Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Parties with origins in 1916-1921 Sinn Féin

Surely practically every party in the Republic of Ireland has roots in this Sinn Féin. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are principal among these but any parties who have split from these (e.g. the Progressive Democrats) share the same roots. I don't know much about the Labour Party's history. Joe Byrne (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm thinking we'd be better off only including the ones that directly split from Sinn Féin, not ones which split off from them at a later date. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Labour party was founded in 1912 by James Connolly amongst others, it never had any link to Sinn Féin. The PDs was formed by disgrunted former members of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, it was a new party and couldn't claim any conection to Sinn Féin. Even Fianna Fáil is not a split from Sinn Féin, as Dev Valera and his supporters resigned from Sinn Féin at the Ard Fheis after Dev had his motion defeated, it was only some time afterwards that he decided to form Fianna Fáil, so they were not a spilt from Sinn Féin.--padraig3uk 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Idealogically though, members of the original SF founded FF and FG so them being mentioned is justified. I accept the arguments against the PDs. I just saw these parties deleted from the page and thought it worthy of discussion. The current content, in that case, seems fine. Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - :ga: - :fr: - - 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A significant point here is that unusually the minority party in many of the splits were the ones who held on to the Sinn Féin name. The current party was originally Provisional Sinn Féin a dissident split from the majority Official Sinn Féin (later the Workers Party). --Gramscis cousin (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Split needed

This article desperately needs split. It is not neutral to lump present-day Sinn Féin in with the earlier parties of that name, however much they might want that. It is no more valid than having Fianna Fáil on this page.

zoney ♣ talk 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part. As SF has split so many times, I think it'd be great to have an article detailing the post- January 1970 Ard Fheis Sinn Féin that is currently led by Gerry Adams, while ensuring that it's known that this "modern Sinn Féin" traces its routes back to 1905. I agree that there should be an article on the pre-FF Sinn Féin. The modern SF article should be at Sinn Féin, and we can have a Sinn Féin (historical) or a similarly named title for the articles detailing the various splits. We should should be careful about trying to lump the modern day FF with any previous organisation called Sinn Féin, however, as FF has its own detailed and complex party history gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that there is already an article entitled Sinn Féin (1905–1921). I would suggest that the dates on this be changed, for a number of reasons. Firstly, Sinn Féin from 1905 to 1917 was not a republican party; its policy was dual monarchism. Secondly, 1921 is not a useful cut-off point as it was in 1922 when SF began to split.

Rather than trying to fix dates in the article title, perhaps it would be best to create a page entitled History of Sinn Féin. This idea has been around for quite a while (see above and seemed to be a popular idea.--Damac 04:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's an excellent idea. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Feeling bold, I renamed Sinn Féin (1905–1921) History of Sinn Féin. Plenty of editing to follow.--Damac 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the best way to handle the history separately, leaving the Sinn Féin article to deal with the current events of the party.--padraig3uk 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that separation is the best approach, though of course it should be done in such a matter as to not out-and-out assert a separate identity to the various versions of SF, since that's a key point at issue between the various traditions. It does, however, leave a huge number of mis-links, from articles like Members of the 2nd Dáil. (BTW, wouldn't that be Second Dáil, per that article?) Alai 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just started a separate Early Sinn Féin Movement entry. I think this is a practical solution to the problem, justified by the vey differnt identity of pre-1916 Sinn Féinism stunion 10:04, 24 April 2008

Also, can there be a link to Republican Sinn Fein at the top for disambiguation? It does use the same name, and to those not versed in irish politics it could be confusing. Lihaas (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is a split happening? It definitely should. It is misleading to say that the current party using this name (i.e. Provisional SF) was founded in 1905. It was founded in 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A little confused

I'm not sure if the article explains this and I missed it or whether it is unclear in the article, but is Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland exactly the same party as that in the Republic, or are they two seperate but closely linked parties? If so how does one party straddle two (similar but) different political systems? I came to this article trying to understand why, when I was in Dublin over the weekend, there were electoral banners everywhere with Gerry Adams face on them - does he have actual political power in the South or is he more of a publicity figure for Sinn Fein in the republic? I'm genuinely confused and the article doesn't really help, I know there is a section on Organisational structure, but it didn't seem to address this question. Can anybody enlighten me (and add that enlightenment to the article)?--Jackyd101 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I found some of what I was loking for under Modern Sinn Fein, but it still doesn't explain how they straddle the two political processes (i.e. Can Gerry Adams legally be leader of the party in the Republic if he is a registered voter and MP in another country? How does this work?). It was a little tricky to find, the splitting mentioned above might be a good idea.--Jackyd101 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is very simple Sinn Féin don't accept the presence of the artificial border between both parts of the Ireland, their policy is the removal of that entity, as for Gerry Adams his role is the President of a 32 County Party, which is why Martin McGuinness is the Deputy first minister in the north, with Daithí McKay as leader of the Sinn Féin group in the assembly and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin is leader of the Sinn Féin group in Dáil Éirean. Adams role is to corodinate the work of these to ensure their overall goal.--padraig3uk 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I realise that they don't accept the boundary, my question really is how do they deal with a boundary which (whether they accept it or not) is actually there in political fact? I didn't think the article explains this. Just to make sure I've fully understood your answer, are you saying that McGuinnes is in charge in Northern Ireland, O Caolain and McKay are in charge in the South and Adams co-ordinates both parties? So does Adams have any offical (i.e. registered) power in the Republic or is it more that he is de facto leader in the South? --Jackyd101 01:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams is the leader of Sinn Féin, its the same party, I cant see how a border is relevant? There was a leaders debate on RTE television, Gerry Adams spoke and was the leader of Sinn Féin? I am not entirely sure how you think a border, (which under the EU, doesnt really exist anyway) will affect things? There are many national grouops that cross the Irish so called borders, the INTO, various unions and businesses etc. The only thing is that Gerry Adams will is not standing in the elections and therefore will not get a seat in the Dáil and that is why Ó Caoláin is the Dáil leader of Sinn Féin and not Gerry Adams. If you dont get elected you dont get in. Also, there has been speculation in the media that northern MPs will be allowed to take a seat and discuss cross border issues, this will be voted on in the next Dáil. [[BaileÁthaCliathAbú:BÁCABÚ}] 08:04 18 May 2007

I'm simply asking a question as a person unfamiliar with the Irish political system about something which was not explained in the article. In asking the question I am both seeking an answer and hopefully inspiring someone familiar with the subject to add information to the article. How exactly does the EU not recognise the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? Presumably they do recognise it as the dividing line between two sovereign states? The reason I mention the border is important, is because I am trying to ascertain whether Gerry Adams and other Northern Irish MPs have actual power in the Republic or whether they are only used as publicity figures for Sinn Fein in the South. I'm pretty sure that Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy have no political influence in Britain, so does Gerry Adams (a politician within the British political system) have political influence in the Republic of Ireland? And if so, what is the legislation or agreement which allows this? Businesses and international organisations which cross borders are quite common, but I don't know of any other political parties which do so. This makes this quite a unique aspect of Sinn Fein which probably should be explained in the article. I am aware that Sinn Fein doesn't recognise the border, however since all other political parties in both countries do recognise it, as do all other European governments, how does Sinn Fein as a party manage to operate in two seperate countries at once? Its a simple question, there is no need to get aggressive and I'm not challenging or debating Sinn Fein's politics here, I'm just looking for an answer.--Jackyd101 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sinn Féin is organised as a 32 county party its head office is in Dublin, the fact that Ireland is divided into two seperate political enities is immaterial to the workings of the party, Gerry Adams is President of Sinn Féin, and therefore has influence on both sides of the border as the party has elected representatives in both. The EU treats Ireland as one political entity when it comes to elections to that body, Ireland is allocated IIRC 16 seats, 3 in the six counties and 13 in the rest of Ireland.--padraig3uk 12:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, that is the answer I was after. Much appreciated.--Jackyd101 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The EU most certainly does not treat Ireland as one political entity, for electoral purposes or otherwise. Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) is a UK constituency; the Republic consists of four constituencies, electing 13 MEPs (see for example [1]). That they all use the same electoral system (STV-MMC), and any other points of legislative or treaty overlap (such as the passport regime between the two, eligibility to vote in national elections, etc), are internal and/or bilateral issues, not matters for the EU. Alai 15:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, both the UK and Ireland have electoral and immigration policies that each others citizens (under conditions) can actually vote and gain citizenship a lot easier than if one was moving in from another country, due to the closeness of the two. This is why Gerry Adams is able to lead the party in both countries, and vote in NI elections, even though he is probably more involved in the south (not sure whether he is able to vote in the south?). Mikebloke 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He'd be able to if he were "normally resident" in the Republic -- which I'm assuming he's not, given that he's MP for Belfast West (though I don't know that residency is actually a requirement for being an MP). By SF's own logic, it'd be a bit odd of he contrived to have a vote in two different "pan-Irish" seats, which one would never be able to legally do for two different UK seats, or two different RoI seats (though can often occurs anyway due to inconsistencies in the electoral rolls). The key point, though, is that these are domestic or bilateral matters, not some wheeze the EU's pulled while no-one was looking. The voting arrangement applies to all UK citizens in Ireland -- such as say, me -- though citizenship uses an 'island of Ireland' formulation. Alai 15:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams has a holiday home in Co Donegal and so, I imagine, is allowed a vote here. I'm not an expert on the rules, but I know an English guy who has a second home in Ireland, and is on the electoral role as a result, even though he's not a permanent resident. Millbanks (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

European Union

What is the policy of Sinn Fein towards the EU, and specifically the euro? There would seem to be a lot of merit in a single currency for the whole of Ireland, and if the current Sinn Fein/DUP leaders in charge at Stormont were able to get the North into the euro zone, this could well be a useful step both towards unity and for the economy. Millbanks 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They're generally Eurosceptic, although I think their position on the Euro is that Northern Ireland should have the samne currency as the South. But I somehow doubt Northern Ireland will get taken into the Eurozone alone (especially if it's for the purposes of constructing a United Ireland) and it seems there's a snowball's chance in Hell of the whole UK going in for the timne being. Timrollpickering 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the SF website (as I should have done before) and their attitude towards the EU seems to be one of "positive engagement", though by no means uncritical. As for the Euro, the party argues for one single currency for Ireland, which at least in the medium term would be the Euro. So they would support the adoption of that currency in the six counties in any referendum. Millbanks 08:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Phonetic English Pronunciation

Would it be possible to get the English pronunciation changed to a phonetic one? MichiganCharms 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent events as at 19th June 2007

This article doesn't reflect the formation of the NI executive with SF and DUP participation.

Provisional Sinn Fein merger

I realize that this matter was discussed above, but as that discussion is by now quite old, I thought I would start a new discussion. The Provisional Sinn Fein article still has a merger template on it, indicating that it is in the process of being merged into this article. No significant edits have been done to that article in several months, and the template is now absurd, having been in place for well over a year. Did the merger occur? Was it completed? Is there still need for a separate article? At the very least, the bloody template should be removed if no merger ever happened, and is never going to happen. Some sort of decision needs to be reached. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 04:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support the merger. But I would also call on all historical information relating to Sinn Féin, especially from the pre-1970 period to be moved to History of Sinn Féin.--Damac 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know (and I wasn't active on these articles at the time) and can see, everything seems to have been merged, so I'll just redirect it now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinn Fein's political ideology

The paragraph written about Sinn Fein's political ideology says the following:

While Sinn Féin officially subscribes to (democratic) Socialism, its ideology is a matter of dispute. In its party manifestos Sinn Féin aims at eradicating poverty etc., but such statements are vague. Sinn Féin's strong emphasis on combatting urban crime and drug dealing is not characteristic of the European radical left. Despite the fact that Sinn Féin opposes xenophobia and supports migrants' rights, some similarities with populist 'anti-system' parties like French National Front have been reported (in 2002, the Irish Labour Party leader Quinn compared SF to the National Front and claimed that voting SF candidates was akin to voting le Pen)[39]. Benoit and Laver[40] find that in general, the party are economically centrist and socially the most conservative after Fianna Fail.

Whoever wrote this paragraph cites an article by Eoin O'Malley that compares Sinn Fein to right-wing nationalist parties. What this writer doesn't seem to understand is that O'Malley was not trying to argue Sinn Fein is right-wing or even conservative, but rather trying to argue why the current "radical left/radical right" classification scheme for nationalist parties is limited and inflexible and could lead to a left-wing party like Sinn Fein being mistakenly classified as akin to the National Front or BNP. O'Malley still says at the end that "the leaders of Sinn Fein seem to have genuine left-wing beliefs" (quote). I don't think there is very much legitimate dispute about Sinn Fein's political ideology except from Irish Marxists who are upset their own extreme views aren't more popular, and from some Loyalists (Ian Paisley, for instance, has called Sinn Fein "fascist" on several occasions, which I'm sure we can all agree sounds extremely hypocritical coming from him). The author of the above paragraph's only real argument is that Sinn Fein has a hard stance on crime and then he says "this is not characteristic of the European radical left"...only thing is, Sinn Fein has never called itself "radical left". Statements such as "this is vague" are also serious NPOV breaches and need to be addressed.

So, I propose that this paragraph is edited. It is not inaccurate to say that Sinn Fein appears inconsistent and sometimes conservative in its political ideology (particularly on abortion), but it is a major stretch to imply that Sinn Fein is actually conservative or right-wing, as this paragraph does. At the very least, it needs to be re-written so that it does not mis-interpret O'Malley's work and take on an NPOV character.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.49 (talk)

It is unfair to compare Sinn Féin to the BNP or National Front, simply because they are "nationalist". Sinn Féin have never pursued racist or anti-immigrant policies. Millbanks 08:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a video on YouTube right now of Gerry Adams addressing a demonstration by African immigrants in Dublin demanding immigration reform, in which he states that Sinn Fein supports their cause. There are two types of nationalism - that which is based on achieving national sovereignty in countries where the population considers themselves ruled by foreign powers (this variety characterizes Palestinian nationalism, Basque nationalism, and Irish nationalism among others), and extreme nationalism in nations that are already sovereign, which seeks to expel immigrants and any outside influences seen as dangerous (this is of course the type epitomized in Europe by the BNP and National Front). I have my own reasons for disapproving of Sinn Fein's politics, but racism/xenophobia is not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.49 (talk)

pronounce 3

"Any time I've ever heard the name pronounced by anyone who is speaking in Gaelic, it sounds exactly the same as it would sound if they were speaking in English"

That would be down to the speakers not been able to speak Irish, or when speaking in English using the normal English form. Never take the sound of Hiberno English to be a faithful representation of Gaeilg. The fact is that, despite any brogue, it is closer to standard British english, than Irish. Don't take my word on that, compare dialect studies

The name itself is a red herring slightly, as féin is [heːn̥] (no f and plain alveolar n, not palatised as suggested by article) in speech, although this is forgivable given names tend to be old fashioned anyway

159.134.221.62 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Jack

Hmm, the 'F' is pronounced in Irish in Southern Irish dialects, particularly in Musters, and also in certain set phrases in other dialects, for example 'Cheana féin'. In some dialects (particularly northern ones) it is pronounced péin in certain circumstances, i.e. "liom péin" EoinBach (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Should not the article contain something on foreign policy? The party's website supports links with the ANC; and the Basque people's right to national self determination. It also argues against the illegal blockade of Cuba by the USA. There is no specific mention of support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but certainly the party has sympathy for the Palestinian people. Millbanks 08:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on links to parties/organisations in other countries? And yeah, SF is rather closer to the PLO than they seem to print, Gerry Adams has been seen on more than one occasion in the Palestinian Territories at memorial services and the like. Mikebloke 11:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Provisional IRA details quite a few of the Provisional Republican movement's ties to the aforementioned organizations, including the ETA, ANC, and PLO. Since the links were predominantly intended to faciliate exchanges of training and weapons (and therefore benefited the IRA more than Sinn Fein), they don't seem too relevant to this particular article. My understanding, however, is that in recent years the ETA (who are still engaged in their armed campaign) are currently aligned most closely with the Continuity IRA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.101 (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that references to the foreign policy issues mentioned above would be deleted in any event, no matter how well sourced, but I've added a bit on opposition to the Lisbon Treaty. I imagine that that will be allowed to stand. Millbanks (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhps there should also be mention of Sinn Féin's opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq by US and British forces?Millbanks (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits removing inconvient facts

Some edits were made some time ago regarding allegations of involvement in murder; were these ever resolved? Titanium Dragon 23:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• The edits, or the allegations? In either case, more specifics would be handy... Alai 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my comments on the 2007 election results, based on an article in The Irish Times, have twice been deleted. Millbanks 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That edit? Fair play to whoever reverted that, that's unsourced POV commentary. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but are you referring to an article by the Political Editor of The Irish Times as "unsourced POV commentary"? Millbanks 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am thanks. WP:CITE is your friend. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Presumably that means that you've read the article, otherwise you would not refer to it in that way. Now, please tell us why you regard it as "unsourced POV commentary". Millbanks 08:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

which I assume means that, if the article can be found and cited, the statement can go back in again. See also template:Who since it matters who said it. --Red King 23:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

Red King said it best. "Unsourced POV commentary" isn't difficult to understand, but I'll make this simpler. Unsourced - you didn't cite a source. POV - we attribute POV to people. Commentary - self explanatory, someone is commentating on Sinn Féin. In an ideal world anything you add to an article should be sourced. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My source is an article in The Irish Times of 14 July 2007 by Political Correspondent, Mark Hennessy. If, as seems to be the case, you have not read the article in question, you should refrain from criticising it. Millbanks 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand policy. Regardless of the content of the article, it is written by a political commentator. Looking at the content you added, it includes POV, that cannot be disputed. POV can be included in articles, but it must be attributed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I don't understand "policy". I've had all sorts of "uncomfortable" entries deleted and been accused of "trolling". Meanwhile, semi-literate, racist, sectarian rubbish remains undeleted. I've complained about these, but to no avail. If you want an "encyclopedia" like that, then you're heading in the right direction. Millbanks 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid you dont understand policy one night in hackney, it dosent matter if a source takes a POV, all spurces generally are, especially to do with politics, what matters is that the source is notable, and that it is goven due weight balanced with other views, and wikipedia does not endorse one of these views over another.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do understand policy, that's why I said "POV can be included in articles, but it must be attributed" right above. Please read discussions before leaping in feet first. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your weak spot of course, is that it WAS attributed: to an article in The Irish Times. Millbanks (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No it was not. BigDunc^Talk 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. The source was an article in The Irish Times of 14 July 2007 by Political Correspondent, Mark Hennessy. Millbanks (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That edit was not attributed. ONIH is right, BigDunc is right, you are not. Domer48 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I edited the article, putting in my source, but it was still deleted. But note, the phrase, "despite predictions of gain" still remains. Why not delete that too? It's not sourced. Be consistent, lads. Millbanks (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourced =/= attributed, please read the discussion above. Domer48 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I put in the source of the comments about Sinn Fein in the 2007 elections (Irish Times; correspondent; date). OK, so it was deleted. But my next point was this. Why then was the phrase, "despite predictions of gain" allowed to stand? It's true, of course. Here in the Republic many people believed that Sinn Féin would gain seats. But the comment isn't sourced. Yet it's allowed to stand. If I were a pedant I could ask for chapter and verse: "who predicted the gains; where; when, etc". You see what I mean - be consistent. Millbanks (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time Millbanks, the provos supporters and apologists won't left anything critical of the Shinners into Wikipedia. They not terrorists of course but Volunteers, and sure those people that they blew up, sure they were only a bunch of aul protestants anyways and there deaths advanced the cause of Irish unity, in ways no sane people cam understand. Well, the Shinners got there comeuppance last year, when there much hyped electoral gains failed to materialise, Terrorists in government, No Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.14.99.142 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

test proposition

I removed the Eoin O’Malley section because it lacks context. For example no mention is made of the paper or the author. That it is a test proposition is also omitted. If there is some context and clarity added it may be useful, but Eoin’s notability must be included. --Domer48 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

History

Whatever truth is in this, it's not important enough for the intro para:

"The name originally came from a newspaper that was printed as a local paper in Oldcastle, County Meath. Arthur Griffith asked the publishers if he could use the name of their paper for a new political party that he was setting up and they gave him permission to use the paper's name."

For now I've removed it altogether, as there's a more pressing issue: the history section here is longer than the entire article History of Sinn Féin. Wikipedia:Summary style means the history section here should be a summary of that article, not the other way round. The hatnote says "This article is about the present-day Sinn Féin party led by Gerry Adams. For the history of the party since its inception to 1970, see History of Sinn Féin." jnestorius^(talk) 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The intro really needs some work

The quality of the writing is generally sub-par (especially the statement that "the name most commonly refers to the party about which this article is written.") This statement is, aside from being laughable, extremely vague...it is more appropriate to say the incarnation of Sinn Fein which exists today is the party that is associated with the Provisional IRA, and was known previously as Provisional Sinn Fein. The introduction which we had several months ago was much, MUCH better. I propose that we restore it, or at least re-write the existing one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.173.252 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 January 2008

The party was never known as provisional Sinn Féin that was a media tag, and dosent belong in the lead.--Padraig (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a media tag that gained some degree of acceptance. It is at least important to establish the current incarnation's ties to the PIRA. You are avoiding the main issue at hand here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.173.252 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the current (inadequate) revision was written by Jtoal431, an admitted teenager.

There is no such party as Provisional Sinn Féin no matter what the media say. BigDunc (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but you are still ignoring the rest of the issue at hand, which is mentioning their link to the PIRA. If you aren't going to say anything useful, do not bother speaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.220 (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro still needs work. It's not clear at all and tends to confuse more than it explains. I suggest a gentle but pedagogical rewrite.--Stunion (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have cut the lead to the bare facts, if you wish to build it up from there?--Domer48 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written the lead in a similar style to other modern political parties. I think putting anything else in should be secondary to tidying up the article itself. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done Scolaire, nice work. --Domer48 (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Street

Sinn Féin (Kevin Street) was redirected here in late 2005, but the redirect was reverted yesterday with the edit summary "(No-one appears to have edited the corresponding article to make the changes (c.f. Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place) ). Suggest a relisting/renewed debated"

I see no benefit in a permastub article on that name, so I have reverted the redirect, but suggest that some of the text from that stub should be incorporated in this article:

Sinn Féin (Kevin Street) was a name sometimes used in the 1970s in the Republic of Ireland to refer to the party then generally called Provisional Sinn Féin (now Sinn Féin).

Its rival Sinn Féin, Official Sinn Féin used the name Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place) to draw attention to its continued ownership and usage of the traditional Sinn Féin headquarters in Gardiner Place in the centre of Dublin. In response, to draw attention to where it could be contacted, Provisional Sinn Féin began to use the name Sinn Féin (Kevin Street).

The name died out in the mid 1970s.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of redirects, can someone decide whether Sinn Féin (Pro-Treaty)/Pro-Treaty Sinn Fein and Sinn Féin (Anti-Treaty)/Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin should really redirect to this article? I know there's been plenty of splits, but this is just downright confusing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some should do a family tree of Irish Political Parties if such a thing is possible in Wikipedia. --Gramscis cousin (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Need to reconfigure the SF articles

It is ludicrous that this article includes a long history of pre-1970 Sinn Féin, yet the Official Sinn Féin article doesn't begin until 1970. If anything, it should be the other way round, since it was the Provisionals who split from Sinn Féin, not the Officials. Indeed, the name "Official" should give the game away. Can we split the article as suggested in the first discussion topic? Mooretwin (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on Sinn Féin. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the intro! "This article is about the present-day Sinn Féin party led by Gerry Adams" Mooretwin (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We need some engagement in this discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a straightforward subject given the history of splits of the organisation. Best of luck in trying to have a reasoned debate with Domer48, his responses seem modelled on Andy of Lou and Andy fame! Snappy56 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment on content and not the editor please, see WP:CIVIL. BigDunc^Talk 10:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not really that complicated. The current party using the name "Sinn Féin" is actually Provisional Sinn Féin, which split from the main party (which subsequently became known as Official Sinn Féin) in 1970. Its founding date is therefore 1970. Just like the founding date of Republican SF is 1986, and not 1905 (notwithstanding that RSF, like PSF, will claim it to be 1905). This article - if it refers to the current party - should deal with Provisional SF from 1970 onwards, and include only a brief historical section on the pre-1970 situation. The history of SF prior to 1970 should either be in the Official SF article, or a separate article altogether. There is no ground for treating the current SF as having been founded in 1905 - or at least no more so than Republican SF, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, or even Labour (given that the Workers [sic] Party is now merged into Labour). Mooretwin (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec): To engage people you would be wise first of all to put forward a concrete proposal. But any proposal would have to be both encyclopædic and NPOV. "Founded in 1970" is neither. Fianna Fáil was founded in 1926; Fine Gael was founded in 1933 - both from former members of Sinn Féin - but for Sinn Féin to have been founded in 1970 there would have to have been either a winding up of the old party or a formal notice that the "founding members" had quit the old party. That didn't happen, so Sinn Féin must necessarily have been founded some time prior to that. Also, when talking about reconfiguring articles, it's better to present proposals for altering the articles themselves, rather than trying to change the lead. Good luck with the project! Scolaire (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"but for Sinn Féin to have been founded in 1970 there would have to have been either a winding up of the old party or a formal notice that the "founding members" had quit the old party. ... Sorry? The "old party" continued in the form of Official SF! The Provos left SF in January 1970 - there is no dispute about this! Of course SF was founded before 1970 - it was founded in 1905 - but this article is about Provisional SF (founded 1970). I have made a concrete proposal above: "This article - if it refers to the current party - should deal with Provisional SF from 1970 onwards, and include only a brief historical section on the pre-1970 situation. The history of SF prior to 1970 should either be in the Official SF article, or a separate article altogether." Please read contributions before replying. Mooretwin (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The PIRA article begins in 1969 and doesn't claim that the PIRA was founded in 1919 - the (P)SF article should mirror this. Mooretwin (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple reason for that they weren't founded in 1919, and Sinn Féin were founded in 1905 so there is nothing to mirror. And who are are (P)SF? BigDunc^Talk 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense: the IRA was founded in 1919 and no-one's denying that SF was founded in 1905 - but this article is about (P)SF - (Provisional) SF - which was only founded in 1970 - when it broke away from SF, at the same time as PIRA broke away from the IRA. This is basic stuff. Mooretwin (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A user called Redking has just edited the text and made a factually-incorrect statement. Mooretwin (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to Redking. I don't know why I said that - his edit was correct! Mooretwin (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The text has to change on grounds of accuracy. It is not true to say that the present-day SF was founded in 1905. It was founded as Provisional SF in January 1970, when it split from SF. Just because it has subsequently arrogated the name "Sinn Féin" for itself does not mean that it has become the party of 1905. Mooretwin (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mooretwin: indeed I ;ast year I tried to create disinct disambig articles for 1905-1922, 1922-1970, 1970- , but there is defensive wall around this article as it stands and there will never be a consensus for change. --Red King (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin was founded in 1905 not 1970. Find a source that says Sinn Féin was founded in 1970. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It says the article is about the current political party, not the historic party. Mooretwin (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the modern party which the BBC [2] says was founded in 1970. Or how about CAIN, one of the most widely used sources which states: "The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970" [3] In the light of those two, Redking and Moore are right and we should have seperate articles for the different time periods. Per NPOV, it's not for us to judge which party is the successor to the 1905 party since many claim that. Similarly since parties such as Fianna Fail, which have more electoral support, claim to be Irish Republican, it is pure POV to say that it's "the principal party of Irish Republicanism." The intro as it currently stands is blatant POV and needs to be ditched. Valenciano (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As the Provos were the minority who broke away from SF in 1970, the real claim to the name rested with the Officials (the clue's in the name), who were the original party. They have since wound up and moved on, however, so no current party can legitimately claim the name and history of SF. Mooretwin (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When and were did Sinn Féin (1905) disband? So by your logic is the Real IRA, the real IRA? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, they morphed into Republican Clubs, then WOrkers Party, and eventually ended up in the Labour PArty. There is still a rump Workers Party left in NI, though. Mooretwin (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. the Real IRA, I don't know how your brain works, but how could logic that says a split from the main party in 1970 cannot be considered a continuation of the main party then be applied to say that the Real IRA is the original IRA. FYI, the Real IRA is a split from the PIRA, which in turn was a split from the IRA. Your knowledge on this appears to be limited, yet you are holding up factual change. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get personal! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an objective observation - your knowledge - judging by your contributions and questions - is limited. Mooretwin (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I considered to myself you must be slow, or thick so I tried to keep it simple. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When and were did Sinn Féin disband? Was it 1970? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I already advised you that they didn't "disband" - they morphed into Republican Clubs/Workers Party/Labour - this happened from the mid-1970s until the 1990s. Mooretwin (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets try it this way. When was Sinn Féin of which Gerry Adams is president founded and were? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read what people write? It was founded in 1970: in Dublin.Mooretwin (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The leadership of Sinn Féin was ousted in 1970, and replaced by the caretaker executive elected on Sunday 11 January in Kevin Barry Hall, 44 Parnell Square, Dublin. On the 17 January, the caretaker executive released a statement, part of which read:

“For a number of years now those involved in the take-over have traded on the good name of Sinn Féin — a name respected for honesty, integrity, sincerity and national ideals by Irish men everywhere. Now that that umbrella has been removed from them, they stand exposed and the Irish people in their own way can now form their judgement. We are content to leave it at that.”

The old leadership, would eventually become know as Official Sinn Féin, and be replaced by the caretaker executive in the leadership positions of Sinn Féin. Now the introduction of “although tracing its history back to Arthur Griffith's original Sinn Féin in 1905” is just a piss poor attempt at word games. Sinn Féin today, tracing its history back to Arthur Griffith's original Sinn Féin in 1905. The constitution of the party in 1970 was the same in 1971. The Goulding / MacGiolla leadership failed to get the two-thirds majority to change the constitution. Even today, if a party leader can not get the support of their party for a policy change they initiate, they have to step down. They step down or provoke a leadership challenge. Same thing here. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. That's pure POV! Play the game, please. O'Brady et al walked out and formed a new party in 1970. That's fact. You can't change history. Mooretwin (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What new party was formed in 1970? Official Sinn Féin? Provide sources to support your view, and don't try to change history. Notice how I use details? Why not add some yourself, and then we might have something to talk about?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeez ... Here goes again: PSF formed in 1970 and the original, majority SF then became known as OSF. If you know so little about this, why are you editing the article? Sources have been given. Mooretwin (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already given you links above to the BBC and also to CAIN, a reliable source on NI which says that the party was formed in 1970. To add to that authors Jonathan Tonge [4] and Richard English of QUB [5] both state that the party was formed (as Provisional Sinn Fein) in 1970. The UCD homepage [6] states that SF split into two seperate parties Provisional and Official in 1970. Given multiple sources which dispute Adams party's claim to be the unique successor, it's up to us to report what the sources say so it's adequate to say that the current party *claims* to be the successor. No more no less. Valenciano (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How many elections have Provisional Sinn Fein been involved in? None! There is no such party. A caretaker executive was "Formed" in 1970. You then add "although tracing its history back to Arthur Griffith's original Sinn Féin in 1905" and contradict yourself by saying the current party only *claims* to be. The current party has never called itself anything other than Sinn Féin. So the Party *is* *was* and always has been Sinn Féin, tracing its history back to Arthur Griffith's original Sinn Féin in 1905. Now the term "Provisional" is a media term, placed on Sinn Féin. It is not the name of any political party in Ireland! Now provide a source were "Adams party's claim to be the unique successor." Are you are trying to suggest that Sinn Féin in 1970, split into two seperate parties, and one of the parties continued to call itself Sinn Féin, kept its origional constitution, rules and policies but it is not the same party? Is that what you are trying to say? The wording is going to be changed. Now you can put forward some suggestions, just try to make sure they make sence. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Provisional SF no longer styles itself as Provisional SF, but has foughts elections ever since the "Armalite and Ballot Box" strategy was adopted in 1981. Mooretwin (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're getting confused because the current party uses the name of the original party. Mooretwin (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1970:

• the Provos were the minority faction
• the Provos walked out of the SF convention
• the Provos established a different HQ and different party structure
• the majority faction were described as "official"

Yet you're trying to claim they didn't form a new party?? Mooretwin (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it your view that the PIRA was formed in 1919? Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Provisional SF no longer styles itself as Provisional SF" They never called themselves Provisional SF! Provide a sourse for that, and its case closed? You're getting confused between the Army and the Party. The Army established a "provisional" army council! The Party established a "caretaker executive." The Party was split, but who came out on top, the "caretaker executive." --Domer48_'fenian' 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

CAIN [7] says: "A majority of delegates (although not the two-thirds required under the party's rules to change policy) were in favour of ending the abstentionist policy. Those opposed to the move, 257 supporters of the 'Provisional Army Council', walked out of the meeting thus leaving the organisation and established offices in Kevin Street, Dublin. This new grouping became know as 'Provisional Sinn Féin' (PSF)." A quick google shows up over 50 other sources which refer to PSF and incidentally you've yet to provide a single source to the contrary, so there are even some grounds for a PSF article. Given the dispute and the sources which dispute the formation date, I would suggest a compromise wording along the lines of "the current party, led by Gerry Adams, emerged following a split in 1970. It traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905 though this is disputed by several commentators." Valenciano (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

THere's no need for a compromise wording - there's only one editor with his head in the sand, trying to rewrite history. Mooretwin (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask again - is it Domer's view that the PIRA was founded in 1919? Mooretwin (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Valenciano you have at least accepted there is a problem. "This new grouping became know as 'Provisional Sinn Féin' (PSF)," by commentators and the media, but no sourse has yet been provided having those involved as describing themselves as such. It is my opinion, that they never did, and no Party titled "Provisional Sinn Féin" has ever existed. You asked me to provide a source, The IRA, by J. Bowyer Bell, page 366-69 gives a very good account. The only dispute at the moment is that commentators applied and apply the term "Provisional" which the organisation themselves have never used. The history of the Party includes the origions in 1905, and is not and has not been a problem other than it needs referencing. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS it's irrelevant how SF refers or referred to itself, see for example Burma and Republic of Ireland. That's why for example we don't refer to the BNP as "Britain's only true patriotic socialist party." If multiple commentators and media sources referred to it as PSF then that's what we should use. There is a useful section in Peter Taylor's book provos which says, if I remember correctly that they referred to themselves as SF (Provisional) as a dab in the early days.As it happens I'm happy enough to leave the title of the article unchanged as contemporary sources generally refer to it as simply SF and not PSF. Your amendments to the page as it stands are fine although a few more references overall in the article would be useful. Valenciano (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree with the compromise made by Domer a couple of media commentators who use the term do not make it so. Adams has never claimed to be a member of Provisional Sinn Fein and PSF have never stood in any elections in Ireland. This is a made up term and should not be used as it is WP:OR. BigDunc^Talk 09:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but if you think that I suggest a refresher course in WP:OR which says: "In short, stick to the sources." There are about 50 of those which all refer to PSF and include such reliable sources as the BBC and CAIN so whether you believe it's a made up term or not need not concern us here. The sources say otherwise so it goes in. Valenciano (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What point is Domer trying to make? Whether PSF called itself PSF is irrelevant. The relevant point is that - regardless of how it described itself - it was formed in 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Valenciano that a reference to the name PSF is needed in the article. I've added this in. I also replaced the line that it is disputed that it can trace its history back to 1905 (because it can't be disputed!), with a line about its claim to be the legitimate successor of the 1905 SF. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The party which Gerry Adams is the president do not say they were formed in 1970. A caretaker executive was sent up then not a new party. BigDunc^Talk 09:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. Per WP:RS it doesn't matter to us how an individual, grouping or organisation describes itself - Republican SF for example describe themselves as the heirs to the party formed in 1905 and believe that a caretaker executive was formed in 1986 yet we rightly ignore that as it isn't a third party source. In the case of political parties many of them often claim things based on their own historical revisionism. CAIN, the BBC and multiple other sources say they were formed in 1970 so without reliable sources your personal opinions on what happened in 1970 aren't particularly important. Valenciano (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Big Dunc's edit is an attempt to deny reality. "Provisional SF" is not a made-up term. It was the term commonly-used to describe the party up until the mid-late 1970s. The party is listed in Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1999 by Sydney Elliott and W.D. Flackes with John Coulter (Belfast: Blackstaff Press ISBN 0-85640-628-7). I have no source to hand, but I believe the party used the term itself until rebranding as "Sinn Féin" some time in the 1970s. The current wording is unacceptable because:

• It is wrong to say that the party "emerged" in 1970: it did not "emerge" - it was quite deliberately and consciously established in an actual, positive, physical event in January 1970.
• It is wrong to say that several commentators dispute the fact that it traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905. It is undeniable that it can trace its origins back that far, given that it was formed by members of the original party.
• The wording does not state that the party was initially known as Provisional Sinn Féin. This is relevant.
• It does not explain that the party was and is allied to the Provisional IRA. This is relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Big Dunc think that the PIRA was formed in 1919? Mooretwin (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No army was formed in Ireland in 1919, and there is no such thing as the PIRA! The Irish Volunteers, founded in 1913, became known as the IRA during the 1919-1921 war. Through various splits, the current IRA (without modifiers "C", "R" or "P") emerged as the dominant IRA in the 1970s, and is the only group still known as the IRA (without modifiers). Scolaire (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RTE call the Party Sinn Féin, The Times call the Party Sinn Fén, The Irish Government call the Party Sinn Féin and the BBC call the Party Sinn Fén, and the Party calls its self Sinn Féin. Now why should we accept a media lable? Valenciano the problem here not WP:COMMONNAME or WP:RS it's irrelevant. Sinn Féin is the WP:COMMONNAME and is WP:RS. The Party dose not claim to be a successor of the 1905, it is. This is not disputed. What is disputed is weather or not Sinn Féin disbanded in 1970 or not. It is my opinion that it did not. So can we drop the debate about the term "Provisional SF" as this debate has already been had on WP and we have an agreed formula. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

• No-one is disputing that the party is called Sinn Féin! The problem is your failure to accept that it was founded in 1970, and was known as Provisional SF at that time and for several years thereafter.
• No-one is claiming that SF disbanded in 1970. What happened was that the Provos split away from SF, with the majority-party then becoming known as the Officials. There was no disbandment and no-one has said there was. Mooretwin (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sinn Féin Party split in 1970. No new party was "founded", although two new parties emerged. Both called themselves Sinn Féin, but one of them changed its name (several times). What was then Ó Brádaigh's Sinn Féin was referred to in the media as "Provisional Sinn Féin", but that was never its name. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire that's generally my POV as well - that it split into 2 parties but if other sources claim that OSF or PSF was the sole successor we should include those viewpoints in the text, it's simply not for us to judge which of them is correct. I think it's enough for us to simply report in the article per the sources that rightly or wrongly it was referred to as PSF in the media - if we have a source from the party itself saying that it was never called that then by all means include that. Domer I've already accepted the point that per COMMONNAME the party led by Adams is *now* called SF, so you're missing my point slightly. Valenciano (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The text should include all viewpoints in an NPOV way; the lead should state simple facts. Unfortunately, people are still trying to write the article from the lead down instead of working on the article and then reflecting the text in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW I confess I haven't read the whole discussion, but have reliable sources been produced that state "that OSF or PSF was the sole successor"? Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem Valenciano, we are at least moving the discussion on and focusing on the nub of the problem. On the Parties own web site it says that "Republicanism splits amid differing attitudes towards the deteriorating situation in the Six Counties... One section...went on to become Sinn Féin The Workers Party...Sinn Féin emerges as a party...becomes the leading advocate of British withdrawal and a 32 County socialist republic." Now I have no problem at all mentioning that it was referred to as PSF by some including the media, and in my opinion it should be there. The fact remains however, that the Party has always been called Sinn Féin, and there has never been a Party called PSF, likewise there has never been a Party called Sinn Féin/IRA dispite such titles been applied. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a case for having a "Name" section as there is in, for instance, Irish Republic? Then all the "Provisional" stuff could be got out of the way before the history section. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not true to say that "no new party was "founded"", nor is true to say that two new parties "emerged". There was no "emerging" - it all happened very definitely at a very specific point in time. Those (the minority) siding with the "Provisional Army Council" and opposing the proposal to recognise the Dáil walked out and established their own party HQ and proceeded to establish its own party organisation. That was a very definite, proactive occurrence. Objectively, it was a new party, notwithstanding the new party's claim to be the "true heirs", etc., of the party from which they split. Those who remained carried on as before, albeit with fewer members - they became dubbed the Officials because they were, well ... official (i.e. the original SF party). If any article should cover the 1905-1970 period, therefore, it is the Official Sinn Féin article. Most definitely not this article.Mooretwin (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the name, we currently have no source as to whether they officially called themselves the Provisionals, but we do not that that is how they were known by all and sundry until such time as the Officials moved on to other things and other names, and the Provos moved towards their "Armalite and ballot box strategy" and started to contest elections under the name "Sinn Féin".Mooretwin (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"we currently have no source as to whether they officially called themselves the Provisionals" so why did you add it? We know that the media have used such a title, so there you go. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add it ... due to the reason stated above. Mooretwin (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"we currently have no source as to whether they officially called themselves the Provisionals" so stop adding it! The current party, led by Gerry Adams, formed a 'caretaker executive,' the 'Officials' moved on and formed Official Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin never disbanded in 1970. Now provide a source (you have been asked already) that says they were originally known as Provisional Sinn Féin or stop adding it because we know there is no such Party and there never was. Did those who walked out resigne from Sinn Féin. Provide a sourse that says they establish their own party organisation and not a 'caretaker executive'?

I never added anything to say they called themselves Provisional SF (because we don’t yet know that for sure). The text says they were known as Provisional SF, which is true. There are sources given above by Valenciano, if you bothered to read them. If you walk out of a party and set up your own one, then you resign! Calling yourselves a “caretaker executive” doesn’t alter that rather obvious fact. Mooretwin (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Now this article is about Sinn Féin, the Party is was founded in 1905, three books have been written on the 100 year history of the Party and this is in addition to the one written by Sinn Féin its self. Now if you want to add "Provisionals" you add it were it arises, in the 1970's and you place its use in the context of how and by who it was used. Now this article covers the period 1905 to the present, explaine why you think it should only cover the period from 1970, and use some sourses and not just your opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All of that is already explained above. Mooretwin (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"... the Officials moved on and formed Official Sinn Féin" What sort of revisionist POV nonsense is that? Sinn Féin (1922 - at least 1974) continued in existence all the while that the Provos were setting up. The press attached the moniker "official" to disambiguate them from the group that walked out to create their self-styled "caretaker executive". But create it they did and that is what makes a new Party. In exactly the same way as Dev led a split-off Sinn Féin in 1922 when he found himself in a minority. It was a new Sinn Féin all the same. Just as Fianna Fáil was a new party when he led another minority out. You can call it what you like (and I can see that you do), but no amount of doublethink can hide the fact the Adams family was founded in 1970. Though if you follow the trail of the True Upholder of the Faith (Ruarí Ó Brádaigh), the one true Sinn Féin is Real Sinn Féin and thou shalt have no false Sinn Féins before him. Why does all this remind me of the Popular Peoples Popular Front of Life of Brian fame? --Red King (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this statement in the lead disputed "The party traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905." If it is explaine please? Now this was SF's opinion on the old leadership: “For a number of years now those involved in the take-over have traded on the good name of Sinn Féin — a name respected for honesty, integrity, sincerity and national ideals by Irish men everywhere. Now that that umbrella has been removed from them, they stand exposed and the Irish people in their own way can now form their judgement. We are content to leave it at that.” Sinn Féin (1922 - at least 1974), what sort of revisionist POV nonsense is that? You can call it what you like (and I can see that you do), but no amount of doublethink can hide the fact the Adams party traces its origins back to the original SF formed in 1905.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The present intro is correct (as of 09/09/08 20:28 UT). My challenge was to those who wanted the previous version and pretend that there is an unbroken line from 1905 to now. --Red King (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)