Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 8

What is consensus?
What do editors of this article consider to be a necessary consensus to edit the article? A 5-2 opinion in favour of listing only leaders since 1970 was not regarded as consensus (and consequently any attempts to edit the article accordingly were thwarted). BigDunc's edit of the hatnote, however, did not achieve this level of consensus, yet it was not opposed (other than by me). Mooretwin (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Consensus. Anything that is unopposed (except by one editor) has consensus by definition.  A majority is not a consensus.  And if you're including me in the five, move me to the other side - I am opposed to changing "Leaders".  Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Time this was moved off this Article Talk page! This is just another attempt to continue a discussion which is well finished! Find another bugbear but stop disrupting this Article Talk Page. -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything at WP:Consensus that says that "anything that is unopposed (except by one editor) has consensus. Rather, it says that, when two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages. BigDunc did not go to the Talk page when it became clear that his edit was opposed. It was clear that his edit was part of the ongoing dispute and was therefore controversial and should have been discussed. It now seems clear that editors on this page are only interested in using policy in a cynical way to forward their own POV: a controversial edit by someone perceived to be on your "side" does not require discussion or consensus; yet an edit by someone perceived not to be on your "side" must achieve a consensus with a high threshold. There is a super-standard required of reliable sources for one "side", but this does not apply to the other. Why don't you guys just admit it? Mooretwin (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise, Domer. Feeding him is always a bad idea.  I'm outta here.  Scolaire (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you don't like being challenged and have difficulty with discourse. You don't seem to understand that discussions can involve more than simply "statement-challenge-response", but that a "response" may itself invite further challenge. Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to learn when to stop Moortwin, your lone and lengthy arguments are starting to become disruptive--Snowded TALK  18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean you'd rather I didn't discuss the double standards apparently being demonstrated by editors here whom you happen to agree with? Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I have no preference either way on how the article is written. But perhaps one way forward would be to have a straw poll, and allow each editor here to provide one comment on what they believe that the current consensus is? Not what they personally want, but what they believe is a fair summary of the discussions thus far? --Elonka 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, Elonka, but you're missing the point here. If you look back over this page, Archive 6, Archive 5, Archive 4 and the last quarter of Archive 3, you'll see that Mooretwin has been opening one section after another over the last eighteen months, all of them saying the same thing - he wants the article re-written to say that Sinn Féin was founded in 1970.  What we need here is closure.  We need a straw poll like we need a hole in the head.  Scolaire (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: on checking, about half the new sections on this page and Archive 6 were actually started by me, but each time Mooretwin has come in almost immediately to hammer home his point once again. Scolaire (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to have a poll? It might be helpful to get everyone's opinion in one place, to at least clarify the current state of the discussion. Or if not a poll, perhaps something else at Dispute resolution, such as an RfC, or request mediation? --Elonka 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when did wikipedia become a democracy? And how would a vote be helpful? BigDunc  21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin has been at this for the last eighteen months, what we need here is closure! That is the only thing worth discussing, and I for one will not be drawn again into this futile merry-go-round. I agree Dunc, how will feeding help? -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would remind everyone here of the directive at the top of this page: "All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." --Elonka 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's been done, Elonka. We've had 3O here, and RfC here.  Each time we think the talking's done somebody tells us we have to go round again.  They don't come in on Mooretwin's side - just tell us we have to go round again.  We're getting dizzy and we want to get off.  Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 3O was from November 2008, over a year ago. The RfC, as near as I can tell, was not properly listed, and wasn't exactly about this topic, as it was more a "should the Sinn Fein articles be aligned with the IRA articles" question.  Better would be to have a very specific RfC with a clearly defined and brief question, that outside commenters can get their head around.  Perhaps something like, "How should the Sinn Fein article list leaders prior to 1970, if there is dispute about whether the organization was founded in 1905 or 1970?"  Or: "How should the Sinn Fein article be written, to deal with the controversy of the organization's founding date?" (or whatever question would best drill down to the core disagreement here).  Or, try mediation. --Elonka 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Scolaire, I am as sick of this as you are, but I think Elonka has a point, and she appears to be an admin prepared to take on serial abusers. Why don't you formulate a statement and we can all concur and get this over with--Snowded  TALK  07:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) Oh no, you don't, Elonka! You find a specific enough question.  The 3O was over a year ago, and it was about Mooretwin's attempt to have the article re-written to say that Sinn Féin was founded in 1970.  The RfC was a "should the Sinn Fein articles be aligned with the IRA articles" question, i.e. rewrite it to say that Sinn Féin was founded in 1970, like the Provisional IRA.  You find a specific enough question that Mooretwin won't (a) claim that everyone agrees with him, regardless of what is said, and (b) go and find another "specific point" to argue the same thing all over again.  If you can do that, I'm in.  If not, I'm unwatching this page, and I won't take part in any further discussion, poll or mediation.  Whatever the directive at the top of this page, nobody can compel me to do anything. The question will have to be very specific indeed if it's not going to be stretched out the same way for another year.  However, I have decided to accept the challenge.
 * If you want to know what Mooretwin's specific concerns are, have a look here: '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'. Try and make a brief question out of that, why don't you? Unfortunately, then, the question cannot be both specific and brief.  I'm going to go with specific.  Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was thinking more of a 2-3 sentence summary of the 1970s issue per the current lede for posting to the top of the talk page and a statement that Mooretwin's attempt to change this via a range of minor issues does not have support of editors involved in this and related pages. I thought you had the best command of this hence the suggestion but I can look at it later if you wouldprefer--Snowded  TALK  08:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, let Elonka do it - she thinks it can be sorted out just like that, so let her try. My post above was directed at her, not you (note the EC at the start).  I'm going to have a go, but I don't think we can make it about personalities, and I don't think we can do it in 2-3 sentences, unless they're quite long sentences.  Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK Scol, Moore, et. al., if Elonka, or someone else writes the question, takes it to RfC and we get a clear resolution, do you agree to abide by the finding? --BwB (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)An unpleasant personal dimension appears to have crept into this debate, with some editors appearing to misrepresent the dispute as being between me (singular) and everyone else. In fact, there is a fairly even split among editors between those who wish to follow the sources and avoid POV and those who prefer either their own interpretation or ambiguity. I have several times suggested mediation/dispute resolution and I have no reason to change my mind now. I would, however, recommend avoiding RfC as, in my experience, it rarely works (what happens is only a small number of editors come on and give an opinion, but once they depart, the discussion is left with the original editors who then ignore the contributions made by the new editors). Mooretwin (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what do you suggest, Moore? --BwB (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we had an edit conflict there. I was about to add that I'm content for Elonka to lead on dispute resolution, however, and will abide by any clear resolution. Mooretwin (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've stated the case quite nicely there, Mooretwin. Elonka suggested a straw poll and she asked me to try to frame the question, so that's what I'm going to do in the next section.  Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
All right, then, here is my proposal for a straw poll. It is not brief but it is perfectly specific, it should be understandable to anybody who is familiar with the issues, and it is capable of a yes or no answer that will decide the whole matter once and for all. Here goes:
 * The Sinn Féin article as it stands now fails WP:NPOV and/or is ambiguous with regard to the date of formation of the current Sinn Féin party. In order to rectify this it is necessary to change the hatnote pointing to History of Sinn Féin, change the sentence in the lead dealing with the party’s origin to "formed in 1970 as Provisional Sinn Féin", change that part of the "History" section dealing with the split, reduce the "Leaders" section, remove the "Parties emerging from Sinn Féin" section and alter the general impression given by the article.


 * Do you agree or disagree?


 * You may provide one short comment along with your !vote, but any excessively long statement, and any response, rebuttal or query of another person’s comment, will be removed. Elonka will close the poll after five days, and summarise its findings.  No further discussion on this or any related issue will be allowed for six months following the closing of the poll.  Apart from this proviso, normal editing and discussion of the article may continue.  Before the poll is opened Mooretwin may change any part of the above statement with which he disagrees, but his disagreement will be noted.  Any user may be notified of this poll without any allegation of canvassing.

I am happy to abide by the result of such a poll, whatever it may be. Scolaire (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very clever, but I think we'll wait for Elonka, as an uninvolved editor, to decide how best to achieve a resolution. It would also be desirable if you stopped personalising the dispute, and misrepresenting it as one editor against the rest. Mooretwin (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? Is that what you've been saying or is it not?  If other editors agree they'll say they agree.  If I'm misrepresenting you feel free to correct me.  Scolaire (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we were to draft the question/issue and then Elonka would take it from there? --BwB (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, I've drafted the question. Scolaire (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no preference either way, but am willing to help to try and craft a neutral poll. So, working from Scolaire's start, how about, "A dispute exists about how the Sinn Féin article (current snapshot) should best present a list of the party's leaders in a neutral manner, specifically as to whether the leaders should be presented going back to 1905, or only until 1970.  How do you feel that this subject should be covered, to best bring the article in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality?"   If that wording is acceptable, we could start with a straw poll here, and then if there's no clear consensus, we could open it up to a wider RfC. --Elonka 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not just the list of party leaders however, it also effects the lede and other issues per Scolaire's note. Just addressing one, will mean a continuation of the mess and doesn't reflect the discussions todate. I think we might be better doing something like this:

The current lede of Sinn Féin states as follows. "Sinn Féin (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈfeɪn/, Irish: [ʃɪnʲ fʲeːnʲ]) is a political party in Ireland. Originating in the Sinn Féin organisation founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith, it took its current form in 1970 after a split within the party." '''A challenge has been raised, arguing that Sinn Féin was founded in 1970. If sustained, this challenge would necessitate changing the hatnote pointing to History of Sinn Féin, the sentence in the lead dealing with the party’s origin to "formed in 1970 as Provisional Sinn Féin", that part of the "History" section dealing with the split, reduce the "Leaders" section, remove the "Parties emerging from Sinn Féin" section and alter the general impression given by the article. Editors should be aware that this is a contentious issue and that there have been multiple debates between a pure "1905" and a pure "1970" position in the past.  Would editors indicate if they support the challenge or oppose it (supporting the current wording)'''

I think that better summarises the current debate and the implications--Snowded TALK  07:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Do the thing properly or don't do it at all.  Is Elonka proposing one straw poll a week for six weeks at least, probably followed in each case by an RfC?  Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with a complex poll question and then asking people to "support" or "oppose" it, is because that's too much like a vote, and people may also be inclined to support or oppose parts rather than the whole package. However, it might be worth breaking it up into multiple questions and then asking for support/oppose on each point.  For example, one section could have multiple different wordings for the lead sentence, and then see which sentence people support (allowing them to support more than one, as well).  Another section would be, "How should the leaders section be handled?" etc. For an example of a complex multi-art RfC, see perhaps Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM or Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFCto see how they did it. --Elonka 13:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 100% against a poll of any kind as can be seen in what happend in the Ireland naming poll, the wrong name for the country is used due to weight of numbers of the British bias. BigDunc  14:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but I believe, like Dunc, that any sort of poll is too much like a vote. Because no matter how carefully you frame it (and even framing a multiple-question poll would involve weeks or months of trench warfare!) people will respond in a knee-jerk fashion ("That makes sense") rather than out of a proper understanding of the issues involved. Take your good self, for instance - you have been posting here for a while now, can you honestly say that you fully understand the significance of the 1970 date?  Even those who volunteer to give a 3O, like Fr33kman, or Nerdseeksblonde on RSN, are unable to give any sort of definitive answer because they can't get their head around the question.  How can we expect an ordinary non-involved editor to? Some of the core questions are intangible.  For instance, in the context of this dispute what do you consider NPOV to mean?  I consider NPOV to mean that between a 1970 date and a 1905 date the article should not come down on either side, but should represent the two views neutrally; Mooretwin considers NPOV to mean that between "Official" Sinn Féin and "Provisional" Sinn Féin we cannot favour one by saying it is the party of 1905, and so we must say that both began in 1970.  How do you phrase that sort of question in a multi-question poll?  And yet if you don't resolve that one, and others like it, questions like 'how should the Leaders section be treated' are meaningless.  You can't put the cart before the horse.  I'm not saying we should be doing nothing.  On the other hand I'm not sure what we can do that we haven't tried already.  But rushing into polls or RfCs on side-issues is definitely not the place to start, IMO.
 * I've looked at the two RfCs you linked to, and my immediate impression is: what did they achieve? There seems to be no sort of conclusion drawn on either of the two pages.  Did the arguments just continue as before, and how did the RfCs help?  I was slightly involved in that issue at the time, and I remember it as a nightmare.  I had to give up trying to follow it in the end because my head hurt.  As far as I can see, the net result of all that was that "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so" was changed to "Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject".  Is that really the kind of outcome we should be looking forward to on this article?  Scolaire (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to have a piecemeal vote, it will just produce more incoherence as all the individual issues actually relate to the simple 1905/1970 issue. The current wording is NPOV in that (as Scolaire makes clear) Mooretwin's various positions would take a strong POV position for 1970 only.  The alternative POV position would be 1905 and no 1970.  What we have here is one editor taking a particular position and constantly reiterating that position against a pretty clear consensus.  --Snowded  TALK  21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Snowded that is simple, clear and to the point! -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

'Consensus' poll
Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization, the article as it stands in January 2010 is the current consensus version. --Elonka 02:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In order to help settle this issue, it would be helpful if each editor in this discussion (and any uninvolved watchers are welcome to participate as well), posts a single note below. The note should cover not your personal desires about how the issue of founding date should be handled, but what you believe is the consensus opinion on how this should be handled, based on the previous discussions. For example, if you were an admin reviewing an AfD discussion, where several people were disagreeing on the best way to proceed, but it was your job to understand the policies involved and to review the entire discussion and make a formal statement of "consensus", what would you say? Let's do this in a "one editor, one comment" format, and hopefully this will bring clarity to the issue. --Elonka 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization, what do you believe is the consensus of the above discussions? Not your personal opinion of how you'd like the article to be written, but what do you think the group consensus is at this point?


 * The current version as of today's date represents consensus --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  06:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For future reference, here is a link to the current version, last changed on January 15 2010. --Elonka 18:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus is that the present version is balanced and neutral. Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version represents consensus, and editors must now accept this consensus and base all further changes to the article on this consensus. Further, new material added to the article must provide sources and comply fully with Wiki policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. --BwB (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version as of today's date represents consensus. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  10:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with above consensus on this version. BigDunc  12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version approximates the consensus position. Cathar11 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Current consensus is - use 1905 as the founding date. The party founded in 1905, is considered to still be in existance. Thus, party leaders are considered to date back to 1905. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus. Editors are fairly evenly split between those who understand that the party was formed in 1970 and that this is supported by the sources; and those who (for whatever reason) deny this without providing sufficient contrary sources. Unfortunately, though, what matters on Wikipedia is not what the large number of editors think, but what the determined editors think. That means Dunc, Domer, Snowded and Scolaire will get their way, because I'm the only one supporting 1970 who has been determined enough to argue with them. There is a consensus among the determined editors, therefore, to go against policy. Mooretwin (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Closure
With one exception all editors have confirmed the current version as consensus (which does not mean it cannot be improved). It doesn't take much "determination" to respond to the question above. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the editors who've posted recently, yes. It's convenient, of course, to ignore the views of everyone else who took part in the discussion, and instead allow WP articles to be controlled by the few who are more determined than the many. This article has to be one of the most blatant examples of a group of editors nakedly turning policy on its head to support their own POV, arrogantly dismissing sources which counter their POV. If enough editors are supportive, then "consensus" is achieved ... hey presto! It works. Mooretwin (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, is it not for Elonka to determine whether this is closed? Who appointed Snowded? Mooretwin (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been warned often enough about your personal attacks and bad faith accusations on editors. Now Stop! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  10:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, all the editors but one who have taken part in the straw poll have expressed the view that the consensus on this page and the pages you linked to favours the current version of the article. I can think straight off of two or three editors who have contributed during that time, who concievably might have agreed with you, who almost certainly have the article on their watchlists, and who certainly would have been quick to say if they believed the poll was giving the wrong impression.  They haven't, and their silence speaks volumes.  In the words of the Latin proverb, Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit - "Who is silent, when he ought to and might have spoken, is seen to agree."
 * Oh, and who says we aren't waiting for Elonka to close? And why shouldn't Snowded, or anyone else, call for closure? Scolaire (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the editors who wish to keep the article as it is have said that they they think the consensus is to keep it as it is! Forgive me if I'm not surprised! An objective reading of all the discussion, however, would reveal that there has been a fairly even split among editors over the issue - but objectivity is not something that is valued here. I'm not so naive, however, as not to realise that:
 * WP:Consensus eventually trumps WP:RS and WP:NPOV where a sufficient number of editors are sufficiently persistent - stick to your guns long enough and eventually the less-persistent editors will drop away and their "silence" can then be interpreted as support for the position they previously opposed;
 * Moderation will always seek consensus, even if that means contravening WP:RS and WP:NPOV;
 * RfC will result in one or two opinions, which will then be ignored by those not agreeing with them;
 * consequently, this article will never be changed to reflect the reality which the sources support.
 * Another job well done! Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So does that mean you're not going to pursue this any more? Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Rockpocket's adding to the see also section idea (mentioned at his userpage). It sure wouldn't end the world, to have some kinda linkage between SF & their cousin party articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That related to History of Sinn Féin. Perhaps you could suggest it there? Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that now we have established consensus that questions of edit warring against consensus are clear, and also that there is a case to argue that persistently raising the same point on the talk page without new evidence is disruptive behaviour which could lead to sanctions. Elonka, we have been through due process here, would you please confirm that this is closed and also advise if my understanding is correct. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  05:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional discussion
Is the question not asking about the consensus in respect of how to take forward the dispute? Everyone seems to be answering about what they believe/want the consensus to be in respect of the text of the article. Mooretwin (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the foregoing discussion, what do you think the consensus is concerning the treatment of the foundation of SF? That's the question. Elonka wants to get an impression of what the consensus is before talking about how to take forward the dispute.  Scolaire (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, the question says: Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization, what do you believe is the consensus of the above discussions? So it's about consensus on how to deal with the question, not consensus on the question itself. Mooretwin (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a very clear consensus so stop being disruptive and trying to move the dispute to another article. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree a piss poor attempt at moving dispute to another article. BigDunc  11:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those interventions, but unfortunately they don't help clarify what the question is about. Only Elonka can clarify, I think. Mooretwin (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah look, they are looking for yet another plateform! You are just being disruptive and should be cautioned about it. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  12:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Elonka to clarify the meaning of her question. Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, whatever the interpretation of Elonkas question may be, it appears to me that the consensus is to leave the article as it is. As that is the case then shouldn't this discussion be wrapped up and consensus be abided by to stick with the current version? Jack forbes (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hehe! We fell for it again, didn't we?  A naïve question, dumb Scolaire jumps in to help the poor guy out, and the next thing everybody is sucked into another pointless argument.  And guess who is centre stage?  The man's a master! (And please don't ask me to assume good faith - I told you a while back that assumption doesn't hold any more)  Scolaire (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, masterly disruption and prevarication --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree MT forum shops to the talk page of Elonka and when I respond get told by MT that this is not the place for discussion and should take it to the relevant page, masterly. BigDunc  21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpfully, Elonka has declined to provide clarification directly. A recent contribution on her talk page, however, seems to imply that she is asking about consensus about the issue itself, and not consensus on how to deal with the issue. If this is the case, then the fact that most of the discussion has been archived is likely to distort the findings of the consensus poll, as the views of editors who took part in the earlier discussion are not visible. Mooretwin (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Elonka's question seemed clear to me. Basically, "do you see a consensus reached in favour of 1905 as the founding date", my response was 'yes, I do'. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think there is a consensus? Are you including the views expressed by all editors, or just those who have been contributing in recent weeks? Mooretwin (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who haven't contributed in recent weeks, apparently have lost interest. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you accept that if you were to include all the editors who've contributed since the discussions began in November, and not just the recent contributors, there would be no consensus? Mooretwin (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they haven't been around for weeks, then they've forfied their position. There's certainly no consensus for 1970. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That attitude supports my observation above that the most determined editors get their way and the views of the wider community are not counted. So what we are left with is a consensus of the determined to breach policy. If we weren't, however, to adopt such an attitude, it seems clear that you acknowledge a lack of consensus among the wider group of contributors. Mooretwin (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your pro-1970 argument no longer has traction here or at History of Sinn Fein. By continuing the argument here & there, you risk being accused of breaching WP:AXE, imho. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, could you please provide a list of the recent (within the last 3 months) talkpage threads which are related to this "founding year" discussion? Thanks, --Elonka 00:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I suggested that the discussion ought not to be archived yet was precisely to avoid having to dig out relevant and recent discussion (and, of course, those who wished to hide because archiving the early discussion were delighted at the prospect of archiving means that the early contributions and arguments of those editors supporting 1970 would no longer be visible here). But ... here are the most relevant archived threads from the last three months:
 * Foundation
 * Proposal to re-orient SF articles
 * Way forward
 * Lede wording Mooretwin (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please specify who "wished to hide the early discussion" or strike that remark. I archived because the page was way too big (it needed two archives to fit it).  Guess why it was too big?  Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We all have seen this pattern before, a thread opened, no consensus on it, so open another and another and then forum shop around, time to stop feeding. BigDunc  17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Folks, can we please let this one go? It's a reasonable action, to provide links to previous discussions.  This way anyone who wishes to, may review them in order to offer a determination of what they think that the current consensus is. --Elonka 18:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very reasonable request, more than valid to have them supplied. Suggesting that other editors wanted to hide the discussion, unacceptable.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality
This article's opening is complete hogwash. If written in a history exam it wouldn't even get a pass mark.

1) Stating that the party was formed in 1905 is widely disputed. Historians give different years, as different organisations (Sinn Féin Clubs, Sinn Féin, etc) used the name, or variants of the name in 1905, 1906 and 1907.

2) To say that the party was founded by Griffith in 1905 is complete nonsense. Not alone was the party started in 1905 not started by him, he actively opposed it, though outlining his vision to it while refusing to join. He only joined it later on, but as people are prone to do when a movement is successful, they backdate their supposed membership to the start when it is unambiguously shown in contemporary documents that he didn't join in 1905 and tried to strangle that organisation at birth because it threatened his own organisation, only grudgingly merging the two later on.

3) To suggest that current Sinn Féin is automatically the successor of the Sinn Féin clubs set up in 1905 is dubious. There are multiple claimants to the name, with each one claiming the other is illegitimate and a usurper and they the real Sinn Féin. (And no I am not by any means a supporter of any of the small wannabe Sinn Féins at all. I could hardly be further from their politics! But the article's opening is dumbing down history to a level which completely misleads the reader.)

4) To claim that Sinn Féin is the party of Irish Republicanism is agenda-driven propaganda. It claims to be the party of Irish republicanism. Other parties also claim that title. Sinn Féin was in fact until the end of the IRA campaign the party of "Physical force Irish Republicanism", a distinct branch within Irish Republicanism.

5) To claim Sinn Féin is left-wing is also simplistic. Many in Sinn Féin are on the right. Many are Catholic conservatives. It is what in Ireland is called a catch all party which covers the spectrum. It has adopted policies that are left of centre but which are not representative of all, or even many, in the party in all locations. Its policies in the Stormont executive, for example, are hardly left-wing. In fact the current Sinn Féin was a product of a division within "old" Sinn Féin between its Marxist left wing, which post 1970 called itself "Official Sinn Féin" and its Catholic nationalist wing, who called themselves "Provisional Sinn Féin" and each had their military wings, the "Official IRA" and the "Provisional IRA". The drift in the left in "old Sinn Féin" as captured in its publications such as An Poblacht in the 1960s, was noticeable, with references to "war" and "the British" being replaced by Marxist language and references to the Proletariat and class war.

The rest of the article is similarly simplistic, inaccurate and frequently trite. It reads in part like a propaganda sheet written by modern day Sinn Féin in which its claims about itself (as the voice of republicanism, its origins, even its date of foundation and its politics) are accepted as gospel.

It is overall a very poor, heavily POV article which is of little value to anyone looking for a fair and objective article about modern day Sinn Féin, who it is, where it came from, and what it perceives itself to be and what its opponents (which includes most of Ireland, going by all election results) perceive it to be. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So write something better. Scolaire (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And try and avoid pejorative statements such as your first line, its unnecessary & antagonistic --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Fear Eireann's additions to the article as - while they appear useful and interesting - they are more suited to the History of Sinn Féin article. I'd encourage him or her to add (and, if necessary, discuss) the material at that article. Mooretwin (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with both Scolaire and Snowded, the real trick will be for them to support their rant with sources. The addition of unsupported opinion should never be encouraged! Mooretwin, I like a number of editors have had enough of your bad faith accusations and will ignore any and all of your attempts to continue this disruptive campaign. This is Trolling plain and simple!-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  12:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, Mooretwin, but your edit has turned the opening in a seriously inaccurate and misleading introduction.

Sinn Féin is one of the most difficult organisations to discuss in an article because while most parties have a simple narrative (founded in X, by Y, has leaders Z, etc etc) Sinn Féin has no straightforward narrative and much of the publicly accepted narrative has long been discredited by historians in textbooks as little more than propaganda. (History is written by the winners. Sinn Féin was the winner from 1917 to 1923 so of course it constructed its propaganisdic narrative. Winners do that and it is no big deal. But historians have long since shown that many of the claims in that narrative were more propaganda than history, and if we are writing about a real organisation we have to use the real history as verified for decades in books and archives, not the propaganda account narrative.)

Something as simple as what year Sinn Féin was founded is not at all straightforward. Sinn Féin the party was not founded in 1905. Early twentieth century Ireland was littered with vast numbers of small competing organisations on both the Nationalist and Unionist side. Griffith's concept of "Sinn Féin" was bought into by many of these organisations, and some of those organisations came together in a loose alliance in 1905 known as "Sinn Féin clubs". Gradually they evolved into an organisation and then a party, with the party only appearing in 1907-8. Sinn Féin's use of the 1905 year as the year of its formation was a bit like Dublin's celebration of its millennium in 1988 - a useful date, but bogus history. A more accurate opening sentence should say simply that Sinn Féin emerged as a party in the first decade of the twentieth century, following the creation in 1905 of a loose alliance of clubs sharing a common vision (Griffith's Sinn Féin'' concept in 1905.

Secondly, saying Griffith was the founder of the party is entirely bunkum if one tries to suggest the party dates from 1905. Griffith like others in the many small organisations was moody and difficult. He wanted to see the smaller clubs join up to his National Council (its very name made it sound like a proto-type parliament). But those over the Sinn Féin clubs wanted it to be the other way around - that the National Council would join the other Sinn Féin clubs under the banner "Sinn Féin". He also was a man of quite bitter dislikes (if he hated you he showed it). Just at he hated Jews and hated Erskine Childers, he also hated Bulmer Hobson of the Dungannon Clubs and saw his National Council as a rival to the Dungannon Clubs. If Hobson, as was the case, was part of the new "Sinn Féin clubs" then there was no way Griffith was going to join. So through he attended the convention and outlined his vision of the concept of Sinn Féin, he didn't join, expecting the Sinn Féin clubs to join his National Council. It was only a couple of years later that Griffith and the National Council merged into what had become a new body, the "Sinn Féin organisation", creating a Sinn Féin party. In effect if you want to say the party was formed in 1905 (which is historically dubious) you can't say Griffith was its founder as he wasn't in it then. If you want to say he was its founder through the merger of the National Council and the Sinn Féin organisation then you can't use the 1905 year as the birth date of the party.

Thirdly, unlike other parties, because Sinn Féin was riven with splits, breakaways and rival claimants to the name, you cannot say, as the opening implies, that there is one simple narrative A to B for the party. You have got to explain that Sinn Féin was a blurred mix of concept, organisation and authority, with different bodies claiming inheritance of different aspects. (Cumann na nGaedhael, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Clann na Poblachta, Saor Éire and others claimed to inherit or concept or embody it. Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin each claimed ownership of the organisation post 1970 - hence the Official's use of "Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place)" name for a while to show that they had control of the HQ and the leadership and therefore de jure they were the real Sinn Féin. Following the 1986 split both modern Sinn Féin (the descendant of Provisional Sinn Féin, the ultimate winner of the battle with Official Sinn Féin for the Sinn Féin mantle) and Republican Sinn Féin claim the authority of the original party, RSF producing a member of the Second Dáil to validate its claim to the authority of Sinn Féin and so was the real Sinn Féin even if Sinn Féin (Provisional Sinn Féin as it continued to refer to it as) had control of the organisation.

You cannot not mention that Sinn Féin has a convoluted and complex history, involving different claimants to different aspects of it, in the opening, without reducing the opening to little more than a progaganda piece for one side of a complicated process.

To suggest that Sinn Féin "is associated" with the PIRA is a bit like associated with saying that Haiti in 2010 "was associated" with an earthquake or Pope Benedict "is assocated" with the Catholic Church. It is weasal words. Even Sinn Féin uses stronger terminology to describe the relationship.

To call Sinn Féin the "major party" of Irish Republicanism is patent nonsense. It is one of a number of Irish parties associated with Irish Republicanism, and not the biggest. Sinn Féin's major was being associated with a branch of Irish Republicanism known as "physical force Irish Republicanism". So either it is "a" party associated with Irish Republicanism, or was traditionally "the" party of physical force Irish republicanism. To state that it is "the" party of Irish Republicanism is POV, accepting the party's self-definition of itself as the correct definition and so declaring that all other views, including what was shown in all elections to be the view of the vast majority of Irish people, is wrong.

Calling Sinn Féin left wing is also dubious. It is a self-definition, but the party has veered all over the place electorally, and seen divisions between left and right (the 1970 split was between the Marxist left wing leadership and the less ideological, more right wing conservative elements, with the former becoming Official Sinn Féin before veering away from Republicanism totally as the Workers Party, and the latter becoming Provisional Sinn Féin - the use of the 'Provisional' name BTW by that wing was deliberate. Just as the 'Provisional Government of the Irish Republic' in 1916 was meant to seize power from the British in 1916, so "Provisional Sinn Féin" was meant to seize control of the party back from the leadership and return it from Marxism to traditional MOR republicanism not was non-ideological. Later on the leadership of PSF/SF moved more towards Marxism but large parts of the party regard it as nonsense with some elements far far to the right economically, socially and 'morally' - hence the elements who would be on the religious right of the Catholic Church and are attracted to Tridentine Catholicism and oppose not merely abortion (as do many MOR members) but also divorce, gay rights, and weakening of the Catholic Church's power.

Finally the paragraph about its electoral standing is utterly POV. It operates in two internationally recognised jurisdictions (whether they should be separate jurisdictions is a different point, but not relevant as to declare international law wrong is POV and we can't do that). In one jurisdiction it is the largest Nationalist Party, in the other a small fringe party. It serves in cabinet in one. It is in near meltdown state in the other, with mass resignations and poor election results, including in what is the most potentially favourable environment imaginable - the collapse and/or discrediting of the symbols of capitalism in the south and savage cuts that will strengthen alienation. Yet unlike the other two Southern opposition parties (who have seen their support increase by circa 50%) Sinn Féin has at best increased marginally, and has seen nearly half its Dublin City Councillors defect. Your paragraph implies that Sinn Féin is successful. In practice it is successful on one part of the island and in dire trouble on the other. If you are going to give an indication of its electoral strength in the opening it has to be an accurate one, not a propagandistic one that is demonstrably false and misleading to the reader.

How you solve such complex issues as when exactly it appeared, how ownership of the original concept, organisation and authority has been disputed, leading to breakaways, how it is officially left wing but in reality more of a traditional 'catch-all' Irish party with people across the spectrum in it, and how you describe its two rival electoral performances North and South, all in a short opening, is difficult to answer. The opening needs to be short, but not dumbed down with superficialities so as to make it totally unreliable to the reader. The problem with Sinn Féin is that, more than almost any other party, nothing about it is straight. Ultimately the existing opening is so littered with superficialities, "everyone knows" presumptions that actually have long been shown to be wrong and generalities as to a totally inadequate source of even basic information for someone trying to find information about what exactly is this "Sinn Féin" they hear about. The existing opening to re-inserted will tell them little that is accurate, and a lot that isn't and is not trustworthy as a result. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The solution, in my view, is to keep this article about the current SF, i.e. PSF, thereby restricting it to post-1970 and deal with all those historical problems in the History of Sinn Féin article. To do otherwise is to present the current party as the singular continuation of the pre-split party, which would contravene NPOV. Would you agree? Mooretwin (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, but only workable if it then dates the current SF from 1970, not 1905. If it says SF dates from 1905 then it has to raise what happened between 1905 and 1970. One problem that arises sometimes in general is that Sinn Féin chooses to date itself from 1970 but still have a right to pick and choose the bits wants to mention from pre-1970 while leaving out the bits it wants left out, and mentions of others it wants left out. So it has to be clear that this article is about the version of Sinn Féin that dates from 1970 and pre-1970 Sinn Féin is in an entirely different but linked article. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how it should be. That's what the sources support. But if you read the discussion here (including the archives) you'll see that there is a group of editors who won't accept the sources. Currently this article is deliberately ambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting input Fear, thaks for taking the time to articulate these points. We look forward to your continued participation in the article. --BwB (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice piece of OR Fear. BigDunc  13:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward
I've applied WP:BRD here, its important that changes that are controversial are discussed here first. I think looking through the edits that we need to look at it like thisL --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Issue of Griffin as founder and the two year date variation
 * Major party of republican issue
 * Degree to which the material belongs here or in the history article (detailed discussion of names in the 1970s etc)
 * Election success or otherwise, needs to be established and some moved to the main body, just too much is now being proposed for the lede


 * I have already explained in detail the factual basis for all of that, twice but no-one responded. As no-one could be bothered to respond I tried, twice, to fix the frankly appallingly inaccurate and biased opening of the article, probably the single worst opening paragraphs of any article on any Irish party on Wikipedia. As to elections, either nothing about elections should go in, or everything. Only putting in the convenient good bits of results and leaving out the bad bits would be blatant POV. It is like writing about George H Bush being elected US president in 1988 but leaving out of the opening the rather important imformation that he was defeated in 1992!


 * Just in case someone suspects it, BTW, while I am not a Sinn Féin supporter I am not trying to attack the party at all. I am only interested in accuracy and the opening of the article is highly inaccurate. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope we are all interested in accuracy. I also hope we can avoid general accusations of bias, its not likely to help progress,  Hostile attacks on an article where a lot of editors have been in good fait edits is not a good idea.  It also might explain why you didn't get an instant response.  My suggestion  above is to split this into three issues, agree changes here then implement them.  Incidentally I hope you don't mind but I indented your comments.--<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are this and this not two reverts in an hour? And was Fear Éireann not informed of 1RR last night? Scolaire (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a difference in the text so technically its ambiguous. I suggest the benefit of the doubt and hope we get some willingness to discuss things there.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  22:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded we all know what a revert is! "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". So technically its not at all ambiguous. Fear Éireann was informed of 1RR last night? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the edit itself, I would have to say that I am desperately disappointed with the sourcing, or rather the lack of it, especially from someone who presumes to lecture us on how to write an article. There's a truckload of footnotes, but the great majority of them are only further commentary.  He cites the RSF website, Socialistdemocracy.org and Slugger O'Toole?  I can't believe that even in FÉ's heyday - and that was a long time ago in terms of WP's quality standards - they would have been considered as reliable sources.  He references a total of two books, but omits the page numbers!  And of course, for statements that he would know are controversial if he had given more than a cursory glance at the talk page, such as "the latter called themselves Provisional Sinn Féin", there is no citation at all.  Overall, if I saw this in a history exam I would say "must try harder".  Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the edit could be interpreted as an attempt to produce a different version. I don;t think its worth making a fuss about, he hasn't been around these pages for a bit.  Lets see if he engages on the talk page. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  22:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's very much worth making a fuss about! This is no innocent newbie, it is a former admin, who knows well the meaning of revert, who had 1RR explained to him, and who has made no pretence of coming here to collaborate with other editors.  I am for making a fuss.  Scolaire (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are always for making a fuss, to get your own agenda. I didn't revert anything. I tried to save something, couldn't and tried again. I didn't know until long afterwards when I looked at the list of saves that someone had done an edit while I was editing and that was the reason my first attempt at saving didn't work. (If it showed up that someone had edited it, sorry I didn't see it. I haven't been here in a long time and am still trying to remember some of the technical stuff.) But then, why rely on facts when you can get up on your cross and pose? Next time try checking with people first before throwing blame around. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  23:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not still giving us the "crappy internet connection" excuse after four years, are you? Unreal! Scolaire (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some things never change. And still highjacking articles to push your personal agenda. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  23:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you two have a prior history? Jtdirl, virtually every comment you have made since you arrived here has contained abusive language.  Would you please cool it, and deal with content please.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  23:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I am in bed ill right now and to but it mildly it a bad mood - I am not as they say a good patient, so my temper is a little fraught. I was more than a little annoyed with Scolaire's repeated comments. I didn't deliberately revert anything. I tried to save something, couldn't and then tried again and it saved. I didn't know until long afterwards that there had been an intervening edit. Scolaire seems not to accept that, or accept my good faith in editing this article, or indeed seem to accept the right of anyone to propose edits he doesn't approve of. Looking on the edits here he seems to have rows with a number of people who tried to make edits. There are on some Irish articles (for some reason primarily linked to republican topics) some editors who stand guard to defend articles from any deviation in their personal viewpoint, and Scolaire seems to me to be one of those. If I am misjudging him I apologise but a glance at the history here suggests that. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Editing while ill is always hazardous, but I think you need to make that second apology for misjudgment now. Scolaire puts in a lot of detailed work on a range of articles and is scrupulous in his use of references. It would be better if you addressed the content issues relating to the references you used rather than making general statements about the editor. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  06:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed Snowded its all about accuracy! Therefore it should be explained why this is not considered to be both verifiable and reliable source.


 * Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Ireland: The Sinn Fein Party, 1916-1923, Cambridge University Press, 1999. Griffith's difficult relationship with Bulmer Hobson of the Dungannon Clubs, and a series of other personality clashes meant that though the concept was his, and he addressed its first convention, Griffith did not join the party until later, and used the name Sinn Féin for his own newspaper in 1906 to try to reclaim the name for his own use and take it away from Hobson.< /ref >


 * Now lets have the page numbers and the quotes to support this commentary. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I currently am in bed with swine flu and can't add in the precise references until I can get into my office at work and get my copy of Laffan's book, which is in there. I have hundreds of history books at home, but that one happens to be in my office. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  23:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we not make a fuss about this editor suggesting more reverts despite being warned already? Or what about their latest attempt to start the discussion all over again? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to put the content of the article above ad before the editors. Message not the messenger.  If there are different viewpoints, then lets discuss the content here by providing the detailed sources and discuss their merits before making the changes to the article.  And it is natural to have strong views on any subject, but we need to try to work with Wiki policies and guidlines when making decision about content, not our personal viewpoint or opinion. --BwB (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the Laffan book is concerned, I've had a read of it today in in my opinion none of the statements made in the edit are a fair reflection of what the book says. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree! I have the Laffan book also. However, Laffan is only one of hundreds of history books the editor has at home surly some of them can support Laffan? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If anybody is interested, I have opened a discussion on the 1905-8 'foundation' question at the History of Sinn Féin talk page. --Scolaire (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

'European Parliament' in bar charts
We need either to reach agreement on how the European Parliament is dealt with in the bar charts, or to delete it. The situation at the moment, where one constituency (NI) is shown, is arbitrary and not especially meaningful. Previously it was done on an all-Ireland basis, but what's to stop somebody from saying it should be done on an all-UK basis? Or that they have one seat out of 736 in the Parliament? What is it meant to show, anyway? If it is meant to show voting strength, then it should show the figure for the EUL-NGL (35/736), because that's who they vote with. If it is meant to show electoral support, then it can't be shown in a single bar, because they stand in multiple constituencies in two different jurisdictions. How it's done on "other party articles" is the least useful criterion of all. Who's to say if it's done right on other articles, or whether what is appropriate for one is automatically appropriate for all? Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the EUL-NGL figure is the worst of all worlds as that's a wider coalition not the party itself. The European Parliament groups are a very long way from a single disciplined coherent party and usually when the interests of the national party conflict with the grouping, the former has the stronger pull on how the MEP votes. The infoboxes for all the other Irish or UK parties with MEPs show only the number of MEPs the party itself has, not the wider grouping. Perhaps two bars for the two jurisdictions is the best solution? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you do that? Then we can see if other editors have anything to say about it.  Scolaire (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Scol. Let's get rid of the charts. Perhaps a couple of lines of text summarising the SF results would suffice? --BwB (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah! Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing. I said before that we should get rid of the tables in the 'Electoral Performance' sections of the article proper.  I'm not proposing doing away with the bar charts in the infobox; I only said that we might have to lose the European Parliament if we couldn't agree on what it should show.  Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1/736 is technically accurate rather meaningless as SF only contests seats in the 5 EP constituencies on the island of Ireland (Dublin, East, South, North-West and Northern Ireland). 1/15 is more accurate but how many readers will know that the 15 refers the island of Ireland EP seats (maybe in a footnote). I note that for the House of Commons the figure is 5/18 not 5/646 since SF only contest seats for HoC in NI. 35/746 for EUL-NGL is meaningless here. These boxes are designed for national parties and as SF is a transnational party, it often doesn't fit. The simplest solution would be to have 'Party seats / Total seats in body', so 5/646 and 1/736 for HoC and EP respectively. Snappy (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sinn Féin is an all Ireland Party, in fact it is the only all Ireland Party so why not treat it as such. Were clarification is needed add it. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, Sinn Féin in NOT the only all Ireland Party. The Green Party, the Workers Party of Ireland, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, People Before Profit Alliance, Communist Party of Ireland, Irish Socialist Network, Irish Republican Socialist Party and Eirigi are all organised on an All Ireland basis. Fianna Fail is also organising in Northern Ireland. Snappy (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sinn Féin do not represent any EP constituency in Ireland, so surely 1/3 bar should remain. NB info on where Sinn Féin contested isn't necessary in the infobox - just where they were successful.--Chromenano (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think 1/3 would be best. Snappy (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as I thought, then: there is not even the beginnings of a consensus on this. All but one (the deliberately off-the-wall one) of my five options has somebody's support, and one editor is simultaneously supporting 1/736 and 1/3. The EP bar should be taken out of the infobox of this article unless and until there is some convergence of views. Scolaire (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am supporting 1/3, just to make that clear. I said 1/736 was accurate if you also had 5/646. They have 1 seat in Northern Ireland EP constituency, just as they have 5 BHoC seats of the 18 they contest. Also, there is non consensus to remove it. Snappy (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead mate! --BwB (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed the EP section to 1/3 as per emerging consensus here. Snappy (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let the emerging consensus emerge first seems to be normal. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with the UK parliament bar-chart, the other N. Irish parties are shown as a proportion of the UK total, but SF is shown as a proportion of the N. Irish total FOARP (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just put (Irish seats) as done for the Welsh ones in the Plaid Cymru article.--<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)  15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gerry McHugh
Since Gerry McHugh left the Sinn Féin and joined Fianna Fail, it now has 27 MLAs. The chart in the right-hand column needs to be adjusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.253.24 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Give a source to say 27. Did you get it from a newspaper or...? <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As there are sources that McHugh quit SF and now sits as an independent it's not really necessary for the ip to do that per OR as 28 minus 1 makes 27. Also in this case primary sources are acceptable as there isn't a dispute over it. 27 here or here for example. The main question is if we're going to update those figures every time someone defects/resigns as then we have to keep updating it for local councillors. Much easier is to just make clear in the infobox by means of a footnote or whatever that those were the results of most recent relevant election. Valenciano (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Denis Donaldson
I have begun a rewrite of the 1983 to present section of the history. I feel that, while the Denis Donaldson story is important in itself, it is not sufficiently important to merit a full paragraph in an abbreviated history of the party. I propose either to take it altogether or to mention it briefly when talking about the collapse of the Assembly (which is not currently dealt with in the history at all). Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mention it briefly as you suggest. --BwB (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving content to "History of Sinn Féin"
I have partially reverted these edits of 7 July, and I think a word of explanation is warranted. First, the extra detail is more suited to History of Sinn Féin than this section, which is only a brief summary, so I have merged it in there. The phrase "extreme socialism" is also in the Bowyer Bell book, so it is not necessary to add the extra citation. In the interests of WP:NOR it is probably best not to link this phrase to either Marxism or Stalinism. Also, Hanley and Millar have the dates of the Ard Fheis wrong: Saturday was the 10th of January and Sunday the 11th. Again, Bowyer Bell has the correct dates. Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of pictures
I have started a discussion on images of pictures at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. --Scolaire (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)