Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9

Seanad in info box
My understanding is that when a sitting Senator is elected to the Dáil they vacate their Seanad seat and it's eventually filled either by the Taoiseach making a new nomination or the university holding a by-election or for the panel members the Oireachtas members only voting in a by-election. Doherty's Senate seat has been vacant since he was elected to the Dáil but Seanad by-elections appear to take a age to happen - see Members of the 23rd Seanad (and also the vacancies seem to be filled one by one - look at the Agricultural Panel vacancies in 2009). Whereas Taoiseach vacancies in the lame duck period between a Dáil & Seanad seem to get filled instantly, other seats seemingly stay vacant for the last stage of that Seanad's life. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seanad seats are the same as Dáil seats: in principle they are filled promptly in the lifetime of the Oireachtas, but it can be dragged out if the government so decides. Traditionally, once the Dáil is dissolved, Seanad seats are not filled before the Seanad election, but Brian Cowen broke with that tradition while he was still Taoiseach. Personally, I hope the Seanad will be abolished in the lifetime of this government, but that is not a matter for the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking through the Seanad lists it seems Cowen had precedent on his side and often there have been new nominees at the end - see Members of the 20th Seanad for this happening when the government changed. But that's not a matter for this article yet. The key point here is that Sinn Féin currently have no Seanad seat. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sinn Fein have no Seanad seat at present. From Pearse Doherty's Oireachtas members database page "Senator Doherty vacated his seat in the 23rd Seanad on his election to the 30th Dáil at the by-election held on 25 November 2010 consequent on the election of Deputy Pat 'the Cope' Gallagher to the European Parliament." Snappy (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

1905 or 1970?
I notice that the article is in both Category:Political parties established in 1905 and Category:Political parties established in 1970. This tends to mislead the reader, as both cannot be accurate. Which is it? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to look in the archives. This is a controversial issue relating to whether or not there is continuity of identity following the official/provisional split.  Current version is the agreed compromise -- Snowded  TALK  03:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An agreed compromise that offers readers two pieces of information, presented as fact, that cannot possibly both be accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just the way it is. Conflicting sources for 1905 & 1970, brought about the compromise. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see how having two categories "tends to mislead the reader". It may confuse the reader, if the reader doesn't want to read the article and find out what actually happened. But to mislead the reader it would have to convince him or her that the organisation was established simultaneously in two different years, and you can't do that with a category alone, you need to work a bit harder than that. Categories are not "pieces of information, presented as fact", they are systems for categorising things. Now, the opening paragraph says it all for anyone who cares to read it: "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." Sinn Féin was established in 1905; Sinn Féin split in 1970 with one of the resulting two parties being the Sinn Féin of today. Hence, two dates for its establishment - confusing, maybe; a compromise, maybe; but perfectly reasonable. Scolaire (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, confusing and compromised. I'd say remove both categories. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, its a good compromise and is easily understood on the most cursory of readings. -- Snowded  TALK  23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The obvious question: why does the 1970 split count as an establishment of the party, and not the previous splits? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussed to death last time - suggest you look in the archives -- Snowded TALK  04:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW when Snowded says "the archives" he means Archives 3 to 8, inclusive. Each archive is over 100kb in length. When he says "discussed to death", that is not hyperbole! Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Founding date in infobox
I just restored the agreed version of the infobox to state current party formed 1970 and original 1905, only to be reverted by Mo Ainm with the question "where was this agreed?". The answer to his question is as above - see Archives 3 to 8. This was the agreed version until it was changed by Domer48 on 14th June and it needs to be restored now. Mooretwin (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Restored. Only Mo and Domer objected at that time, though numerous editors were in favour of a two date solution. I only just noticed that that had disappeared from the infobox. Sticking a cite needed on something, then removing it the following day is very bad form, especially when you've participated in discussions where such cites were provided. Valenciano (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How many elections have "Provisional" Sinn Féin been involved in? Is there such a Party called "Provisional" Sinn Féin, if so provide sources?-- Domer48 'fenian'  23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There are three books which will have to be dismissed before the logic of what is being suggest can be applyed. They are:
 * Sinn Féin - 1905-2005 In The Shadow Of Gunmen, Rafter, Kevin, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 2005, ISBN 0-7171-3992-1
 * Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years, Brian Feeney, O'Brien Press, Dublin 2002, ISBN 0 86278 695 9
 * Sinn Féin: A Century of Struggle, Parnell Publications, Mícheál MacDonncha, 2005, ISBN 0 9542946 2 9

In addition we also have:
 * A New Dictionary of Irish History From 1800, D.J. Hickey & J.E. Doherty, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 2003, ISBN 0 7171 2520 3
 * Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, London (Revised Edition 2005), ISBN 0 349 11676 8
 * The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000, Diarmaid Ferriter, Profile Books, London 2005, ISBN 978 1 861974 43 3
 * Eyewitness to Irish History, Peter Berresford Ellis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Canada 2004, ISBN 0 471 26633 7

Unless editors would like to put forward books which dispute the authors listed above. The history of Sinn Féin begins in 1905 with Griffith and continues to today with Adams. That is what the sources say, has any authors disputed this?-- Domer48 'fenian'  23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you pretending to be unaware of the numerous sources provided during the previous discussion about this? And why are you citing Rafter and Feeney again, when you know that both actually say the party was formed in 1970?! Read the archives for the many, many sources that were provided. Or do you really want me to post them all again? Mooretwin (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide these numerous sources, and support your comments on Rafter and Feeney. As to your bad faith assumptions on me, I suggest you stop.-- Domer48 'fenian'  07:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here we go....
 * 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) Valenciano (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. You left out Domer's own selected source of Feeney (Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years, Brian Feeney, O'Brien Press, Dublin 2002, ISBN 0 86278 695 9!) ...


 * 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 (p.251); Others both inside and outside the movement viewed the Provisionals as a dangerous backward looking offshoot from a republican movement that had spent the best part of ten years trying to jettison irredentist violence and rhetoric. Mooretwin (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely everybody can agree that the last thing this article needs is another talk page source-war going on for another 18 months and another 600kb! And all over four digits in the infobox! There was agreement reached here that there was a consensus for this version, with a compromise intro and a compromise infobox. A compromise is necessary because the sources indicating some sort of continuity and the sources indicating de novo formation in 1970 have equal claim to validity. There is no evidence that consensus has changed. We need to go back to the compromise wording, and without refs, which only muddy the waters. Scolaire (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen to that! Valenciano (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell it to Domer! He must have a bad memory, because surely he wouldn't be so disingenuous as to pretend he couldn't remember the long discussions, to which he was party. Mooretwin (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a personal attack, pure and simple! It can have no possible purpose except to provoke, and thus re-ignite the word war Valenciano and I are trying to prevent. Please remain civil, and comment on edits not editors. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny that the actual provocation and the re-ignition of the war - i.e. Domer's attempts to overturn consensus - didn't prompt any words of scorn from yourself, yet the response to it did. At least try to be even-handed in your comments, please. Mooretwin (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Mo ainm's comments were directed at you. I didn't "remind him of civil" or restore any uncivil comments here. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Two Lead Paragraphs are Confusing to Novice on this topic
The first paragraph mentions Sinn Fein in the parliament of Ireland. The second paragraph is about Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. So Sinn Fein is a party which operates in two countries? Do I understand correctly? If this is the case, then this situation must be quite unique in the world. And if this is the case, I think a lead sentence should state the dual political activity more clearly. But maybe I completely misunderstood the intent? Thanks for clarifying this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.245.231 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right, there are elected Sinn Féin representatives in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. They would not say that they "operate in two countries": their philosophy is that Ireland is one country. It also reflects the historical fact that when the original Sinn Féin was founded in 1905 the island had not yet been divided. So you could say it's not that Sinn Féin made a decision to operate in two jurisdictions, they just never decided to stop doing so after partition. Iota (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think another example might be the Ba'ath Party who used to operate in both Syria and Iraq. They wanted the whole Arab world to become one country. As a nationalist and socialist party it has some superficial similarities to Sinn Féin. But I think it eventually split into two separate Syrian and Iraqi parties that didn't like each other very much. Iota (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Once sentence.
"The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA"- Yet I see nothing about how the party has/is continuing to distance itself from the IRA? I think this should be mentioned directly after this sentence. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, "has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA" does not mean "is no longer associated with the Provisional IRA". It may be or it may not be. To say that it is or is not, you would need to have reliable sources. Does it matter whether it is currently associated or not, given that the IRA is inactive since 2005? The historical association (which is not dealt with well in the article IMO) is what is relevant. Scolaire (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for explaining it to me, makes sense now. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reunification/Unification
Should Sinn Fein ideology be described as 'reunification' or 'unification'? I don't know. 'Partition' would suggest 'reunification', but I don't think the island of Ireland has ever had a single government which would suggest 'unification'. Maybe it's simply best left to how Sinn Fein choose to desribe it as its their ideology and I think most readers would get the gist from either term. --Flexdream (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed SF claim reunification of Ireland as one of their aims. Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but Ireland has never been united under one single political entity. To say otherwise is not adhering to the neutral point of view rules that wikipedia maintains. You guys seem to only request the 1RR rules when the article in question is written in your point of view. Also prehaps you should the change the wiki article "United Ireland" to "Reunited Ireland" if it is indeed a reunification. Alssa1 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there was never a 32 county Ireland? Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that it is not correct to use the term Reunification when referring to a union with North and South Ireland. Alssa1 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a couple of sources to get you started, Irish TimesThe GuardianThe Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism By Timothy Shanahan pg.88Irish Political Studies Reader: Key Contributions By Conor McGrath pg.170Northern Ireland: Conflict and Change By Jonathan Tonge pg. 207, are you saying these sources are wrong? If so provide a reference to support your comments. -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Googleing the phrase "Irish reunification" and then posting the result is not evidence in support of your claims anyone can do that, especially with such a contentious topic. Here are some sources of my own: Northern Ireland and the Divided World, Northern Ireland and the Divided World, Settling Self-Determination Disputes. Are YOU saying these sources are wrong? The point that I am trying to make is that technically, Ireland has never been united under a single political unit. Therefore the term would be Unification. Alssa1 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the sources I've quoted, i.e. context! None of which can be considered Republican POV. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you read some of my sources, i.e. the context or at least nip down to a good bookshop and have a read. We are not debating Republicanism vs Unionism, do you honestly believe I would post a source that would have such political leanings? Some of the authors are from the South! I am debating whether it is correct to refer to it as Reunification when rather than Ireland being divided, the 26 counties of the South seceded from the UK. It would therefore be a unification with the North. Reunification would refer to a Reunification with Britain. Alssa1 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well you just provide a reference to support your theory/opinion and post it here. So what your looking for is a source that says its incorrect to use the term reunification because......? -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You provide a reference that supports your opinion that is wrong to use the term Unification when you are talking of a united Ireland. What YOU will be looking for is a source that states specifically that it is incorrect to use the term "unification" for one reason or another. Do note that the page "United Ireland" is titled as "United" rather than "Re-United". Alssa1 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is you who said that you were "debating whether it is correct to refer to it as Reunification" so provide sources to challenge its use. Plenty of sources to support its use, however I doubt you'll find many to support your opinion that "Reunification would refer to a Reunification with Britain." Good luck with that though. -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so we have established that there exist published sources that use the word "re-unification" (or "reunification") and others that use the word "unification". My guess is that if we totted them all up "re-unification" would be by far the more frequent, but that is not a good road to go down! What it comes down to is that "re-unification" has conventionally been used in this article, and there would need to be an over-riding reason for changing it. A glance at Domer's sources suggests that there is not: it is in frequent use in Irish and British media and in reputable books. As Flexdream pointed out, partition means "the division of a territory into two or more autonomous ones", and since Ireland was divided in 1920, it can be re-united. As to why "United Ireland" is titled as "United", again it is because that is how it is referred to in the literature. Nothing strange there. Scolaire (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The term Reunification is a politically biased term, which goes against one of the pillars of Wikipedia ("We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner."). Many people disagree with the term Reunification; and I am sure I am not the only person who has argued for a change to the use of term "unification" over the biased term "re-unification". To claim that a number of sources use "re-unification" and that proves your point is a total fallacy. It is our duty as Wikipedia editors to provide correct information to the general public and to make sure that contentious information is phrased in the most neutral way possible. Even if it is the simple use of words.
 * You guys clearly have a particular set of beliefs that are in conflict with my own, so I shall make a suggestion: Shall we all be adults and find a term that is as neutral as possible and something we can all commit to? Alssa1 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is yet another complete change of tack! Your objection was supposedly because "reunification" was factually incorrect. When that was answered you switched to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and United Ireland. Then it was back to "the point that I am trying to make is that technically, Ireland has never been united under a single political unit." Then you said that "we are not debating Republicanism vs Unionism". Now all of a sudden "the term Reunification is a politically biased term". I suggest to you that it is you who are politically biased, and that you are disputing a term that is used alike by Irish, British and American writers purely so that you can make a political point. And, by the way, suggesting we are not behaving like adults is not cool! Your points have been answered, one by one. You have been treated respectfully when it would have been easy for us to allow ourselves to be provoked. Please stop being disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not being disruptive, I have a clear grievance for perfectly valid and fair reasons and not only that, I am not the only one who has had a problem with it. My grievance with the use of "re-unification" is for many different reasons (as you have so aptly pointed out). I still believe it is not factually correct to use the term "re-unification" when referring to a union with the south, for many reasons. But I admit that is determined by both my historical knowledge and my political beliefs. However I decided to change point by also suggesting that it is bias in favour your politics to use "re-unification" simply because it is a point of contention, and one that has arisen before. I therefore suggested that we all be adults and find a phrase that expresses both opinions and does have a bias in favour of a particular opinion. The fact is I have not been treated respectfully. You have put some complaint process up against me simply because I do not follow the accepted view of the Irish Republicanism wiki project. Alssa1 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As you say yourself that "one of the pillars of Wikipedia ("We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner.") Which means that your edits must not be based on your "historical knowledge" or your "political beliefs" but by reliable published sources. Please do accuse editors of political bias.-- Domer48 'fenian'  22:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. You're biased! — Jon C.  ॐ  16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Per Personal attacks: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.  Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  16:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Now you don't want me to accuse editors of political bias? Please make up your mind, this is all very confusing. — Jon C.  ॐ  16:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you have not been reading what I have been writing. There are quite clear sources that I have posted that use the term "unification" rather than "re-unification". Do you believe that the "re-unification" is an unbiased term? Alssa1 (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "That may be, but Ireland has never been united under one single political entity. To say otherwise is not adhering to the neutral point of view rules that wikipedia maintains. You guys seem to only request the 1RR rules when the article in question is written in your point of view. Also prehaps you should the change the wiki article "United Ireland" to "Reunited Ireland" if it is indeed a reunification. Alssa1 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)"


 * I'm inclined to disagree simply as Ireland was united as a single political entity as the Kingdom of Ireland and as a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland where despite becoming part of a sovereign state (the UK), it still virtually had its own government based at Leinster House. Mabuska (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Alssa1. I firmly believe you are barking up the wrong tree with this one.  Let me try and put it in my terms.  As has been pointed out; Ireland was one nation within the United KIngdom when is was "partitioned" under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act.  If a partitioned country decides to merge the 2 (or more) portions together again that is "re-unification".  I agree it's all in the wording but the UK and Ireland's position on the terminology would be the same.  It would be unification but it would be a re-unification of a country which was previously one entity.  I respectfully but strongly point out that you should drop this issue now until you discover more about editing on contentious issues and I mean that in the kindest of fashions butti.  Please feel free to communicate with me for any further advice on the matter. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edits
The article has been remarkably stable for the last year or two. I would like to propose a couple of edits that I feel ought to be uncontroversial, but that might have led (and indeed did lead) to POV wars in the past. The proposals are purely for the purpose of tidying the article, not to slant it in any way: Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no need for a separate section to list "Parties with origins in Sinn Féin". Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil, Official Sinn Féin and Republican Sinn Féin are all dealt with in the "History" section. Fine Gael, The Workers' Party, 32 County Sovereignty Movement and Éirígí could be similarly dealt with, by merging the section text into the "History" section, and the list would become redundant. The Clann na Poblachta article says nothing about it having its origins in Sinn Féin (I think it would be truer to say it had its origins in the IRA), so I'm not sure it belongs here at all.
 * 2) For the same reason, I can't see why the "Leadership history" section needs to be periodically interrupted to say "There was a split in 19xx." Splits are adequately dealt with in the "History" section; "Leadership history" only needs to be a list of leaders. Alternatively (or additionally), where a split involved the departure of the current leader, the information could be moved to the same line as the relevant leader, e.g. "* Éamon de Valera (1917–1926) – resigned from Sinn Féin in 1926 and launched Fianna Fáil".

Expand
Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use encyclopedias etcetera. It has a number of MPs, and demands more devolution type things, so it needs to be discussed. A number of individuals in the relevant part of the United Kingdom find this group very popular, which is an issue etcetera. More on the links with the IRA, specific issues, history etcetera. I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 62.249.253.113 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon


 * That's a lot of etceteras! Also, your link shows that you have a lot of posts on topix.net, but off-hand I can't see any that are relevant to Sinn Féin. Any specific suggestions you have would be welcome. FWIW, my own view is that the article would benefit from being radically reduced, rather than expanded. If all the cruft was removed, we might be in a better position to see what areas could do with more detail. Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Euroscepticism
I don't think anybody doubts that Sinn Féin is sceptical of the EU and its institutions, but is it really true to say that its ideology is Euroscepticism? If you think Sinn Féin you think republican and you think left-wing. That's its ideology. Euroscepticism is worth a mention in the article, but I don't think it should be in the infobox. There are two citations in the infobox: one describes SF as "the only Eurosceptic party with seats in the Irish parliament" and the other says of the GUE/NGL – of which SF is a member: "Broadly Eurosceptic, the group takes a strong position on areas such as workers' rights and employment law." Neither says that Euroscepticism is the ideology of SF or the GUE/NGL, only that it's part of their policy. Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is left and right-wing euroscepticism. Most of the eurosceptic parties in the north belong to the right, but in the south of europe or in the European periphery eurospepticism comes from the left. F.e. the Greek KKE, partially SYRIZA et al... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.17.238 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism?
Isn't the party's ideology also left-wing nationalist?--Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A source ('nationalist', 'anti-establishment') to offer:. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The infobox currently says "Irish republicanism" (i.e. nationalist) and "democratic socialism" (i.e. left-wing). There is no need for a third description that does nothing more than restate the first two. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For a non-Irish reader like me, Republicanism and Nationalism are not synonymous terms. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for interest, whay would you open a new section to suggest an edit, and then add something completely different without any prior discussion? Scolaire (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FF is labelled as populist on Wikipedia; SDLP is labelled as nationalist. In that light I can't see how SF could be classified here any other way than both populist and nationalist, too.--Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not going to start editing the Fianna Fáil or Social Democratic and Labour Party articles, but I disagree with the infoboxes on both of them as well. The Fianna Fáil one is particularly egregious. The ideology field is intended as a succinct statement of what the party stands for; it is not meant to be a laundry list of things that people have said about the party. If a number of sources (say, two) accused a Northern Ireland party of being sectarian, would you put "sectarianism" in the infobox as their ideology? Or "racism" for an American party in similar circumstances?
 * I don't do edit wars, so you can add as many silly "ideologies" as you want without further interference from me. I'm just going to register my total disagreement and leave it at that. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or add extra sources. Nothing like lots of square brackets to really clutter up an infobox! Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Populist?
In the simple non-pejorative definition of populism where one adheres to the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite than yes Sinn Féin meets that definition. But the fact is those principle and the doctrine itselfs falls under Irish republicanism and socialism. ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * But at any rate, as I pointed out in my edit summary of 24 June, whether Sinn Féin meets the definition of populism is not the question. It is whether that is Sinn Féin's ideology. Populism is defined as "a political doctrine where one sides with 'the people' against 'the elites'." Political doctrine clearly states, "The term political doctrine is sometimes wrongly identified with political ideology." Therefore, populism is not Sinn Féin's ideology, whether they meet the definition or not. Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Therefore, populism is not Sinn Féin's ideology, whether they meet the definition or no - pure WP:SYNTH. Per policy, we should reflect how reliable sources qualify the party. I've tried to do so and got rebuffed by you two. As it all seems to boil down to certain SF lobbyists' unwillingness to accept facts, deny the obvious and attempts to occupy the article, I think I'll leave it as it is. I've removed the article from my watchlist. Slán.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Next time engage in constructive discussion to build consensus with all parties before you decide to ignore that and edit war instead. You should practice to assume good faith of other editors, stop being civil and making accusations of people being "lobbyists".


 * I also advise you to stop launching malicious and unfounded sockpuppet investigation and claims of other editors just because you don't like their opinions. Slán. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A number of reliable sources connect Sinn Fein to populism. Here's one from Rueters. There are many others.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Like everyone before you, you are neglecting to read what I say. "Connecting" Sinn Féin to populism does not make populism the (or an) ideology of the party. If you want to edit some section of the article proper to say that Reuters sees SF as a "mixture of left-leaning populism and nationalism", and you think that will be an encyclopaedic edit and of genuine interest to readers, then be bold and do it. But the infobox has a purpose, and that purpose is not to say what some news agencies say about the topic of the article. It's as simple as that. Scolaire (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You really told me. Problem is I didn't suggest it was there political ideology or that it should be in the infobox. Be bold? You can't be bold in an article run by Tag team ownership.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole of the foregoing discussion was about the addition of "populist" to the Ideology field of the infobox. I assumed you knew what the discussion was about before you weighed in. So you don't want to be bold? You only came to the talk page to accuse us all of tag-teaming? Fair enough, but I can't see why you'd waste your time and ours with that. Scolaire (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again you really told me!!! It doesn't matter how frame a conversation when your using that to shut down conversation. Is this what you did for everyone before me? Don't want to be bold? That's not what I said. I don't want an excercise in futility. While you may lay question "Should this be in the infobox?" The other natural question doesn't come out, "Should this be in the article?" I wonder why? I wonder if "everyone before me" that decided to Be Bold left the conversation due to the incivility? Good day and wonderful conversation old chap.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Except I did allow the question to come out. I said, "If you want to edit some section of the article proper to say that Reuters sees SF as a 'mixture of left-leaning populism and nationalism', and you think that will be an encyclopaedic edit and of genuine interest to readers, then be bold and do it." That's not shutting down a conversation. That's not incivility. It's you that's attacking me. Do it or don't do it, I don't care. But coming to the talk page for the sole purpose of getting self-righteous over nothing is pointless. Scolaire (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You get my point. "Coming to the talk page for the sole purpose of getting self-righteous over nothing is pointless." Better yet I didn't have to say it. Good talk.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's an apology, I accept it. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An apology? Why would I offer you an apology? Good luck with that and good bye.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sinn Féin name
The name probably does have at least an element of the 'alone' bit mentioned as a mistranslation, it really means both 'Ourselves alone'/ 'ourselves' 137.191.225.130 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No. "Ourselves alone" in Irish is "Sinn Féin amháin". "Sinn féin" only means "ourselves". Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Euroscepticism again
"Sinn Féin is neither Europhile nor Eurosceptic." Ref: Irish Times, 22 May 2014. This is from the Sinn Féin MEP, Lynn Boylan, so it trumps any other news source that relies on some journalist's opinion. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sinn Fein broadcast ban in Ireland 1977-1994
The Irish Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 (Section 31) Order, 1993 clearly prohibits RTE from broadcasting or reporting on interviews with Sinn Fein spokesmen. But the Irish Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 (Section 31) Order, 1977 only mentions the Provisional Sinn Féin. The basis of the statutory instruments is the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 as amended by the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976 et seq. The only source I have gives the period as 22 years ending in 1994, but that would be 1972 and I can find no order from before 1977 (after the 1976 amendment). That's 16 years. What is the period that Sinn Fein was banned from being broadcasted by RTE in Ireland? Int21h (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it: It was around November 1971 (possibly 1 October) per the Dáil Eireann Debate on 4 November 1971. I did not expect to find a primary source so easily. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism again
Because of my edit summary here – which I admit was badly phrased, since I did not mean it as a suggestion – has added Left-wing nationalism to the infobox as an ideology. The problem with that, as I explained in the section above, is that Irish republicanism is a nationalist ideology, and democratic socialism is a left-wing ideology, so adding the third does not actually expand on the other two; it just repeats them and adds another wikilink. I disagree with adding what is effectively just clutter to the infobox, and I think it should be left as it was. Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be on the far-right? Sinn Fein is a nationalist party that promotes "Ireland for the Irish". It is the same as UKIP. Why not changing it to far-right instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.216.183 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nationalism does not equal far-right. Sinn Féin has little if anything in common with UKIP. Scolaire (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Left wing or far left?
Sinn Fein is far to the left of the mainstream parties in Ireland. It supported (or still supports) revolution in Ireland - including the overthrown of the established governments in North and South. It espoused support for socialism at home, and revolutionary groups abroad. Doesn't that make it far left rather than left wing?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, no it doesn't. "Far left" refers to Trotskyists, Maoists, Anarchists etc. Sinn Féin is not far left. In fact, it is generally considered to be less left-wing than parties such as the Socialist Party, the Anti-Austerity Alliance and People Before Profit. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sinn Fein is the most left-wing party in the UK - far more than the SNP or Plaid Cymru. (LoweRobinson (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Note that the above is a sock of a banned user. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You might be thinking of the Official Sinn Féin which became the Workers Party. Left-right in Ireland tends to be centered to about mid-way between Britain and the US. I would think to the right of Jeremy Corbin but to the left of Obama as far as Sinn Fein is concerned. As far as supporting revolutions is concerned who isn't supporting revolutionary movements abroad nowadays? Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Who was it who said the difference between the Stickies and Provos is ultimately 15 to 25 years? The current Sinn Féin has largely travelled to many of the places the Officials were a generation ago, albeit carrying the movement with them.
 * Ireland's politics are traditionally awkward to fit into conventional left-right models and a lot of the self-proclaimed Irish left denounce each other as not being left.
 * In the UK Sinn Féin is in a more awkward position because of the nature of the power sharing executive and what gets passed (one of the main things the southern left attacks it over) but also clearly seen far more as Irish Republicans than as socialists.
 * The one thing that is clear is that in the European Parliament Sinn Féin sits with a collection of hard left parties from more left-right orientated political systems. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sinn Féin is currently a left-wing party"
In the ideology section I changed a sentence to "Sinn Féin is currently considered a left-wing party." Sinn Féin has existed since 1905 and during that time Irish politics has been based on different political divisions such as nationalist or unionist, pro-Treaty or anti-Treaty, the left or right thing hasn't always been important. John J. O'Kelly's Sinn Féin was hardly of the left, as well as that Sinn Féin was very much a Catholic nationalist party in the 1950s and then moved to the left in the 1960s under Tomás Mac Giolla. The Provisionals (who this article upholds as The Sinn Féin) split with the Officials in 1969 partly because the latter were too concerned with left-wing issues, before becoming more left-wing themselves in the 1980s. "Currently" is important. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Pushing things onto a left-right line seems a bit like hammering square pegs into round holes and particularly in Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that "currently" is correct. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Should Sinn Fein be categorized as Far-Left?
Since they are a socialist party and socialism is far left ideology. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See "Left wing or far left?" two sections up. Socialism spans the entire left spectrum; "far left" refers to Trotskyists, Maoists, Anarchists etc. Sinn Féin is generally considered to be less left-wing than other left parties in the Dáil, none of which is far left. Scolaire (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Irish pronunciation
The pronunciation of "Sinn Féin" in Irish was changed here from "ʃɪnʲ ˈfʲeːnʲ" to "ʃɪnʲ heːnʲ", with a citation (in the edit summary) to Routledge's Colloquial Irish. Now, I'm sure that "f" versus "h" in the word "féin" could be argued over by language purists at length, but I would question whether Sinn Féin, the party, is ever pronounced with a "h". Here is a news item on Nuacht TG4, and the "f" is clearly pronounced. Any reason not to change it back? Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's wrong and it should be changed back. It is spelled "féin" and the old pronunciation was correct but the "new" pronunciation would indicate a spelling of "fhéin" which makes no sense. -- HighKing ++ 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Sinn Féin
The word féin is generally pronounced with an H in the beginning. The only source I could find was Routledge's Colloquial Irish. This is based on Connemara Irish, though. User Scolaire told me that the fact that the word féin was pronounced with an H did not alter the fact that the same word is pronounced with an F after the pronoun sinn. I partly disagree; I have lived in Ireland for many years and have never heard of any Irish-speaking person pronuncing the name of the party with an F in the beginning. Not even in Munster; there, I have heard that this pronounciation could occur. I still believe that the pronunciation with an H is by far the most common one; but as a compromise, I suggest adding the both pronunciations into the article. Go raibh maith agat, a chairde! /83.226.234.90 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what you're saying here. There is no 'h' in 'Féin' and no pronunciation of a 'h' in 'Féin', regardless of what dialect of Irish you're using. It's pronounced "feign." <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand what you are saying... There is no H in féin – but what does that have got to do with anything? I was not discussing any spelling. The word féin is pronounced with an H in the beginning in nearly all Irish dialects. I am a native Irish speaker. I have also given you proof by refering to Colloquial Irish. Furthermore, I recommend you to listen to the audio files in the Bunachar Foghraíochta section of www.teanglann.ie. Type féin and listen to the audio files. A visit to some of the gaeltachtaí would probably also do you good. Why not go there and tell the people you meet that they are pronouncing words in their own language incorrectly? 83.226.234.90 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, a well-balanced Gaelgóir - a chip on both shoulders! Being born and bred in Ireland, I'm perfectly familiar with how the word is pronounced, thanks, as I've been hearing it all my life. With no 'h'. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was also born and bred in Ireland – and I have heard it pronounced with an H in the beginning all my life. Therefore, I can only conclude that it is a question of dialects. I am still waiting for an answer to what I wrote about Colloquial Irish and the audio files at www.teanglann.ie. In my opinion, both pronunciations should be in the article. Both are correct. 83.226.234.90 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The name of the organisation is pronounced with an f even in places in Ireland where féin may be pronounced with a h in such a context. So it should not be h but f. Plus of course as I should have said this is the English Wikipedia and the pronunciation should be as for most English speakers in Ireland even if it was mostly pronounced with h in Irish - which I don't believe it is. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above. In most uses féin is pronounced with a h as the OP said, but specifically this party name is always (mis-)pronounced feign. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As can be seen here and here. Usually, if there's a consonant before "féin", most dialects will pronounce it with a "h" sound. If it is at the start of a sentence it won't. Some phrases (such as Sinn Fein") as always pronounced with a hard F sound. Other phrases such as "mé féin" are also (usually) pronounced with a hard "f" sound.  -- HighKing ++ 19:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify: what I said here was not that it is pronounced with an "f" after "sinn", but that it is pronounced with an "f" when referring to the Sinn Féin party, as Dmcq and Claíomh Solais said above ( we're talking about the separate IPA for the Irish pronunciation, so "this is English Wikipedia" doesn't apply). I linked to a news item on Nuacht TG4, where the reporter (at 1.47) clearly says "Sinn Féin" with the "f" pronounced. Against this, Routledge's Colloquial Irish is not a suitable source for the Irish pronunciation of the party name. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry yes of course it s the Irish. If we did have crossover then perhaps we could say that if a person is addressed as 'A Shinner' the S shouldn't be pronounced :) Dmcq (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to General elections section
83.33.79.70 edited the General elections section to separate out the two pre-independence elections of 1918 and 1921. This was a good faith attempt to deal with some of the complications of Dáil elections, viz., that those two elections were not called by a native Irish government, and that the 1918 election was an all-Ireland, not a 26-county one. Unfortunately, it introduced other and more serious complications. First, it treated those two elections as "UK" elections to "Westminster" and a "devolved" assembly, respectively, with Sinn Féin's part stated as "abstention", whereas in Sinn Féin history – and Irish history generally – those two elections are seen as returning members to the revolutionary Dáil Éireann, in which Sinn Féin formed the government (the Dáil government). Second, it is headed "Pre-partition Ireland", but the 1921 election was post-partition. As the Irish elections, 1921 article makes clear, there was not one but two separate elections, one in the north and one in the south – the two entities created by partition (one result of the edits was that the Northern Ireland election of 1921 appeared twice in the tables, under "Pre-partition Ireland" and again under Northern Ireland). While I think the attempt to re-organise the tables was a worthy one, I am reverting again. I invite 83.33.79.70 to discuss his edits here. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We can reach a compromise on the issues you've raised.
 * "First, it treated those two elections as "UK" elections to "Westminster" and a "devolved" assembly, respectively, with Sinn Féin's part stated as "abstention", whereas in Sinn Féin history – and Irish history generally – those two elections are seen as returning members to the revolutionary Dáil Éireann"
 * With regards to "abstention", we can just remove the government section entirely, or neutrally add "Abstention from Westminster, Formation of 1st/2nd Dail"
 * "Second, it is headed "Pre-partition Ireland", but the 1921 election was post-partition"
 * How about just naming these two elections as "elections prior to formation of the Republic of Ireland"?
 * --83.33.79.70 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to see if we could find a better layout/labelling for those tables, but I'm not convinced that the way to do it is to "compromise" between two tables that each have their own flaws. Your second suggestion doesn't really address the problem of arranging them that way, because the current arrangement of the subsections is by place, not time i.e. it is divided into north and south. While "pre-partition Ireland" can be regarded as a separate place (all Ireland), "prior to formation of the Republic of Ireland" can't (and, of course, it gives rise to the thorny question of when "the Republic of Ireland" can be said to have been formed). Instead of resolving the issue, it would leave it worse.
 * I can, however, agree with your first suggestion. The "Government" column was originally created for the actual government of the day e.g. Conservative or Fianna Fáil, but now it is just plain confusing. "Government: opposition", "Government: abstention" and "Government: no seats" makes no sense to me. It could be replaced with a "Notes" section, which could say things like "all-Ireland; Westminster election; Sinn Féin members formed the First Dáil".
 * Another, more radical idea would be to revert to this situation that I've already linked to, where only post-1982 elections were included in the table. The text underneath the tables only refers to post-1982 elections, and elections before 1982 get scant mention in the History section. Sinn Féin is not like Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael (or the British Conservatives) who won large numbers of seats right from the beginning, and were either the government or main opposition party throughout. A table showing Sinn Féin contesting the odd election every thirty years or so and picking up one or two seats is not particularly informative. Showing general election results from a particular date would be consistent with the Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) articles, which show the results of congressional elections from 1950, although both parties were formed 100 years or more before that. It would also render moot the question of what to call the southern entity: instead of "United Kingdom/Southern Ireland/Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland" it would just be "Republic of Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Recognition of the Defence Forces
Is there an explicit date when Provisional Sinn Féin stated that they recognise the Irish Defence Forces as the legitimate military of Ireland, rather than the Irish Republican Army? Between the years 1986 until 1998, there appears to be an incoherence in policy which isn't explained in the article.... they in principle ended abstention from Leinster House, which means that they recognised the government in the South as a legitimate institution and a key part of that system is obviously the Defence Forces. Yet the PIRA continued on activity for quite some time after that? Obviously the ending of abstention didn't have practical effect until Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin was elected in 1997, but it still lacks coherence. During his presidential campaign McGuinness did say that he thinks the Defence Forces is the Óglaigh na hÉireann, so that does appear to be their policy now, but from what exact date is that PSF's view? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideology yet again
A party's ideology is the things that the party stands for. That field in the infobox is not meant as a laundry list of things that people say about the party. Even members of Sinn Féin. The latest addition cites a blog by Eoin Ó Broin. I would make the following observations. 1) A blog by Eoin Ó Broin is still a blog, and therefore not a reliable source. 2) Éoin Ó Broin does not decide what his party stands for. 3) The blog entry itself says "Populism is not an ideology nor is it a project as such. It is a way of doing politics." Sinn Féin's ideology is Irish republicanism, which encompasses left-wing nationalism and democratic socialism. Populism does not belong in the ideology field of the infobox, no matter how many citations you muster. Scolaire (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It a statement by a senior Sinn Fein member, how isn't it reliable? How isn't it an ideology? Populism is featured in MANY infoxes. Justice Democrats and Anti-Austerity Alliance for example.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A blog is not a reliable source for a party's ideology. Populism is not an ideology, as Eoin Ó Broin himself states. It doesn't belong in the infobox of any party, including the two that you list, but I'm not going to go round other articles removing it. Scolaire (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier it is a statement by senior Sinn Fein member. How isn't that reliable? Again how isn't it an ideology? Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply repeating the questions doesn't change the answers. WP:USERGENERATED says blogs are not reliable sources. The Populism article says that it is "a political style of action" and that the "underlying ideology of Populists can be left, right, or middle." A clear distinction there. Plus (to repeat), your own senior Sinn Féin member says "populism is not an ideology" in the very blog entry that you are citing. Scolaire (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to keep repeating because he wont answer the question, he just keeps repeating himself. A distinction? What? I don't really care what he says, he is not a source for whether populism is an ideology.14:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would help if the people trying to stick in populism as an ideology would actually read thee article on populism and see that it is described as 'Populism is a political style of action' and ' The underlying ideology of Populists can be left, right, or middle'. Populist is a perjorative way of saying a party appeals to a lot of people other than to some intellectual elite or the rich. Perhaps editors sticking in populist ought to read up about democracy, I don't believe it describes rule by a governing elite but as requiring the active participation of the people. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not it isn't, it can be used as a pejorative but to say that is all it is is completely wrong. Perhaps you should reread the populism page and get a better understanding of what it actually is instead of acting like you know something about it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article already says left-wing nationalism. There is no need to stick in things that are less specific and which only describe their methods and don't say anything about what they stand for. There is no need to stick in a big list of everything you find in any blog that anyone has described as an ideology. Extra stuff like that is just hiding the needle in straw. Dmcq (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Left-wing nationalism doesn't necessarily account for what can be described by populism. And in Sinn Fein's case it doesn't. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The man himself said 'Populism is not an ideology nor is it a project as such. It is a way of doing politics' in the blog. You seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it in saying his blog is a reliable source for saying the party's ideology is populist. Could you just shove it thank you. Dmcq (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Its Wikipedia policy. Random politicans aren't reliable sources for those kinds of things. I am not the one who has showed a lack of knowledge of wiki policy and the subject being discussed. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you seem to be using Wikipedia to push your own agenda (whatever that might be), by editing the infoboxes of many Irish political parties, edit warring against consensus, breaching 3RR, and being unnecessarily combative with edit summaries ("Take it to talk") when you bother to leave one. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples instead of making vague accusations?
 * Well taking it to talk is fine. But this just seems a stupid addition. Their agenda is not populist, they just employ such tactics if they can. It is silly to quote a person for an ideology when the person says explicitly they don't have it as an ideology. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the policy to you. Not my problem.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking it to talk is indeed fine. Reverting someone's addition with no edit summary or just "Take it to talk" as an edit summary, isn't. Agree entirely with you on not including 'populism' in this article's ideology listing (and, indeed, leaving a methodology out of the ideology section of most Irish political parties!) <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never reverted an edit without an edit summary. I only say just take to talk after I have to revert something more than once. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that you read WP:BRD? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OR might also be relevant about citing a source for something when the source says the opposite. Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to explain the policy to you is like trying to get blood out of a stone.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You said it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I need to spell it out from the start of WP:OR "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Taking the statement which says a party uses the tactics of populism but that it is not an ideology of the party and combining it with a selection about populism which says it is an ideology to say that the person is saying the ideology of their party is populism is OR. This is what explaining policy is. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion is self-explanatory. Btw, I don't think ideological labels in the infobox should be the way to go. However, just for the record, the most in vogue definition of populism (Cas Mudde) states that populism is actually a (thin) ideology (regardless of what *pick your favourite Wikipedia entry* says so): "is best defined as a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people" . In that sense, given the party has been labelled as populist (has it been?*), inserting populism in the infobox is hardly original research (at least no more than the act of filling the rest of parameters). Actually one may rightly argue than the act of defending left wing nationalism superseeds the need for including left wing populism is more "OR" than inserting populism within the ideological labels of the infobox. If the inclusion is contentious it has to be due to other reasons... Unability to endorse anti-pluralism, et. al. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * notes
 * * It kinda has:
 * "this paper argues that it remains primarily a populist nationalist party that has failed to address, let alone transcend, some of the key limitations of the militant and militaristic extreme nationalist tradition in Ireland (which passes for Irish republicanism)."Dumphy) "militant regional populist such as Sinn Fein" (Von Beyme 2011), "the left-wing and populist Sinn Feinn" (Holden, 2012, p. 79 "First of all we consider populism to be an ideology in line with an increasing trend in the literature... This is the case for the left-wing nationalist populist Sinn Féin in Ireland" Albertazzi & McDonnell (2015, p.5)

Ideology one more time
A party's ideology is the things that the party stands for. That field in the infobox is not meant as a laundry list of things that people say about the party. Now we have a citation to a table in the Routledge Handbook of European Elections where, under "ideological orientation" (not "ideology") it says "populist" for Sinn Féin. This does not make populism a Sinn Féin ideology. There was a clear consensus in the Ideology yet again thread just three months ago that "populism" should not go in the infobox. Talk about it in the article, fine. But the infobox is for what the party actually stands for, which is Irish republicanism. Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If populism is not an ideology then neither is Irish republicanism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense! An Irish republic is what they believe in. It is an ideology and it is their ideology. Scolaire (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesnt fit the definition provided by OED https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ideologyApollo The Logician (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scolaire. Also nowhere did Scolaire state that populism was not an ideaology. He said it wasn't a SF ideaology. Huge difference. Same for ideological orientation and ideaology, they are not the exact same. Mabuska (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How are they not the same? Either way the source says it is an ideology. Individual editor opinions are irrelevant and synthesis.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeez, we're back to this again. Anyway the basic problem is what is an ideology and the best source for an answer is scholarly studies, so I'll put in Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. And there the answer is that populism is a discursive frame rather than an ideology. Wikipedia's own article Populism has a long section on academic definition which basically boils down to that there isn't any widely accepted definition. I think Wikipedia suffers from a bit of a problem with things like that in that people can put in things they find that say A is B if they find them, but articles are not normally written saying A is not B, so Wikipedia sticks in A is B even if that is only a minority view.
 * My own view is that sometimes populism can be considered an ideology. However in this particular case it is not an ideology. Their ideology is nationalism and they use populist methods sometimes. It can be hard to draw the line, I would say UKIP did have a populist ideology for instance. It just doesn't apply the same way here though and I'm a bit leery of that Routledge Handbook with the way it tries to stick every party across Europe into common categories. Its use of the alliances in the European parliament to infer ideological leanings in particular is very suspect. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Individual editors opinions are irrelevant? So this site is the Apollo show then? Unless you have something more substantial to back up your opinion then the discussion has nowhere to go. Mabuska (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice you didnt answer my question. How are ideology and ideologicial orientation different. No this is the reliable sources show, your opinion and Dmcq's personal opinion on whether it is an ideology are irrelevant. The sources are what matter.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did answer that question. I shall repeat the reference since you missed it Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And can I also point you at the blog you thought was okay where they explicitly talk about populism as a method for doing some things rather than it being an ideology. The point about my discussion was that it is easy to find things saying A is B on Wikipedia but hader to get the balance A is not B even if that is the majority opinion. Here we do have A is not B from a couple of sources. Your citation is enough to put in the article 'According to xyz ...' but it is not good enough for the infobox because there is good evidence it is not a general consensus in sources.. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That question was not directed at you and no you didnt. Are methods not in practice ideas? Different methods will approach different situations differently with different ideas. For example the scientific method and the astrological method will approach different phenomena differently when investigating them. And do ideas not consititute an ideology? Either way this is all synthesis, what the sources say is what should count at that end of the day.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironic considering your fond of ignoring questions put to you. Surely you have some other sources that are more valid? Otherwise its just opinion you arguing about. Mabuska (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More valid? Whats wrong with the source. What questions have I ignored btw? You still havent answered my question. What is the difference between ideology and ideoogical orinetation. If you cant explain the difference then per the source populism should be added to ideology.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Populism should not be there. I have explained why and I have pointed you at sources why. We can't say in Wikipedia's voice in the infobox that its ideology is populist. There is evidence against that in the sources. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sinn Féin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614121443/https://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/HC%20308.pdf to http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/HC%20308.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/secret-sinn-fein-document-in-full-13876004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410052631/http://www.sinnfein.ie/international-affairs to http://www.sinnfein.ie/international-affairs
 * Added tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/election/sinn-feins-michelle-gildernew-retains-fermanagh-after-dramatic-recounts-14799949.html
 * Added tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/sinn-fein-wins-by-landslide-in-donegal-southwest-byelection-15015148.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113123331/http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16580 to http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16580
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315035816/https://sfguengl.com/ to http://www.sfguengl.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Michelle O'Neill
OK - so, Michelle O'Neill has been described as being the Leader in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Leader in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin refer to her as 'leader in the north' - surely we should refer to her as Leader in Northern Ireland? st 170  e  10:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The north/North" is basically Irish-Republican-speak for NI! Other terms used are available, or so I am told! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * precisely, but we need consistency on Wikipedia. st 170  e  22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It should state Northern Ireland as that is the reality and Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. Anyways "the North" doesn't include the most northerly parts of the island. Mabuska (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would "Leader in Stormont" work as a compromise version? --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOV wording and favours the Republican avoidance of using the term 'Northern Ireland' (which is exactly what it is). Sinn Féin's ambiguity in calling her leader in the north means it is hard to decipher whether they mean leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We must definitely avoid calling her 'leader in the north'. st  170  e  20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone deleted the whole line as being media speak and I restored leader in Northern Ireland. I'm not too fussed whether we use the title Sinn Féin have given her or to Northern Ireland because she is in Stormont but it definitely isn't just media speak. The NPOV argument above is not a reason to change what a person is called, but there are newspapers which say leader in Northern Ireland so that is admissable, Dmcq (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just refer to her as the Assembly leader which she is and that is what Sinn Féin were obviously referring to considering that the only president/leader of the entire entire party is Gerry Adams? The lead and the article itself already clarifies that the Assembly is the Northern Ireland Assembly. Tyrsóg (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about we stick to the sources and not your WP:OR? I don't see anyone else agreeing with you, have you got a source that backs up what you say, i.e. that they just mean leader of the party in Stormont rather than leader in the North? Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again I think I'm happy enough with it just saying she is the leader of the party in the Assembly so no real objection from me. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about you take a step back and take a deep breath and stop being uncivil and accusing others of original research just because you do not like what they are saying, this is not original research, anyone with common sense and understanding of politics and political parties knows what I am saying is correct. Nobody has disagreed with me because what I am saying is obvious but not to you for some reason? Tyrsóg (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I still consider your argument as OR and invalid. We are supposed to work from the sources. However there are other reasons for just saying leader of the party in the Assembly in the infobox so I agree with your conclusion. Dmcq (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I just came across Michelle O'Neill's Twitter which describes herself as the 'Sinn Féin political leader in the North of Ireland'. That is pretty much saying she's Sinn Féin leader in Northern Ireland (and ergo, Assembly leader). How do we approach that, then? Pinging and. st 170  e  05:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the article as it is, I think it describes the situation accurately. I don't see any contradiction with what she says. We're not constrained to follow their wording unless they make their titles formal. I'd say the ergo goes the other way. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply. At the minute it says Assembly Leader is Michelle O'Neill and she is the Assembly Leader. But she appears to also be the party leader in Northern Ireland - which is what her Twitter seems to hint at. BBC also refers to her as the 'northern leader', i.e. overall party leader in NI. st  170  e  03:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this for some weeks, to see how it would pan out. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. There is literally not a single sentence in the article with "Michelle O'Neill" in it. She hasn't been / isn't being described as anything in the article. I must assume this whole thing is about what title she is given in the infobox. The infobox is fine as it is. "Assembly Leader (Northern Ireland)" is accurate; anything else is debatable (as witness the debate here). The Conservative Party infobox does not have fields for leader in Northern Ireland, leader in Scotland or leader in Wales; it's not like it's a mandatory field. Different news outlets refer to her as "leader in Northern Ireland", "leader in the North" (capitalised) or just "leader at Stormont". It would be well worth adding a sentence somewhere in the article to reflect that ambiguity, but the infobox should only state what is unambiguously verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead cleanup
The lead's "English: Ourselves or We Ourselves", with a citation to a dictionary, should be replaced with "English: We Ourselves", with a citation to Sinn Féin materials. They use "We Ourselves" not just "Ourselves" as the translation, and this is what should be given here as a proper name in English, per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NOR policies, not a forced alternative translation (which could see us add others, like "Us" or "We Together"). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Larger parties
There is currently an edit-war over whether the larger parties in Dáil Éireann should be described as "conservative" or "catch-all". I'm neutral but I'm reverting to the stable version for the moment, and I invite, , , and  to make their case here. Scolaire (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging again because I mistyped it the first time. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging again because I mistyped it the first time. Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I mistakenly thought that "catch-all" was the existing version. Still, it seems a better and more accurate description of FG and FF than "conservative" and can be sourced with this or this. To avoid controversy, perhaps a better alternative, rather than relying on labels, which are debatable, is simply to reword the sentence to say "The three parties co-operate ...... on matters of common interest against the larger conservative parties Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil." Valenciano (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The latter should be uncontroversial (doesn't make an assessment of FF/FG that needs further citation), so I'm fine with it. Mélencron (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FG and FF are already named and linked in the previous sentence. Why not just "...against the two larger parties"? Scolaire (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Valenciano (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no particular care what wording is used, I was simply aiding Valenciano in restoring something that I assumed was the stable version based on the other reverting editors remarks, especially considering they are well established editors who have no discernible bias on the topic. Mabuska (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Northern leader question again
The field in the infobox for the title of the NI leader was discussed in June-July (see ), and the result was that it remained as "Assembly Leader (Northern Ireland)". It has been changed twice again recently, here by (now blocked} and here by . The respective edit summaries were "this is the official title" and "As officially referred to by the party". My question is, where is she officially referred to as such? The leadership page on the Sinn Féin website has no mention of the North, and Michelle O'Neill's page has no mention of her being leader of anything. Sinn Féin press releases or O'Neill's Twitter account are not official. In any event, "Leader in the North" by itself is not suitable. Wikipedia is meant for readers around the world, and for most people around the world, the Leader in the North is Jon Snow in Game of Thrones. Scolaire (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1998–2017
The 1998–2017 starts with an event that happened in 2005. Did nothing happen between 1998 and 2005? The section would be a bit clearer if it started with at least a one sentence summary of this period. Pburka (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wolfram Nordsieck
[Moved from my talk page. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)]

Hi Scolaire, I understand why you reverted my edit to the Sinn Féin article. Do you think it would be okay to use the Nordsieck citation, which mentions "United Ireland", to cite "Irish Republicanism"? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wolfram Nordsieck has a web page, Parties and Elections in Europe. Apart from that, I know nothing about him. Why do we think he is an authority on the ideology of each and every party in Europe? This isn't directed specifically at you, Ezhao02. Your post was just a good opportunity for me to raise this question here. Scolaire (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of Sinn Fein
This article says that "Sinn Fein" means "ourselves" or "We ourselves", but I am sure that we were taught in History at school that "Sinn Fein" means "ourselves alone". Vorbee (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See Sinn Féin. --Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sinn Féin's new logo/colours
The party recently has changed its primary colours from dark green towards a pinky/purple colour. Similarly, the logo being used most commonly in recent publications (and on the website) is the pink/purple colour and a ring around the island of Ireland (as seen on their twitter). This is probably to reflect the party's changing image, new leadership, new drive, etc. The article should also reflect this change accordingly and update the logo and colour scheme on this article (and related articles). Irishpolitical (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ideology and Nu-Sinn Féin under the Schoolmarms?
How do we deal with the ideology section in the article at present? Since the party was handed over to women of a certain age and physiognomy, the party has publically changed direction completely on issues such as supporting the European Union, abortion, repetative focus on homosexuality, the fact that neither McDonald or Dorris can even be bothered to speak Irish, the issue of a United Ireland being relegated far, far down the list after a litany of middle-class liberal causes....

Obviously under Adams a collaborationist Redmondite path had been already taken politically and republicanism in actuality abandoned (this went with Ó Brádaigh), but they still kept up a phony republican and socialist window dressing, which the Mini-Merkels (McDonald-Dorris-Anderson) now don't really bother with. McDonald even calls Derry, "Londonderry." Given that the Sinn Féin name is over 100 years old, how do we deal in the article with presenting the current FG-esque ideology of Schoolmarm Féin and that of traditional Sinn Féin, which would obviously be alien to the party when it was at its most historically significant (1914 to 1931-ish). Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd find it better to split this article in two. One already exists which is the History of Sinn Féin article. Then change the title of this article to Sinn Féin (1970), to reflect the difference between this (Provisional) Sinn Féin and the old Sinn Féin organisation founded by Arthur Griffith in 1905. There is a strong inconsistency in this article, especially when you read other articles which link to this one, like claiming De Valera split from Sinn Fein to form Fianna Fáil, and the SF article relates to this party. As for ideology, yes it's changed innumerably over the years and the article could reflect that. But we should make the necessary changes first which I have advised. Irishpolitical (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to see a discussion on splitting the article, have a read of Archives 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. I'm not kidding. It was discussed non-stop from 2008 to 2011, and very little else was discussed in that period. There was never at any stage a consensus to split. Here is a 2010 poll showing that all the participants but one (including a Welsh person and a Canadian) were of the opinion that there was a consensus for keeping the article in its present form. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Policies in the Republic
SF is fairly successful in the Republic (26 Counties)... but I am not clear what their policies there are other than reunification. SF's stance in the north/Northern Ireland seems clearer.

What do they stand on in the ROI itself? The article talks far more about the NI party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.88.118.249 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You can find their policies and beliefs in the deleted Talk section. Sinn Fein's supporters such as the Dubliner User:Scolaire are actively reverting any discussion on this question, but unfortunately for the interventionist partisans and would-be Wiki Censors, the Wikipeda record remains, and you will find the answers to your questions there. Santamoly (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What I deleted was a reproduction of this nonsense on a web page of the Martyrs Memorial Loyal Orange Lodge No. 213 (Oxford). It is a version of the "Sinn Féin oath", which first appeared in H.B.C. Pollard's 1922 book, The Secret Societies of Ireland. Even Pollard said, "It gave considerable offence to Sinn Feiners, for it is not the Sinn Fein oath." 100-year old extreme loyalist propaganda has no relevance whatsoever to modern Sinn Féin's policies in the Republic of Ireland, and putting it on this talk page was needlessly provocative. That I am from Dublin is on my user page, but I have never said what political party I support (if indeed I consistently support any one party), and it is not for you or anybody else to label me. Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You have a good point, but when you delete someone's edit without discussion, especially from a Talk Page, you will have lost your ability to influence the subsequent direction that the discussion takes. It's beyond anyone's control. I recommend that in future you try to avoid reverting or deleting without discussion. Santamoly (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Understanding the misunderstood
It's change or evolving that many have problems with grasping collectively or individually true knowledge is power uselessly when not shared or understood correctly PlatinumWrist505 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Possibly this person is trying to say that by the time they scrolled down to the stuff about the actual Sinn Fein of the present day they had given up and gone back up to find the talk page and leave, a sad tale, Sad, but accurate. ~ R.T.G 15:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Anachronism
Hi

The party have changed it historical color. I think we should do like to Austrian People's Party and use the green color for the elections occured before 2018. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sinn Féin (established 1905) is too disparate from Sinn Féin (established 1970) to be the same page
I don't understand why they have been put in the same category. They are different parties formed from completely different contexts with 65 years of a disconnect.

The point of these pages is to define a political party, not a name. Even that was the intention, the article does not explicitly clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.253.66 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.253.66 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have a couple of weeks to spare, have a read of Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7 and Archive 8. That's 17 months of discussion (28 August 2008 to 1 February 2010) of the issue you've raised here. The result was: 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 ["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"] is the current consensus version. There is no reason to believe that the consensus has changed since then. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I can just read 'that is the consensus' over and over again. Can you simply explain here what is the actual reason to imply that both parties are the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.87.221 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Because it is the same party. Simple as that; couldn't be simpler. The party founded in 1905 became an overtly republican party under Éamon de Valera in 1917, then became an anti-Treaty party in 1922, then became a minority party when Dev left and founded Fianna Fáil in 1926, then soldiered on until it split in 1970 – one of the resulting factions later changing its name and becoming an anti-republican party, and the other continuing as Sinn Féin until this day. This is all in the article. You apparently chose to skip reading the article and come straight to the talk page complaining that it doesn't conform to your own personal point of view.
 * Please learn to sign your posts – just add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end – and to indent them so that the discussion is easier to read. Scolaire (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that the present party even has a separate date of establishment is proof that it is not the same. On other Wikipedia pages, different parties with even stronger historical chains of connection are split, to better represent that they are different organisations. This has nothing to do with my personal point of view, this is a basic view of history, and a basic reading of how incorporation has worked. It's clearly evidence of continued and obsessive activity on this page, I suppose from those party-attached, in order to make the historical link in spite of the facts, for the purpose of propaganda.


 * ---Wikipedia is an index of information. Looking for information on Arthur Griffith's party, or de Valera's, is so utterly different than information on the present party. The paper thin chains of connection you claim do not support the present construction of the article. 95.83.253.141 (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC


 * I am not claiming anything. I have pointed you to the 17 months of discussion where everything you say was said, and everything that was said was answered, and at every point the majority of participants agreed – and agreed for good encyclopaedic reasons – that the way the article is structured is the right way. You asked me to "simply explain", so I simply explained. I am certainly not going to waste another year of my life arguing point by point with you. You asked questions, got answers, and registered your disagreement. That's the discussion over as far as I'm concerned. Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Historically right wing
Yes, they are left wing today, but it should be noted they do not resemble the original Party which was Nationalist and right wing. It’s almost a different party and perhaps two pages should exist to contrast them as deserved for historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.246.24 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion relating to this article taking place
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Following the discussion here consensus is to change this article to remove mention of the "Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" position. FDW777 (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly seats
have you been under a rock for a few years? While the DUP may have had 38 members elected in 2016 (see 2016 Northern Ireland Assembly election), the elections in 2017 were rather different (see 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election). The claim was correct until a couple of weeks ago, Sinn Féin and the DUP both had 27 seats (DUP down 1 from 28) until Sinn Féin technically lost a seat due to Alex Maskey becoming speaker. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a cock-up not a conspiracy. I disbelieved my own memory (of SF being a hair's breadth from taking over as FM) when the infobox at 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election clearly said otherwise. It helps to read the figures from right line, not the line above it! --Red King (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did think mistake rather than malice obviously. Glad it's sorted out now. FDW777 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

TDs in Leadership Table
It doesn't seem to make sense to designate Adams and McDonald as Teachta Dála in the leadership table section. To be consistent, several other entries would also need similar designations. I suggest that it would be better to eliminate the two links. Barring any objections, I go ahead and change that. jxm (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ideology
What is the objection to including "Irish reunificaiton" in the ideology section, ? It seems a bit WP:SKYISBLUE to me, tbh, with several references to this central aim scattered through the article. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm just following the note mentioned on the ideology section :The ideology field has been discussed often and at length on the talk page. Please open a new discussion there before adding or changing anything. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I just did? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it not totally redundant to the first ideology listed? FDW777 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Irish Reunification is a redirect to United Ireland. This discussion has no purpose as FDW pointed out. Flalf (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The infobox doesn't list Irish reunification either, though. It does list Irish republicanism, which is not quite the same as United Ireland, or else we wouldn't have two articles. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Irish reunification is a goal of Sinn Féin. It is not an ideology. Republicanism, nationalism and socialism are ideologies. A rent freeze, and the provision of an effective health system, are also goals of Sinn Féin, but you wouldn't dream of adding them to the ideology field. A United Ireland is a more fundamental goal, agreed, but the principle is the same: goals are not ideologies. Scolaire (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair point, well made! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is more of a grey area as the idea of a Unified Ireland and the belief that the island is rightfully theirs would be considered an ideology. It could be either in my opinion so I'd leave it as is. Flalf (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

First preference votes
The table at Sinn Féin has had the 2020 election figures repeatedly changed from 1st to 2nd and back again, so perhaps a discussion will be useful so it can be decided what the figure should be. Sinn Féin got the second most seats, but the highest number of first preference votes, hence the discrepancy. It seems clear to me, although I might be wrong, that the "Position" column is ranked by number of seats won. If it was ranked by first preference votes, then the entries for 1954, 1961, 1982, 1987, 1989 and 1992 would not say "None" since they did receive votes. Any objections to that thinking? FDW777 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems a logical analysis to me. If the consensus supports your view, then it seems to me that it would sensible to restructure the table to remove the ambiguity.Otherwise there is nothing to stop the continual see-saw. --Red King (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's complicated by people claiming FF won 37 seats and the IP editor subsequently using first preference votes as some kind of tie-breaker. I don't see the 38 versus 37 caused by the Ceann Comhairle situation as being in any way relevant, there are many, many reliable references which state FF won 38 seats to Sinn Féin's 37. The constitution is clear that the Chairman is "to be deemed without any actual election to be elected a member of Dáil Éireann at the ensuing general election". FDW777 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how to restructure the table. The obvious thing would be to re-order the columns, but they seem to be in the correct, logical order. The columns are, in order "Election" (date of election) "Seats won", "+-" (the increase/decease of the seats), "Position" (the definition of which is the subject of this discussion), "First pref. votes", "%", "Government" and "Leader". "Seats won" and "+-" obviously need to go together, as do "First pref. votes" and "%". If you move "Position" to after "%" that makes it look even more like it should be determined by first preference votes not seats won, so the only other option that makes sense would be to move the column so it's after "Election" and before "Seats won". But even then you'll still get people wanting to spin the figures in Sinn Féin's favour by saying position should be determined by who got the most first preference votes.
 * The only sensible thing is to come to a consensus regarding how the "Position" column is ranked, then take whatever measures are needed to prevent disruptive IPs from constantly ignoring the consensus. FDW777 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fianna Fáil had 38 members elected, including Seán Ó Fearghaíl who was deemed elected by virtue of being Ceann Comhairle. That put them in first position after the election, and Sinn Féin in second with 37. As pointed out by FDW777, this is how it was reported in all the news media, and facts on Wikipedia are based on reliable sources, not on individual editors' analysis. Since nobody has attempted to justify the change on this talk page, the edits should be reverted, and if IPs continue to edit-war, then semi-protection should be requested at WP:RFPP. Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Scolaire. 38 TDs returned for FF puts them in the number 1 spot, ahead of SF on 37, as reported by all the usual sources. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ FDW777 (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Trends" section tagged as containing original research
I have tagged Sinn Féin as containing original research. Other than a Mitchell McLaughlin quotation referenced by the (book?) The Northern Ireland Local Government Elections of 1993, everything prior to 2001 is analysis of election results. Obvious problems include the following: It's certainly possible for a section to be written that does detail the ups and downs of Sinn Féin's electoral successes and failures in the 1980s and 1990s, but the present analysis of source data needs to be changed to properly referenced analysis. FDW777 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1984 European elections proved to be a disappointment, with Sinn Féin's candidate Danny Morrison polling 91,476 (13.3%) and falling well behind the SDLP candidate John Hume. Who says this was a disappointment? There are no prior European election results to judge this result against. John Hume received 151,399 first preference votes to Danny Morrison's 91,476. Considering the SDLP's head-start, that might have been a perfectly acceptable result in Sinn Féin's opinion. The 13.3% share isn't that dissimilar to the previous year's UK general election share of 13.4%.
 * Sinn Féin succeeded in winning 59 seats in the 1985 local government elections, after it had predicted winning only 40 seats. However, the results continued to show a decline from the peak of 1983, as the party won 75,686 votes (11.8%) This is comparing apples and oranges, as it's comparing a general election to council elections. Turnouts are generally lower at council elections, plus you also have to take into account things like the number of candidates standing in each election. The current reference doesn't perform the sort of analysis that's in the article.
 * In the 1987 general election, Gerry Adams held his Belfast West seat, but the party failed to make breakthroughs elsewhere and overall polled 83,389 votes (11.4%) The only mention of Sinn Féin in the reference is giving their total number of votes, percentage and number of seats. Did they expect to make breakthroughs? Did they stand in the same number of constituencies as 1983?
 * The nadir for SF in this period came in 1992, with Gerry Adams losing his Belfast West seat to the SDLP, and the SF vote falling in the other constituencies that they had contested relative to 1987 While it's certainly true Gerry Adams lost his seat in 1992, as I have previously explained at Talk:Armalite and ballot box strategy this was a result of tactical voting by loyalists (many references available if needed) who voted for the SDLP in order to unseat Adams.

Grammar
I'm moving this discussion from my talk page. The relevant section is 1983–1998, and the relevant edits are this, this, this and this.

The exact quote from Feeney is: "It was a clever move. There was deliberately no push for change from the leadership. Adams did not speak on the motion, but many of his close associates did...The motion was defeated by twenty votes." This was paraphrased in the article as "A motion to permit entry into the Dáil was allowed at the 1985 Ard Fheis, but without the active support of the leadership, and Adams did not speak. The motion failed narrowly", i.e. the motion was allowed, but it was debated without the active support for the leadership, and without the party leader speaking on it, and it failed narrowly. Scolaire (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are a native English speaker, but the sentence that I had fixed on Sinn Féin was grammatically incorrect. I assume you tried to fix it with the best intentions, so I mean no ill will. Flalf (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * the sentence before your edit read "A motion to permit entry into the Dáil was allowed at the 1985 Ard Fheis, but without the active support of the leadership". This is grammatically correct: there was a motion allowed, but not supported by the leadership. The sentence followed on with a comma, then "and Adams did not speak". The following sentence said "The motion failed narrowly." All of that is perfectly good grammar. It was, however, capable of misinterpretation, as your edit demonstrates. You changed it to "but without the active support of the leadership, the motion failed narrowly". This is also good grammar, but it changes the original meaning. Your revert of my edit changed it again, to "but without the active support of the leadership such as Adams, the motion failed narrowly." That's still not what the sentence meant. I don't know if you actually read my edit. it was not just a straight revert; it said, "A motion to permit entry into the Dáil was allowed at the 1985 Ard Fheis, but it did not have the active support of the leadership, and Adams did not speak." This is grammatically correct, and also removes the ambiguity created by the "without". You should not have reverted it. I would like you to self-revert to my version. I don't want them to have any excuse to accuse me of edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * to put it simply, the sentence uses 'and' incorrectly. It is grammatically incorrect, but I feared that 'The motion failed narrowly' doesn't flow well. I decided to combine the two sentences while fixing the 'and' problem. Would you be okay with rewriting it into two longer and correct sentences such as "A motion to permit entry into the Dáil was allowed at the 1985 Ard Fheis, although it didn't have the active support of the leadership, as Adams did not speak". The motion failed narrowly by a margin of ___." I would be okay with this compromise. Flalf (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * there were two things, neither of which happened: (1) the motion did not have the active support of the leadership, and (2) Adams did not speak. The "and" in the original sentence is as correct as the "and" in the sentence I have just typed, or in the sentence "I didn't get promotion, and the world didn't end." Can you say exactly what rule you think is being broken by the "and", and how? A third and separate fact is that the motion failed narrowly. Your "compromise", like your two edits, changes the meaning of the two sentences. The motion didn't fail because Adams didn't speak (quite possibly the reverse: he didn't speak because he knew the motion was going to fail). I'm asking you again: please self-revert. Scolaire (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "A motion to permit entry into the Dáil was allowed at the 1985 Ard Fheis, but without the active support of the leadership,and Adams did not speak. The motion failed narrowly." is a wholly incorrect sentence. I'm not quite sure, but if what you are saying about Adams is true, than it shouldn't be in the statement at all as it is covering something unrelated to the sentence. 'and Adams did not speak' would make the sentence a run on as it covers something else. I refuse to undo the edit, I will change it so the part about Adams is changed. Flalf (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop including the statement on Adams in our previous discussion you made it quite clear that he was not involved. There is no reason for it to be there. Thanks. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 15:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous! I did not say that Adams was not involved. If you took the trouble to read the section, you will see that he was involved at every stage of the process. On this occasion (the 1985 Ard Fheis) he chose not to speak on the motion, for good political reasons. That fact is relevant. Now, state exactly what rule of grammar is broken in the original paragraph, and how, or get off your high horse. Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

,, , you have all been involved on this article recently. Can you see anything wrong with the sentences as they were? Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a preference in relation to grammatical correctness, so I'll sidestep that completely. I'll start by admitting while I know a little about the 1986 split, the events leading up to it are a bit murky to me other than knowing Adams was attempting to slowly impose his own strategies and jettison Ó Brádaigh's. Who introduced the 1985 motion and why? Was it essentially a stalking horse to test the membership's views on the dropping of abstentionism? I don't currently see the point of Adams did not speak either for or against the motion in relation to 1985. If we include detail about his position in 1986 that inclusion would make much more sense. I see we've said Under Adams' leadership electoral politics became increasingly important at the start of the previous paragraph, but that doesn't really cover everything. FDW777 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm talking ABOUT THE 1985 Ardh Fheis which he did not speak in- and what I'm saying is that you included the fact that he was not involved in the Ardh Fheis in the same sentence which stated the outcome. To restate: Adams should not be in a sentence relating to the 1985 Ardh Fheis if he wasn't speaking at the 1985 Ardh Fheis, and if he didn't speak theres no reason to mention him or to mention the fact that he didn't speak. Also not speaking falls under the category of didn't actively support- which doesn't imply he was for or against the motion. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk  19:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know (nor care) about the political gymnastics, but maybe there is another way to draft the sentence: A motion was accepted for debate at the 1985 Ard Fheis, to permit entry into the Dáil. It was not actively supported [or opposed?] by the leadership and failed narrowly. But that sill leaves us with the question of whether or not it is wp:notable that Adams did not speak: Varadkar didn't speak either, should that be included? A deliberate reductio ad absurdum to make a point which is this: if multiple important sources remark on his failure decision not to speak, then it should be mentioned. --Red King (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

while multiple sources are required to establish the notability of a topic for the purposes of having an article, WP:V only requires a single reliable source to reference a given fact (indeed, multiple citations are not encouraged). The source for Adams not speaking is an impeccable one: Brian Feeney's Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years. I have given the exact quote at the top of this thread. The fact is relevant and sourced, and should be included. you have surmised correctly: the motion was a stalking horse. Adams had said, on his election in 1983, that he was not going to change party policy. By 1985 support had grown for entering the Dáil, so he allowed an ordinary member to put forward a motion, didn't speak, and waited to see the outcome, which was close. By the following year, the IRA was on board and the leadership of Sinn Féin, including Adams, formally proposed entry to the Dáil, and it was carried; I presume Adams spoke in favour. The "either for or against the motion" wording was an attempt to placate Flalf, and it failed to do that, so it should be dropped. I don't know if you are being deliberately dim. Gerry Adams was centrally involved in the 1985 Ard Fheis. Of course he spoke at it, including giving the presidential address. But when the motion to end abstention was being debated, he remained seated. This fact is significant and should be stated.

It goes without saying that anybody can edit these sentences if they can improve them, but I would prefer if it was somebody who has taken the trouble to inform themselves on what actually happened, rather than somebody who just thinks he's improving the English. The current version, "but did not have the active support of the leadership, which led to it failing narrowly", is still wrong. it implies a cause and effect that is not in the cited source. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

To start, please don't call me dim. Secondly let me point out how this works: "A motion to permit entry into the Dáil was allowed at the 1985 Ard Fheis, but did not have the active support of the leadership, and it failed narrowly." The sentence is referring TO the motion- if we were talking about the 1985 Ardh Fheis in general you could include Adams, but this refers to a proposed motion in which he was not involved. To not actively support something is not necessarily to be against and in this case, Gerry Adams spoke neither for nor against. If you put these together: Gerry falls under the category of not actively supporting the motion at the 1985 Ardh Fheis. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 13:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware of wp:v as well as the normal application of the notability test. I have no reason to doubt the record that Adams didn't speak. What I had hoped to do was to establish whether there is evidence to support the assertion that it was considered significant at the time that he did not, or is there some wp:SYN happening where, with the benefit of hindsight, the article is now to declare it significant. (Personally, I couldn't care less either way, I was only trying to suggest a way through the impasse. I don't intend to contribute further to this discussion). --Red King (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Ed Moloney A Secret History of the IRA page 294 The ard fheis debate started just before 11.00 A.M. on the Sunday morning, but many believed the key contribution had been made the evening before, when Gerry Adams gave his presidential address. His speech set out the classic arguments for change. Also covers the IRA's Army Convention if needed.


 * Bishop & Malle The Provisional IRA page 445 After this rule [on discussing abstentionism] was overturned by an ard fheis vote, a debate on the future of abstentionism was held in the 1985 ard fheis. The motion was framed obliquely to avoid a direct confrontation with the traditionalist upholders of abstentionism. The meeting was asked whether abstentionism 'was a principle or a tactic' as fas as the South was concerned. The result was encouraging for Adams. Most of the delegates expressed the view that it was a tactic, but not by the two-thirds majority necessary for this to be translated into official policy. As the 1986 ard fheis approached Adams was determined to try again. Pages 446-447 then cover his 1986 speech and IRA's Army Convention.


 * I think those and Feeney are enough to cover 1985/1986 in a little more detail so the casual reader stands a better chance of understanding what was going on? There's also a mention or three of there being informal debates going on for a number of years as well. FDW777 (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Centre-left
Social Democrats are center-left, they are much further to the left. Sinn Fein is left-wing to far-left extreme, this party even rejects Westminster parliament and is the political home of the IRA.

62.226.70.20 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What has not sitting in Westminster got to do with a party's political position? FDW777 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

far-left extreme would sound more appropriate
The party is widely regarded as the political arm of the IRA and refuses to accept Westminster democracy by not taking the seats they are winning.

80.131.50.81 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As stated above in May. What has not sitting in Westminster got to do with a party's political position? FDW777 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Populist socialism
Due to references previously provided, I believe an addition to the ideology section saying "Populist Socialism" would be informative.


 * No. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What gives you the right to monopolize the editing on this page? This page can be so much more informative. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in this article about Sinn Féin's ideology being populist socialism, therefore per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE it isn't going in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I also refer you to Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9 and Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9 where populism was discussed, and consensus was against inclusion in the infobox. Since This page can be so much more informative I suggest you follow your own advice and improve the article in a different place, instead of being fixated on the addition of two words to the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

End-run against consensus regarding left-wing populism
Despite the discussion above at and the previous discussions at Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9 and Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 9  is edit-warring against consensus to add this, and other information contradicted by the parent articles, at Details of political parties in the Republic of Ireland. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is consensus for this change, I suggest it is reverted. FDW777 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! Please revert if deemed not acceptable. I have no intention of causing an editing war, I respect all decisions, If edit reverted, I will not revisit it. Whatever the group decides I am okay with. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Due to the 1RR rule I am unwilling to revert you, please self revert these changes, leaving in any which do actually match the parent articles (those being Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael). FDW777 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. There are some discrepancies within the parent party pages, and the list of political parties in Ireland Wikipedia page, in relation to parties other then Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, I will fix those up as well. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)