan O'Brien (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA: From 1916 Onwards, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.75
 * In a pre-planned move they immediately went to a Dublin city venue to form a caretaker executive of a new (Provisional) Sinn Féin.
 * Ed Moloney (2007), A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books, p.72
 * Later that evening they met to set up an Executive for their own version of Sinn Féin and elected Ruari O Bradaigh as the first Provisional Sinn Féin president.
 * S. J. Connolly (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford University Press, p. 543
 * … the movement split in January 1970 into official and provisional Sinn Féin, mirroring the split within the IRA the previous month.
 * Thomas Hennessey (2005), Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles, Gill & Macmillan, p.358
 * And from this point there were two IRAs … matched by two parallel Sinn Féins – Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin.
 * Brian Feeney (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the Troubles, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.138
 * Chronology: 1970. January. Provisional Sinn Féin founded.
 * W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott (1994), Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1993, Gill & Macmillan Ltd, p. 284
 * Entry for PROVISIONAL SINN FÉIN: The political counterpart of PIRA which dates from January 1970, when the split occurred in the Republican movement.
 * CAIN Abstracts on Organisations
 * Entry for Sinn Féin (SF) [synonyms: Provisional Sinn Féin]: The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF.
 * BBC Fact Files.
 * The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein, although it derives its name from an organisation founded by Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith in 1905.
 * Agnes Maillot (2007), New Sinn Féin: Irish republicanism in the twenty-first century, Taylor & Francis, p.4
 * Under the leadership of Tomas Mac Giolla and Cathal Goulding in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, there was a shift towards the left. ... Marxist distinctions based on class replaced a more traditional vision based on geography and history. To aim to unite the working class was seen as a dangerous path by those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin, since it was seen to undermine the fundamental dimension of the conflict: that of the colonial legacy which was maintained through partition and its institutions.
 * Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman (2007), Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, University of Pennsylvania Press, p.199
 * The Provisional IRA was created in December 1969 in full knowledge of these facts, its twin sister, Provisional Sinn Féin, shortly afterward.
 * Jonathan Tonge (2006), Northern Ireland, Polity, pp.132-133
 *  Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) formed in 1970 pledged allegiance to the First Dail, having split from what became known as Official IRA and Official Sinn Féin, because it had voted to enter a 'partitionist parliament'.
 * Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W. White (2000), Self, Identity, and Social Movements, University of Minnesota Press, p.330
 * In January 1970, the political wing of the Republican movement, Sinn Féin, also split. Those who rejected constitutional politics walked out of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis and formed Provisional Sinn Féin. Those who supported the Official IRA were then referred to as Official Sinn Féin.
 * John Plowright (2006), The Routledge Dictionary of Modern British History, Routledge, p.276
 *  The modern party dates from 1970, when Provisional Sinn Féin split from Official Sinn Féin.
 * Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan, p.96
 * MacStiofain and his supporters had prevented the constitutional change but they were in a minority. They quickly departed to form a new organisation that would shortly come to represent the traditional republican doctrines and a majority within the militant republican constituency on the island. The new movement pledged its 'allegiance to the 32-County Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 ... etc.
 * After the split in the republican movement in 1969-70, Adams sided with the newly established Provisional movement. (p.9)
 * ... nobody, and no party, has a monopoly on the legacy of 1905. (p.18)
 * Other editors express the opinion that the party was not formed in 1970, but will not produces sources to back this up. Mooretwin (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I didn't come here to argue over that. The article as it stands is about Sinn Fein from 1905 which is why I ask the question, why is there only three paragraphs mentioning the party from 1905 to 1970. A parallel for this could be the Labour Party(UK) which goes into far more detail of their earlier history and also has the article History of the British Labour Party. Jack forbes (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about the current party, which was formed in 1970. That is why there is little about the pre-1970 period, which is covered in the History article. Mooretwin (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other editors do not think this article is about the SF party formed in 1970. They feel it is about SF. See the thread immediately above. --BwB (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those other editors won't produce sources to refute those above stating that the party was formed in 1970. If they think the article is about Sinn Féin generally, then it would need to be expanded to cover the Workers Party, IRSP and Republican Sinn Féin and would no longer be about the current party. Mooretwin (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided that you choose to ignore them is your own fault. BigDunc  16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically given the above comment, the only sources being ignored are the dozens supporting a 1970 formation. The only source of which I am aware that has been provided to refute these is the current SF party's own publication. This has not been ignored: it is proposed that the SF party's own view of the split be included in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since ya'll have 'apparently' conflicting sources, doesn't that make them 'all' un-reliable? GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, as you well know. That is a crap argument and you know it. It means that we trust the independent objective sources and we ignore the conflict of interest in PSF assertions.  --Red King (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tone it down, Charlie Brown. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Big Dunc and others can provide references to support their position as Moore has done above, and then we can have an open debate to see which viewpoint is most supported. Moore is also proposing that the current SF part view on the events be included for balance - I think this is a good idea. --BwB (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Split the article...
...as Sinn Fein (1905-70) and Sinn Fein (1970- present) or Sinn Fein and Provisional Sinn Fein or whatever yas can work out. In its current state, the bickering will continue. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea, GD. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad idea, its not a neutral solution -- Snowded TALK  15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an argument for it being the same party. Why would those arguing for it want to split it? Jack forbes (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very bad idea. There is no party called Provisional Sinn Fein it was a media term. BigDunc  16:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While that would mirror the set up of the IRA articles, I don't see it as necessary for Sinn Féin. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very bad idea! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a very good idea, because the article as it stands creates a false impression that it is the same SF since 1905, when clearly it is not. It is a 1970 minority breakaway from a 1921 minority breakaway. To pretend otherwise is OR pure and simple, directly contrary to the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Continuity is not verifiable against neutral external sources, a walk-out and new party formed in 1970 absolutely is. --Red King (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any potential move towards labeling SF as "Provisional"; as BigDunc mentions, the "Provo" label is an invention of the media  ocee  Conas tá tú? 02:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Formally splitting the article will achieve clarity and all that would really be required is for the History of Sinn Féin article to be renamed (as previously proposed) and for it to become the article about the pre-split SF. As for the title of this article, I'm content for it to remain at Sinn Féin, but obviously it needs to be made clear that the article is about the current SF and not the pre-split party. There are, of course, still some editing issues with this article. Mooretwin (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded claims it's not a "neutral solution", but fails to explain why. Mooretwin (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack forbes says that "There is an argument for it being the same party" - what is this argument and what sources support the argument? Also, if he acknowledges that it is merely argument, why does he favour this article supporting that argument, and not any other argument? That would be POV. Mooretwin (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BigDunc opposes merely on the basis that "There is no party called Provisional Sinn Fein", yet the proposal is not dependent on this article being renamed to "Provisional Sinn Féin". Personally, I'm content for it to remain where it is, while GoodDay has suggested "Sinn Féin (1970-present). Mooretwin (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stuart acknowledges that this would mirror the set up of the IRA articles, but I doesn't see it as necessary for Sinn Féin. Why not, given that the SF splits and history more or less mirror that of the IRA. Mooretwin (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A split would clear things up IMHO. 6 to 3 opposing a split, is far from a consensus for it, though. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There effectively is a split at the minute - post-1970 in this article and the Workers Party of Ireland article, and pre-1970 at History of Sinn Féin. Those refusing to accept the 1970 split (and who still won't provide sources) don't wish to acknowledge this - hence the fight about the pre-1970 leaders and the hatnote. WHat you're proposing, however, would, indeed clarify and clear things up. Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were only that easy. Not much can be done, without a consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop with the untruths MT sources have been provided that show that the party which Adams is the president celebrated 100 years, you again choose to ignore them. BigDunc  13:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't begun any untruths, therefore it's not possible to stop. As has been acknowledged several times, the fact that the current party views itself as the singular continuation of the 1905 SF - far from being ignored - is accepted and should be included in the article. (Therefore it seems that is you who are guilty of "untruths" by continuing to say that I am ignoring the SF source.) The reliable secondary sources, however, disagree and undue weight should not be given to the SF party itself, which obviously has its own POV. The only sources being ignored are the dozens of sources supporting the 1970 formation. Why do you ignore these? Why do you wish the article to support the Provo version of events rather than the version articulated by the secondary sources? Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens when we have a conflict between WP policies, i.e. WP:V and WP:Consensus? Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was only one source provided? BigDunc  13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rafter books and the Feeney book were provided and it was demonstrated that those actually said the opposite - see Mooretwin's posts above. We're only left with Sinn Fein's own claim that they have 100 years unbroken continuity - so what? Even ignoring the fact that they are not a secondary source, Republican Sinn Fein make exactly the same claim Valenciano (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That the books contain internal contradictions doesn't alter the fact that they are about the 100 years of the party that Adams is leader. BigDunc  14:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't contain internal contradictions. Internally, they are clear. You haven't explained why you are ignoring the dozens of reliable sources saying the party was formed in 1970. Why is that? Mooretwin (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus for a split coming anytime soon. As for the WP:V -vs- WP:CON stuff, that would have to be delt with elswhere (not sure where). GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that articles have to comply with WP:V. A determined group of editors surely shouldn't be able to overturn this? Mooretwin (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both books are reliable sources and are verifiable and are about the centenary of the party that Adams is the leader. And then there is the party publication also verifiable. BigDunc  15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable sources, and they both say that the current party was formed in 1970 (quotations provided above). The party publication is effectively a primary source and undue weight should not be given to it, given the weight of secondary sources refuting the party's claim (and of course RSF's claim which makes the same claim). As has been stated on numerous occasions, the party position should be covered in the article. Why do you ignore the sources which say the party was formed in 1970? You must have a reason. Mooretwin (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are PSF Adams has never been a member of such a party. As I have said it is a media term and no such party existed. BigDunc  15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the relevance of the above comment is ...? You seem to be confusing the name issue again. Mooretwin (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you deny the existance of SF and it's continuance since 1905. It seems to be a fixation on your part. There  never was a party called PSF.Cathar11 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is sheer doublethink. As you well know, a new party was founded in 1970, which called itself Sinn Féin too. This did not make it Sinn Féin, any more than if I call myself Gerry Adams will I be The Man. Since the press had distinguish this pretender from the real thing, and since it was allied with the Provos, it got called PSF.  Live with it, that's how it is.  The fact that the original official Sinn Féin subsequently changed its name to the Workers Party (Ireland) did not change the fact that PSF is a new party founded in 1970, with no organisational continuity from 1905. ('Official' Sinn Féin was founded in 1922 or thereabouts, so they don't have organisational continuity from 1905 either, but that is another debate).  So I say again: to claim anything other than 1970 is unambiguous WP:Original research that is not WP:verifiable. --Red King (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was and is no Party called PSF! This is well addressed . -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're confusing two issues again. Mooretwin (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is another source from the BBC about the party celebrating its centenary, it's completely verifiable there was a split in 1970, but prior to that they had a shared lineage. So please stop with the attempts to create a POV fork. BigDunc  19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one's denying that the party celebrated its claimed centenary. So too did Republican SF. As said umpteen times, the article should include the party view, but we have to go with all the reliable secondary sources which say the party was formed in 1970. Why do you ignore these? You still haven't said. Mooretwin (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of splitting the article has been mooted umpteen times, most recently in November. It has never achieved anything like a consensus. There is only a handful of editors pushing for it, so any idea that there is a "consensus" that is being blocked by one or two diehards would be well wide of the mark. Why don't we just concentrate on improving the existing article? Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There effectively already are three articles, anyway. This one on the current party using the name SF, Workers Party of Ireland on the Officials and the History of Sinn Féin article on the pre-split party. Happy to improve this article. We could start by adhering to WP:V and WP:NPOV. Mooretwin (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Make that umpteenth and one, folks. Since I'm the bloke who called for the latest split, it may aswell be me to throw in the towel. There's simply no consensus for the article to be split. Anybody care to 'archive, close or collapse' this section? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
This talkpage is getting far too long. Per WP:ARCHIVE, pages longer than 32K are candidates for archiving, and this one is currently over 270K, and growing. Within a few days, we will start moving inactive discussions to an archive. If there's any thread here which people believe should stay on the live page, please simply ensure that there is ongoing discussion in that thread. Otherwise, rather than keeping the threads here, the better practice is simply to provide a link to the archived thread. That way anyone who wishes to review the discussion may do so at the archive, but it will make this live page easier to read. Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 19:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything up to and including is concluded and can safely be archived. Scolaire (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok with me. BigDunc  13:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend archiving the whole lot, as it primarily based on one editors refusal to get the point. Since they have been plain Wp:disruptive, as the length and tone of the discussion attests any attempt to perpetuate this tread should be put forward as a WP:RfC on the editor and the tread ignored pending its outcome. One thing though on the current archives, they definitely need to be more prominent as a new user would probably have some difficulty seen it, just a thought. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  12:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd propose archiving everything bar Just a few queries the rest is just repetitive nonsense going on since 2008. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok with me. BigDunc  21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for evidence that the party was not formed in 1970
Perhaps this dispute will be more likely to be resolved if both sides are clearer about the others' position. I, for one, am not sure that I understand the basis upon which several editors do not accept that the party was formed in 1970, in the face of many reliable secondary sources that have been provided.

We have dozens of sources saying the current SF party was formed in 1970 when the Provo faction walked out of the SF conference and set up its own party - initially dubbed Provisional SF or SF (Kevin Street), but eventually gaining ownership of the SF name once the (official) SF party changed its name to the Workers Party. These are set out above.

On the other hand, we have several editors refuting that the party was formed in 1970, but so far they appear to rely only on the current party's own position, i.e. its centenary publication and the fact that it held centenary celebrations.

Could those refuting the 1970 formation please provide secondary sources to support their claim? Alternatively, if this is not possible, could explain why they believe the vast majority of sources should be discounted, and how doing so is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Mooretwin (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I answered this one already. You gave me one of your classic one-line put-downs, and as usual kidded yourself that you had put the argument to bed.  Your campaign, which has gone on far, far too long, is based on a fundemental ignorance of Wikipedia policy.  Reliable sources says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered" (my italics).  How many of your 'dozens of sources' express the view that those who believe there is continuity of constitution between pre-1970 Sinn Féin and the post-1970 Sinn Féin of Ruarí Ó Brádaigh are wrong?  How many of them even pretend to provide evidence that one faction left Sinn Féin or founded a new party? None!  Your 'dozens of sources' don't give any "majority view", just a throwaway remark, made by one and parrotted by all the others.  The contrary view, that Sinn Féin is over 100 years old, is given in those books and articles that have already been cited - not merely in the titles, but in the whole of the text, which traces the course of the party over those hundred years.  Your continued insistence that your version is NPOV again demonstrates your ignorance of WP:NPOV.  Your view is the opposite of mine, so how can it be neutral?  I at least have tried to take your view into account when editing the article, so as to make it neutral as far as possible.  Can you show me where you have done the same?  Finally, have a read of WP:Consensus.  You do not have any sort of consensus for your point of view.  If you did you wouldn't still be flogging this dead horse after a year and a half.  Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You say you answered a previous request for sources. As the diff provided shows, however, all you did was:
 * (a) give your own view that a reliable source “in relation to a particular fact” can only be accepted if it is “clear” that “the author had reasonable grounds for stating the fact” which, you say, means that he or she had access to primary documents. This does not appear to form part of Wikipedia policy, but rather is your own policy. Even if we were to adopt your policy, you haven’t said which of the sources provided you do not consider to be reliable “in relation to a particular fact”. If you doubt the efficacy of any of the sources, then the proper course of action is to go to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. It is not your function to be the arbiter on this or any other article of what should be a reliable source, based on your own policy;
 * (b) say that at least two writers treat the IRA as one continuous organisation, but you didn’t state what these writers actually say. You also conveniently declined to mention the numerous writers who acknowledge that the Provisional IRA was formed in 1969 as a new organisation; and
 * (c) ask what the sources actually say. Yet the text of the sources has been provided!
 * In short, then, you didn’t provide any reliable source that refutes those which say the current party was formed in 1970.


 * Now you say that I am ignorant of Wikipedia policy, because WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". Yet that is what I am proposing! The vast majority of reliable sources say the party was formed in 1970, and the party itself says it wasn’t. The article therefore has to reflect the consensus view, but also mention the party view (and any other minority view which might be provided in support of the party view).
 * Incredibly, having refused to provide sources to back up the view that there is “continuity of constitution”, you demand that I provide sources to say that there wasn’t “continuity of constitution”! If you are arguing for “continuity of constitution”, the onus is on you and the others to provide sources to support that – not on me to provide sources to disprove a thesis which isn’t itself backed by any sources!
 * You ask how many “pretend to provide evidence that one faction left SF”. Well, first, all that we need on Wikipedia is a source that says they left (we have many) – it is not our role to interrogate the primary sources which the secondary sources used in coming to that conclusion. Second, presumably the evidence that they have used include newspaper reports, statements of witnesses and interviews.
 * You argue that some books and articles treat the party as 100 years old because of their titles and the fact that the content of the books covers the full 100 years. That, however, is your interpretation of those books, and you are not a reliable source. You need something more concrete than that. It is curious that you had such a high standard for sources when asking about the name Provisional SF, yet are content to dismiss the need for sources here because of books written about SF which include the pre-1970 history as well as the post-1970 history (even though these books actually describe the new party forming in 1970!).
 * Finally, you fallaciously claim that if two people disagree, then neither person can be arguing in favour of NPOV. By this argument, it would be impossible to achieve NPOV unless every person agreed with everyone else (thus negating the need for NPOV in the first place). The situation is that reliable sources describe the formation of the current SF party in 1970. A group of editors argues instead – based on either the SF party view or their own personal interpretations of some books written about SF from 1905 – that those sources should be ignored and that this article should be written in order to give the impression that the current party enjoys singular undisputed uninterrupted continuity with the pre-split party. That is a POV position as it supports the Provisional side of the 1970 split, not to mention the absence of sources to support it. Another POV is that, since the Provisionals split from (what became known as) the Officials, it is the Officials who enjoy singular continuity and therefore the article at Workers Party of Ireland should, in fact, cover the SF pre-1970 history. Personally, it seems to me that this is correct. I recognise, however, that this could be seen as POV, and therefore I do not support this. Instead, I support a neutral solution which supports neither the Provisional nor the Official line and instead, starts both this article and the Workers Party article in 1970, and deals with the pre-split history separately. This is the same way as the IRA is treated in Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mooretwin, you are isolated on this argument. There is no point in continuing to repeat the same points.  If you are not happy with the clear consensus position then you should use the appropriate WIkipedia dispute resolution processes.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided, that you choose to ignore is your own fault MT. BigDunc  11:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read thru the existing article again a couple of times to try to see what is in place now and what Moore is objecting to. It seem to me that the article presents the events in a fairly NPOV and balanced manner.  There is one point that I feel may be key.  At the party's Ard Fheis on 11 January 1970 there was a proposal to end abstention and take seats.  So the party policy pre-Ard Fheis 1970 was to not take seats.  At the Ard Fheis it was proposed to change this policy but the motion failed.  When efforts were made to override this decision, there was a split and the current SF party was born.  It may just be semantics, but it seems that since the "new" party maintained the policies of SF pre-1970 Ard Fheis, they "continued" the policies of SF founded in 1905, and thus one could argue that the current SF party is a continuation of the original 1905 SF.  On the other had, the split did create a new entity which was a sub-set of the pre-Ard Fheis party.  So to say that a new party was created in 1970 also seems reasonable.  We now have 2 sides of the one coin:  the entity that emerged from the 1970 split "continued" the policies of the earlier SF party, but a new entity (party) was created.  Perhaps 2 POV's get established. Could we agree with this analysis?
 * We then have to look at what the sources say on each of these POV's. Moore argues that more weight should be give to the sources that state the "new party" position (there seem to be more sources), most others feel (Scol, etc.) that weight be given to the position that the split entity "continued" to represent the policies of pre-split party.  From the evidence produced, it seems there are more sources that support Moore's view, but there are sources that support the other position, including the current SF party materials.  However, on reading the current version of the article, it seems that both these views are presented in a fairly balanced way, and perhaps we can drop this heated debate for now and try to improve the article in other ways.  What do we think? --BwB (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me just expand my earlier argument (Which Mooretwin managed to duck completely, by the way):
 * If you want to state an uncontroversial fact e.g. that John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, then it is sufficient to reference any of the 'dozens' of sources that say "John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald." If, however, you want to refute the argument that there was one or more gunmen on the grassy knoll, then it would be ludicrous just to reference those sources that make that bland statement, "John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald."    You need to cite a source in which the evidence was tested, and that concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman.  In the case of the Kennedy assassination there are plenty such sources; in the case of the "founding" of "PSF" there appear to be none.  Let me turn the question around: Mooretwin asserts that the Workers Party is the only constitutional continuation of the 1905 Sinn Féin; where are the sources that argue that?  Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Scol, not getting the point here of the Kennedy example. And I thought Moore had produced sources that state PSF was founded in 1970. --BwB (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the point of the Kennedy example: "sources that state" are not enough; if the statement is controversial, there need to be sources that argue that point of view. You cannot say "conspiracy theorists claim that there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, but this is refuted by a, b, c...x, y and z who say 'John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.'"  Well, you can, but you'll be laughed off the stage! Mooretwin says, "presumably the evidence that they have used include newspaper reports, statements of witnesses and interviews." That's some presumption! If it were true there would be footnotes in at least some of those sources referencing said reports, statements and interviews.  There aren't.  That's why I believe that that sort of documentary evidence does not exist.  And simply making a count of the authors that make the same unsupported claim statement (it's not even a claim, because none of the authors make any attempt to justify it) does not make that the majority view.  Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that your opinion Scol, or Wiki policy on sources? We must apply Wiki policies when deciding if a source is verifiable.  Please see WP:V which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  I think is this case we have sources that state SF founded in 1970, "whether we think it is true".  I think Wiki policy must take preference here. --BwB (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded says I’m isolated, yet at least half the editors who have taken part in this debate say the party was formed in 1970. Hardly isolation. Plus I have the sources to back this up. Snowded hasn’t produced or referred to any. Mooretwin (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BwB - you say that it could be argued that the current SF party is the singular continuation of the 1905 party because “they "continued" the policies of SF founded in 1905”. By the same token, then you must also argue that Republican SF – and not the current SF – are the singular continuation of the 1905 party because, in 1986, another split happened over much the same issue – the majority wished to change policy, and the minority who were opposed to the change left and formed their own party. - You also acknowledge that there are “more” sources to support my view, but there are “sources that support the other position”. Could you specify what sources support the other position? - Finally, if you believe the current article is fine as it is, would you support importing all the pre-1970 stuff to Workers Party of Ireland, given that it is the other party to the split, and treating that article the same as this one – implying singular continuation from 1905? Mooretwin (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Scolaire’s recent contributions are quite incredible. Scolaire seems to be trying to supplement Wikipedia policy with his own policies. It is not the role of Wikipedia to interrogate the primary material used by the secondary sources, and rule them out because some editors are not satisfied with the research methodology employed. Just because Scolaire claims that it is “controversial” to say that the party was formed in 1970, doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t mean that we then have to adopt his personal policy about interrogating primary sources, and effectively to accept his arbitrary judgement that he doesn’t believe the sources because he’s not satisfied with the primary research. That is, frankly, incredible arrogance. All the sources – save the party source – says it was formed in 1970, so where – outside these pages – is the controversy? It seems to me that the controversy lies in siding with the Provisional POV by implying that the current party enjoys singular continuation and, by implication, the majority party does not, since this is the POV lacking sources. Sorry Scolaire, but we have to go with the sources here, not individual editors’ views. And, at the end of the day, you have no sources to back up your own views – merely your own, unsourced interpretation of how some authors have treated the topic, and your own personal supplementary policies and rules. I think we have to go to the RS Noticeboard and see what the community view on the sources is. Mooretwin (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love the way you proclaim WP policies as though you are the ultimate authority, and then wonder why the rest of wiki is out of step! And I love your use of "we", as in "Sorry Scolaire, but we have to go with the sources here"! Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whereas you just make policies up and appoint yourself as the legislator. I should have thought that WP:RS was fundamental and that it was uncontroversial to say that we have to go with the sources ("we" being the Wikipedia editors). The rest of Wiki isn't out of step (quite the opposite) and I have never claimed that it is. Mooretwin (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked for views on Scolaire's interpretation of policy on sources at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Mooretwin (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a way to include Mooretwin's POV in its entirety. In the 1970-1983 section, after "...and the expulsion of traditional republicans by the leadership during the 1960s", we can add: "Many authors say that a new party, which they refer to as 'Provisional Sinn Féin', was founded by the Caretaker Executive at this time. " It's all there - "new party", "Provisional Sinn Féin" and the "sources". The three sources I picked were ones I thought were fairly representative, but I would have no problem with other sources being substituted. More than three, however, would be excessive. Would this not be a perfectly NPOV solution? Scolaire (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, it's not my "POV" - it is the description of events provided by reliable secondary sources. Second, it's hardly NPOV when it gives the impression that "many authors" are putting forward some kind of unconventional view that is tucked away in an article giving the opposite impression, and which, for example, lists party leaders before 1970. Why are you trying to present the facts of the 1970 formation as some kind of controversial minority view, when, in fact, all the reliable secondary sources support it and there are no sources provided to date (save the party itself) saying otherwise? The NPOV way to deal with this is to make it clear that the article is about the post-1970 party while mentioning that the party itself considers itself to be the direct continuation of the pre-split party. Mooretwin (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you've brought it to RSN, I won't comment further here. Other editors' comments are welcome.  Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To keep you amused in the meantime, here are some sources for Sinn Féin not formed in 1970: No doubt you'll have noticed that at least two of the authors and one of the books are among those you have cited for the opposite POV. Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction to British politics By John Dearlove, Peter Saunders p. 104: "Sinn Féin was formed in 1905."
 * Irish voters decide: voting behaviour in elections and referendums since 1918 By Richard Sinnott p. 60: "Sinn Féin When De Valera split from Sinn Féin at its 1925 Ard Fheis..."
 * New Sinn Féin: Irish republicanism in the twenty-first century By Agnès Maillot p. 1: "Sinn Féin: the oldest political party in Ireland."
 * Encyclopedia of contemporary British culture By Peter Childs, Mike Storry p. 494: "Sinn Féin (Gaelic for 'Ourselves Alone') was founded in 1905...as a result of the eruption of the Troubles in 1968, Sinn Féin became the political wing of the Provisional IRA".
 * The long road to peace in Northern Ireland By Marianne Elliott p. 136: "Although Sinn Féin claims a lineage dating back to 1905, in the most significant ideological and organizational respects it is a relatively recently developed party...Before the 1980s Provisional Sinn Féin was considered..." – no mention of 1970.
 * The long war: the IRA and Sinn Féin By Brendan O'Brien p. 388: "To take their seats in a partitionist administration and executive under British rule [in 1998] would be as historic a departure as any made by Sinn Féin since its inception in 1905."
 * This should be snapped shut once and for all its going on to long, with this current discussion going on since 28 August 2008. Everyone accepts that "Provisional" Sinn Féin and "Official" Sinn Féin were media terms to differentiate between the participants in the leadership challenge. One of the participants later formally adopted the title Official Sinn Féin in 1972, before going on to become Sinn Féin the Workers Party and later still the Workers Party in 1982. So to continue to waffle on about the "Provisionals" splitting from the "Officials" is pure bollox because to say (without the media terms) Sinn Féin split from Sinn Féin would illustrate the idiotic nonsense of the argument. There was a split in Sinn Féin in 1970 on the proposed dropping of the policy of abstentionism after the Ard Fheis the policy was still one of abstentionism. In 1972 the policy of Sinn Féin on abstentionism had not changed, however the leadership had, and the policy of abstentionism would not be dropped until 1986. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my goodness, finally some sources have been provided. My first question is to ask how these sources meet Scolaire's super-high standards. Is there evidence in these sources that the authors have engaged in primary research to Scolaire's required standard. If not, by his own argument, they must be rejected. Second, however, assuming we agree that we don't need to abide by Scolaire's super-RS policy, let's look at those sources. Dearlove and Saunders simply state that SF was formed in 1905, although don't give their view on what happened in 1970. Sinnott acknowledges the split and refers to Provisional Sinn Féin (p.61). Maillot - as Scolaire acknowledges! - actually says in that book (p.4) that the Provisionals "broke away". She also says "Gerry Adams joined the Provisionals" and refers to "the future Provisional movement". Childs and Storry seems to support a 1905 formation. Elliott merely refers to Sinn Féin "claiming a lineage dating back to 1905" (p.136), which is not disputed, and refers to Provisional Sinn Féin. O'Brien says (p.11) that "the current (Provisional) IRA split from the (Official) IRA in December 1969. The Provisionals' regrouped from a small armed base and, combined with 'Provisional' Sinn Féin, took on the whole mantle of militant Irish republicanism." Again, as Scolaire acknowledges, the same author in another group describes a "new (Provisional) Sinn Féin" being established in 1970.
 * So where does that leave us? Maillot expressly supports the 1970 formation. Elliott appears not to say anything expressly, but implies an acknowledgement of 1970. O'Brien is ambiguous, but supports 1970 in another book. Sinnott is ambiguous. Dearlove and Saunders and Childs and Storry support 1905, albeit in cursory assessments in non-specialist publications. Therefore, in addition to the party publication, we now have two tertiary sources which could be said cleary to be supporting 1905, and a degree of ambiguity from two others. On the other hand, we have a large number of secondary sources supporting 1970. The relative weight of the sources still heavily supports 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Domer48 still seems to be confusing the argument about names with the formation argument. (Incidentally, I can't open his supposed source saying the Officials formally adopted the name, so can't comment on it. (Not that it's relevant to the formation question.) Mooretwin (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not be feed this discussion or editor any more, they have been at it long enough. There is no consensus and based on the sources there will be none! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  11:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) Mooretwin, stop being snotty! I made an honest attempt both to explain why I thought your 'dozens' of sources aren't the be-all and end-all, and to provide the contrary sources you asked for.  Your response has been confrontational and sneering throughout.  As I said a while ago, an editor can only assume good faith for so long; beyond that there has to be a presumption of trolling.  I have just had to archive a page over 40,000 words long, most of it you banging on about the same thing, and most of it in a very unpleasant tone.  I am going back to my previous position of not feeding you any more, and recommending that other editors do likewise.  Scolaire (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not being snotty. My response has not been sneering. I could equally say that your contributions have been confrontational, self-important, sneering and dismissive, and verging on the personal, but I prefer to discuss the content and not be drawn into exchanges of personal abuse. The situation we now have is that:
 * Many sources have been provided to support 1970, and a small number of sources belatedly provided to support 1905. If we wish to evaluate the sources, as you do, then the value of the 1905 sources is less than that of the 1970 sources (given that they are tertiary and not specialist in relation to Ireland).
 * The consensus of the sources, therefore, is that the party was formed in 1970
 * You and other editors, however, wish this article to give the impression that the party was formed in 1905. That is to give undue weight to the minority of sources and to the Provisional POV.
 * I and other editors wish this article to deal with the (Provisional) party from 1970; for the Workers Party article to deal with the Officials from 1970; and for the History article to deal with the pre-split party.
 * The latter option is the more neutral, and more in line with policy.
 * By being determined to dismiss the sources, presumably in pursuit of your own POV, you and other editors have driven away most of the editors who disagree with you, leaving me (and recently RedKing) as the only editors with the patience and willingness to continue trying to get this article to adhere to NPOV and RS policy.
 * It becomes clearer with every debate, that what matters at Wikipedia is not policy, but the attitude and determination of editors to push their own agendas and block any change with which they are uncomfortable. We’ve even had here, for example, a situation where 5 out of 7 editors (70%) favoured change, an uninvolved admin said that this represented consensus, yet still no change was allowed to be made by the guardians of the article. Meanwhile, non-consensus edits made by other edits are allowed to stand. The guardians of the article appear to have won, as has happened on other articles, by sheer obstinacy. The same people who demand sources for the most inconsequential of edits elsewhere, completely ignore the sources here. The people who disagree with the guardians become frustrated and bored and move on or, if they choose not to, are vilified and attacked or ignored. The “last man standing” wins, regardless of the merits of the arguments. Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur this is becoming a nonsense and is going no where. Mooretwin needs to give up or engage with dispute resolution.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snowded, Scolaire and Domer time this was wrapped up another rambling post from MT repeating Ad nauseam the same old points. BigDunc  13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The same points need to be repeated because they are never addressed by those apparently preferring their own POV to the views provided by the sources. Snowded is absolutely right that this is nonsense, because the response to the evidence has been nonsense from the start. The first response was simply to ignore the sources. The second response was to give greater weight to the unsourced views of editors than to the sources. The third response was to say that the sources were divided, yet still side with one POV. The fourth response was to try to discredit the sources by making up policy. The fifth response was belatedly to provide a small number of weak sources in complete contradiction to the earlier-espoused super-policy on what sources are acceptable. Happy to go to dispute resolution - not that I have any faith that anyone will be able to break through the wall put up by this article's guardians. Mooretwin (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The latter option is the more neutral, and more in line with policy" - brimming over with wrongability see WP:POVFORK. You are not attempting to include all points of view in that solution, you are attempting to exclude a significant point of view that the current party has a history, albeit a shared one, prior to 1970. You have attempted to dismiss sources such as this which state plain as day "It's the party's centenary" (not "It's the party's centenary celebration" or "The party claim to be celebrating their centenary" or anything similar), and seemingly haven't read what Taylor or Bowyer Bell have written on the split, they don't say any new party was form they stick solely to the facts which is that a Caretaker Executive was formed. Both parties that emerged from the split have a shared history prior to 1970, the traditionalists never claimed to have set up a new party as their first press release makes clear. That some sources take the logical solution to deal with the problem of there previously being one party and then two is hardly surprising, but it doesn't mean any new party was set up. I also echo the comments of others above, it's really long past time for this timewasting to stop. 2 lines of K  303  14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore him Hackey, he's not listening. -- Snowded  TALK  17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither I, nor anyone who acknowledges the 1970 formation, is attempting to exclude any significant points of view. Indeed, we have expressly said that the "continuity" view should be included in the article. Ironically, those wishing to present the current party as though it is the singular continuation of the 1905 party, are the ones seeking a POV fork. Please do not misrepresent other editors. Mooretwin (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've observed this endless discussion rolling on ad nauseum/tedium. MT is POV pushing while masquerading as NPOV continuing the same argument over multiple pages. I agree with the other editors above.Cathar11 (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I am seeking a NPOV article, based on reliable sources. Those who deny the 1970 formation are doing so by ignoring or rejecting the sources and, presumably, in order to push a POV. The sources are there for all to see. The discussion is rolling on ad nauseum because the POV pushers refuse to accept what almost all the reliable sources say. Mooretwin (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have to agree with Moore on the non-application of Wiki policies here. We must apply Wiki policies when deciding if a source is verifiable.  Please see WP:V which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  I think is this case we have sources that state SF founded in 1970, "whether we think it is true".  I think Wiki policy must take preference here. I an not siding with one POV or another, but our first responsibility as Wiki editors is to follow guidelines. --BwB (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to the policy that says "if anything is written in a book, it must be included in an article"? Or the one that says "if one POV has x cites and another has y cites, and x > y, then that POV must predominate"?  Have you read WP:Consensus, which says that what is included should be decided by discussion on the talk page? And is there a policy that you have to make the same point as many times as possible within a thread?  Scolaire (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - have you any suggestions as to how we achieve a resolution here? Outstanding issues are - the general impression given by the article; and specifically, the hatnote, the lede, the treatment of the split in the "History" section, the "Leaders" section and the "Parties emerging from SF" section. RfC never works - what about informal mediation? Mooretwin (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided to show continuity. You act as if none have been provided. BigDunc
 * If you read the discussion, you'll note that it has always been acknowledged that the party's own publication was provided as a source for continuity. You'll also note that as soon as Scolaire provided sources, these too were acknowledged (even though they don't meet Scolaire's own standards for inclusion), namely Dearlove and Saunders, Childs and Storry - tertiary sources - say 1905, the others are either ambiguous or don't say 1905 (Elliott). As has been already said, it would be WP:undue weight to base the article on the minority of sources, which also happen to be less authoritative (as they are either tertiary sources or ambiguous). Mooretwin (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ah forget about it there wasn't only one source provided. BigDunc  16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Feeney and Rafter, they both say the party was formed in 1970 (as has been noted several times). Mooretwin (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Provisional SF
Here's a source which might be useful re the name Provisional SF (Scolaire had asked earlier in a now-archived discussion): Mooretwin (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * James P. Byrne, Philip Coleman, Jason King (eds) (2008), Ireland and the Americas: culture, politics and history Abc-clio Inc, p.763
 * Sinn Féin endured a very significant split in 1970 over the issue of recognising both the Dublin and British parliament. The majority group, which had a more socialist inclination, became known as Official Sinn Féin, while the more republican minority was termed Provisional Sinn Féin.

Also, this source might assist BigDunc in understanding that the party currently called SF was, in the past, referred to as Provisional SF: Mooretwin (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By John McGarry, Brendan O'Leary, Explaining Northern Ireland: broken images, p. 511
 * Provisional Sinn Féin, republican political party which supported the PIRA, now know as Sinn Féin.

Reliable Sources Noticeboard
Since the discussion looks as though it's over, and will soon be archived, I want to record and discuss Mooretwin's question and the response to it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. To give him credit, Mooretwin framed the question in a very fair way, simply outlining my view and his. The response, which was very fast - six minutes after the post - did not come down on either side but was confined to generalisations. I copy them both below:

There is a debate ongoing at Talk:Sinn Féin about numerous secondary sources which say that the current party known as Sinn Féin was formed following a split in the original party in 1970. (I'll list the sources below.)

One editor (Scolaire) is arguing that the sources should not be used because "a reliable source in relation to a particular fact can only be accepted if it is clear that the author had reasonable grounds for stating the fact, which means that he or she had access to primary documents.

I, on the other hand, say that it is not the role of Wikipedia to reject what secondary sources say because some of us believe the primary research engaged in by the author is inadequate. Rather, if we are not happy with what the secondary sources say, we ought to find other secondary sources which disagree.

I'd be interested in some views on this interpretation of policy. Mooretwin (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [list of sources omitted]


 * Often you do find editors who jump to merit based decisions to save the reader from confusion or deception. However, a prominent opinion is likely to be one that the reader will encounter and it seems in line with wikipedia and reader objectives to present all prominent POV's which means citing many sources that may be of questionable intellectual or moral value to us. So then the question is just how you cite them and make sure they are reliable for the claim made. At this point, you end up with a merit diecussion unless you write everything as "he said but she said etc ". At that point, you are probably back to the article talk page. So, even a source based on fantasy, if it describes a prominent view on a relevant issue, probably gets mentioned somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't speculate on what response Mooretwin was expecting, but his views on this page at that time were that my "recent contributions are quite incredible", that I was "trying to supplement Wikipedia policy with [my] own policies" and insisting that others "adopt [my] personal policy about interrogating primary sources". Now RSN is run by a number of volunteers - I don't know how many - who do it for love of Wikipedia. I think it is safe to make certain assumptions: (1) that all of them habitually read each new request once, and therefore that all of them read Mooretwin's request once; (2) that if my views were so incredible, they would all have jumped in and said "No, no! He can't do that!"; and (3) that if any of them thought Nerdseeksblonde's response was inadequate, they would have added to it. That they didn't do those things shows, not only that they think my approach is acceptable, but that they take it for granted! This shouldn't surprise anybody. Wiki policies are based on thinking (and discussing, of course), not on blindly following meaningless rules. That's why there's a policy called Ignore all rules and a section of another policy called Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. One point that Nerdseeksblonde made is worth highlighting: "At that point, you are probably back to the article talk page." Now on this talk page we have already - surprise, surprise! - reached consensus on a number of issues: All of these with the benefit of Mooretwin's sources. Now can we wrap up this endless, fruitless discussion please? Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That two dates in the infobox is better than one, if only because it prevents endless editwarring,
 * That the sentence currently in the intro is the most neutral we have achieved so far,
 * That the History section is not excessive, and is neutral in tone and,
 * That the article should not be split.


 * Close it, archive it and add a note to the talk page that this is one of those resolved issues,-- Snowded TALK  12:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'm opposed to the pandering on the two dates in the info box, agree with Snowded, close it, archive it and add a note! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Nerdseekblonde says that articles should cite many sources that may be of questionable intellectual or moral value to us, which does not support Scolaire's general view that sources which don't meet unspecified standards of primary research should be discounted. Therefore, Scolaire's attempt to enforce his super-policy cannot be said to have been supported by Nerdseekblonde. (Note also that no such interpretation (that I can find) appears on the WP:RS page.)
 * The question of the veracity of the specific sources is, of course, a separate matter. It does not seem appropriate that a source should be ignored or downgraded because one particular editor doesn't think that the primary research undertaken by the author was adequate. Given that the same editor then put forward sources of much more questionable authority (in terms of the primary research upon which they were based), I don't think he can stand over his attempt to discount other sources. Mooretwin (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether there is "consensus" that this article should be written without due regard to the sources (and consequently in its current ambiguous manner) is a matter of opinion. There seems to be a fairly even split among editors as to whether the article should go with the sources and be clear that the party was formed in 1970, or should say that the party was formed in 1905 and ignore what the sources say about 1970.
 * Regarding consensus, I ask a question. Why was a 5-2 opinion in favour of listing only leaders since 1970 not regarded as consensus (and consequently any attempts to edit the article accordingly were thwarted), yet BigDunc's edit of the hatnote, for which there was no consensus, was not opposed (other than by me). Surely editors are not applying one interpretation of consensus to edits with which they disagree, and another interpretation to edits with which they agree?
 * Finally, on the RS Noticeboard, Scolaire proposed an amendment to the History section dealing with the split, to which Red King suggested a revision - could Scolaire post his proposal here so that we can discuss it? Mooretwin (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you always post in chapters, like you were two or three different people? Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever watched Columbo? --Red King (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we take it from Scolaire's response that he is not willing to post his proposal here so that it may be discussed? Mooretwin (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ó Bráidaigh
So what I want to know is this: if we are expected to believe that then why are we expected to believe that the minority that broke away under Ó Bráidaigh in 1986 is not the 'real' Sinn Féin because of continuity of principle though not of organisation? --Red King (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the minority who broke away in 1922 were the 'real' Sinn Féin because of continuity of principle though not of organisation,
 * and that the minority that broke away under Ó Bráidaigh in 1970 were the 'real' Sinn Féin because of continuity of principle though not of organisation,
 * Good question. --BwB (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not get a book and find out? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What book do you recommend? --BwB (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * start here. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know the answer to the question? If so, it would be helpful if you shared it. Logically, the argument for recognising (Provisional) SF as retaining the continuity of the original SF applies also to Republican SF. Or does it all come down to the name: if Republican SF had decided to continue to call themselves SF, and had only been called Republican SF by the media, would that mean they retained continuity? Mooretwin (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dublin City Councillors resignations
This looks like recentism to me. Does anybody else have any thoughts? Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree it is recentism. Also don't think it's particularly notable. Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it not as notable as a list of SF candidates who got elected in the 2009 local elections? The fact that 4 SF concillors have resigned from SF seems notable to me. --BwB (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the editor who added the south-of-the-border election results, I was wondering what to do about post-election defections, (in particular Christy Burke) but couldn't really see a way of working it in, or figure out if it belonged here, so I didn't. It certainly doesn't come under "electoral performance". While the loss of councillors in Dublin is currently a topic of very lively debate/speculation, the defections are covered in the Dublin City Council article, which seems the right place.


 * On a related subject: where do the figures for number of councillors in the infobox come from? There is no reference cited - the figure appears to be for town and borough councils as well as counties and cities. Obviously this would be the place to "deduct" the defected councillors from, but without knowing the source I'm not going to. I notice this a problem common to the infobox of other Irish political parties.Lozleader (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Loz, we need to keep the count current, if possible. --BwB (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you've raised the subject, those tables are wildly excessive. This is an encyclopedia, not a database.  ROI elections should be covered in the same way as NI elections - as article text. Local government elections should get one sentence, tops.  Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The tables are informative and should be used but I do agree with you that they tend to unbalance the article. A possible solution is to create Sinn Fein election results and move relevant content there. Valenciano (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with that. I would like to see them gone from here, though.  Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the table takes up too much space and happy to see it removed or moved to other article. But if we are going to have a sentence or 2 summarizing the election results, why would it them be rescentism to put in a sentence that 4 SF Dublin councillors resigned? --BwB (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a list of the names of local councillors is notable or appropriate. If it is deemed notable to mention how many councillors were elected, however, then the resignations would also need to be noted. Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just done that now. --Scolaire (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting the source and adding a sentence on the resignations. --BwB (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)