Talk:Éamon de Valera/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Roman Catholic

Éamon de Valera was a Roman Catholic.--MFIreland • Talk 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was. So are something like 90-odd percent of Irish people, at least nominally. Please read the category description, though. "Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability..." The things that spring to mind when you bring up Dev are 1916, the Civil War, founding Fianna Fáil, being president and Taoiseach, and possibly "Dancing at the crossroads" - not "he was a Catholic". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Bastun. That Dev was a Catholic is not in question, but that's not what he is notable for. Snappy (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was this category added back in? Since there is no consensus to add it, I have removed again. Snappy (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording in the Emergency section

The following wording in the Emergency section looks questionable to me, and I'd like to get some other editor's opinions on this:

[S]oon afterwards de Valera had a bitter exchange of words with Winston Churchill in two famous radio addresses...

There are two problems here, as I see it. First, linking "bitter exchange of words" with that cumbersome link to the main article on The Emergency seems questionable to me. Since what that subsection in the main article discusses are the two radio broadcasts, that is what should be linked in this article. Furthermore, that subsection should probably be edited to reflect the fact that the broadcasts is the subject. As it stands, the subsection title is vague and not very informative. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is very 'bald' at the moment and should be expanded/clarified in text. RashersTierney (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that it could be classified as a violation of WP:EGG, but it does seem counterintuitive and a little POV. Is there a critic or historian who described it as a "bitter exchange of words"? Rewording is definitely in order. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It does not seem like a bitter exchange of words to me. Churchill seemingly forgot that he was a signatory of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and was for some reason very confused as to why Ireland did not want to get involved in a foreign war, de Valera corrected his error. O Fenian (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it does not seem particularly bitter to me, either. And without a cite saying it was called bitter, that wording is just some editor's opinion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the radio addresses were hardly a "bitter" exchange of words. However, it should be remembered that in 1939-1945 Ireland was still part of the Commonwealth with George VI as Head of State. Since Hitler's ambition was to overrun all of Europe we cannot regard World War II as a "foreign" war, since if Britain had been overrun by the Nazis then Ireland would have soon been overrun as well. (92.7.18.37 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

@92.7.18.37, Wikipedia is not a forum--MFIreland • Talk 17:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary Kenny article

I would have to agree with the question over the accuracy of this source. It is not even about de Valera, but has two sentences about him in an op/ed that is about another subject entirely. "De Valera's condolences on Hitler's death were not matched by his condolences on Franklin D. Roosevelt's death", quite true but not in the manner implied by the sentence. An Irish Statesman and Revolutionary by Elizabeth Keane states on page 106 that Dev adjourned the Dáil as a mark of respect for Roosevelt, and he said "personally I regard his death as a loss to the world". In contrast she notes he did not adjourn the Dáil or make any favourable comments on the death of Hitler. Strained relations: Ireland at peace and the USA at war, 1941-45 by T. Ryle Dwyer states on page 162 that American ambassador Gray describes Dev's comments on the death of Roosevelt as a "moving tribute". The point about the "Éamon de Valera Forest in Israel" is also original research, since the source does not state that the forest should not have been planted for the reason given. Other, more academic sources, also deal with the refugee situation in a more balanced and in-depth way, rather than a one sentence assessment. O Fenian (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the same article [[1]] was used in Irish neutrality during World War II - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm reversing again, for the reasons expressed by OFenian and for the reasons I expressed in the talk page of Irish neutrality during World War II - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Brace Yourself Part 2 (Helping the British fight the IRA, Evidence In)

A BBC article here suggests that de Valera actively worked with the British government to smear Seán Russell as a communist agent. Is this significant in terms of Anglo-Irish relations at the time and should it be mentioned in the article? NtheP (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

..Yup, agreed and it should most definitely be mentioned that he helped MI6 defeat the IRA for balance alone. evidence Twobells (talk)

...Hmm interesting, there was historical evidence back in '09 that de Valera worked for the British yet I cannot find the entry in the article....Twobells (talk)

Dev...the British spy. The 'historical evidence'...refuted! Just to give those interested an idea of the scale and scope of this conspiracy nonsense. RashersTierney (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If it is a complete fabrication (and I offer no opinion on that whatsoever) then shouldn't it still be mentioned in the article, on the basis that repeated attempts to blacken his character have been made and this is a notable aspect of his life an/or memory? NtheP (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If it is 'a complete fabrication' what would be achieved other than Wikipedia promoting this book in the guise of allowing mention of a fringe theory. If the theme is, in the future, widely taken up by reliable historians, that would probably change matters. RashersTierney (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't aware it was a fringe theory but then my knowledge of Irish history isn't huge, so I'll willingly defer to those who have a better understanding than me. NtheP (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

De Valera's secret correspondance with Britain has been published in full for the first time. This is worth mentioning, because if it had been known at the time he would have been blown up by the IRA. (92.20.46.8 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

"in full"? I also cannot see anywhere in the so-called evidence anything that supports the assertion "he helped MI6 defeat the IRA" mentioned above in this discussion.
To summarise the actual facts..De Valera apparently asked the British for help smearing Russel, does that sound correct to anyone else? O Fenian (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That seems to better reflect what the source (BBC) is actually claiming. RashersTierney (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It has been described by the BBC (pertaining to the official records) as well as other sources that Newly released documents suggest that the man who helped found the Irish Free State, Eamon de Valera, covertly co-operated with Britain to crush the IRA. and the article should reflect that description shouldn't it?

The description that 'De Valera helped smear Russel' doesn't put across the magnitude of this act nor the reasons why, in that De Valera was horrified by the London bombings of '39 and conspired to (as he saw it) save the Irish Free State from both the IRA and overwhelming British reprisals.Twobells (talk)

So one on the leaders who waged a war to undermine the establishment of the Irish Free State and introduced a new constitution to get rid of it is now being presented as one of its founders? Is there any end to this revisionist waffle? RashersTierney (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of interest the Irish press (both on and off line) are describing it as 'colluding'
Indeed RashersTierney. The article also claims Dev's "entire cabinet in the late 1930s were former IRA members", funny how Seán T. O'Kelly was in every "cabinet" during the 1930s and was never an IRA Volunteer. I will reiterate that all this document sources is that Dev apparently asked the British for help smearing Russell, nothing more. O Fenian (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Nothing more? You're kidding right? This is a huge deal, he COLLUDED with the British...the very nation he had supposedly fought against to gain independence from. So who is going to do the section and how should we title it? Twobells (talk)
You might just as well make the case that Winston Churchill 'colluded' with his former Irish republican enemies to discredit Russell as a communist. I don't see any equivalent debate at that article TP. Sovereign governments collude/cooperate when its in their mutual interest. Nothing shock/horror about that. RashersTierney (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It would help if editors, and indeed journalists had read Decoding the IRA by Tom Mahon and James J. Gillogly, which deals with the IRA's links with the Soviet Union in the mid-1920s. The people dealing with the Russians were not in Ireland, but were generally London based high-ranking IRA members. At various points both the Soviet handlers/spies and IRA members had difficulties with the British security services, but the same cannot really be said of Ireland because they were not in Ireland. Therefore Dev had no evidence of Russell's Communist supposed (I forget the extent of, if any, of Russell's involvement) connections, so he asked the British for some. A lot had happened since the 1916-1921 period, things like the Civil War, Dev going constitutional with Fianna Fáil, Dev "taking the oath" and entering Leinster House, Dev outlawing the IRA and so on. With all that water under the bridge, it is hardly a major surprise that he tried to appear helpful to the British and stop Ireland being re-occupied. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Plenty to mull over too in Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, particularly the last two vols. for the period under discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We all knew he helped crush the IRA during World War II but this is the first time it has been confirmed that he did it secretly with British help. (92.20.46.8 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

..At this rate it it'll be more a case of who WASN'T helping the British (joke) Twobells (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...Radio 4 documentary tonight on revelation (28/3/11) 20:00 BST

Still no entry on the above, I'll do it but wanted advice first on a neutral approach, best wishes.Twobells (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I see, so editors are going to whitewash the above out and pretend it didn't happen then?Twobells (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Started work on the section, any advise is welcome.Twobells (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed per WP:COPYVIO and WP:FRINGE and the related WP:UNDUE. In contrast to what O Fenian says above, the actual facts of the matter are even more vague. In the absence of any further documents, the evidence amounts to this where a British official of unknown standing reports that a source has informed him of the supposed position of the Irish government. From this a BBC reporter has constructed a hypothesis of what happened, without providing any other supporting evidence to support the hypothesis or even that it happened at all! de Valera isn't even named in the document. Where's the supporting evidence that de Valera did actually ask for help? Or where's the evidence that the British thought the report sufficient to act upon and provided help? Real historians would cringe at the methods employed in that article. A primary source document is a place to start research from, not to end it. From there, you look for further supporting evidence that supports the direction the primary source leads you in. There's seemingly nothing like that here, it goes primary source document-bang-hypothesis becomes fact. Until this theory of events gains academic acceptance (not that I can see at present, since Donnacha Obeachain does not actually endorse the hypothesis) it remains a fringe theory, which if it has to be covered can be done so in a sentence not a whole section with a totally biased section heading. 2 lines of K303 13:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What copyright violations? It quite clearly states: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, I cite fair use. what's fringe and what's 'undue'? I cite giving equal validity. The fact that de Valera colluded with Britain is a huge story and certainly not 'fringe'. As for 'undue' I cannot see how mentioning such is undue, they are just the facts being given no weight at all. You also just deleted it rather than discuss what changes should be made which suggests rear brain reflex, I waited for over six months asking for the best and most neutral way to present the facts and no-one responded, yet the moment I start on the section it's deleted with an editor citing all sorts of spurious tags. You can try and hide this but even the Republic Of Ireland press are reporting this as fact, just because you don't like it doesn't give you any right to delete it, it seems to me that you are practising non-pov.Twobells (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
He "deleted it rather than discuss it"? Are you serious? This discussion has been ongoing since March, and no one wants to add this fringe material but you. Both Hackney and RashersTierney have consistently refuted your arguments, yet you continue. Consensus is clearly against you. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No-one once mentioned not wanting to add the material, just argued its validity, it's validity is not questionable but fact and it most certainly is not 'fringe material', when you put the facts into perspective and how this radically changes how de valera is now perceived the facts must be entered. Failing consensus I'll go to mediation and cite non-pov. Twobells (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see that O Fenian also responded, refuting your arguments. Let me also remind you that this article is subject to a 1RR restriction, as stated at the top of this talk page, which you have violated. Any further reverts could earn you a block. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The addition is full of factual inaccuracies, promotes a fringe viewpoint and is in addition plagiarism.--Domer48'fenian' 19:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Please point out any inaccuracies and/or 'plagiarism' rather than make accusations please?Twobells (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC).
@Twobells. You state: when you put the facts into perspective. What facts? There are none, just suggestions. No facts; therefore no need to write about it. ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The facts quite clearly show that dev colluded with London to defeat the IRA, the same IRA whose members sat in government with him.Twobells (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC). At the end of the day the reality is that dev colluded with Britain to smash the IRA whose bombings of London he felt might endanger the new republic, that certain editors do not want these facts added seems highly unusual to say the least unless editors are suggesting that the National Archive documents are false? Or that the BBC article an organisation highly regarded for citing source who placed the article on their own front page as a headline is also wrong...?Twobells (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Where are these facts that you allege exist? ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Well there is one fact, namely the wording of the documents. I use "wording" specifically over "content", since the latter may tend to suggest the contents of the documents are facts. Everything else is speculation based on the wording of the documents. 2 lines of K303 12:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Offer of united Ireland

The offer of a united Ireland must have come from Churchill, since it happened in June 1940. Churchill had replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister on 10th May. (92.20.46.8 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Agreed. The page on Irish neutrality in World War II mentions this. (HantersSpade (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree. If the letter was written on 12th June then it obviously came from Churchill, since he had replaced Chamberlain as prime minister more than a month earlier. (92.7.21.19 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

The sock agrees with himself. Fancy! You're building a very good case for a community ban. RashersTierney (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be a better way to describe it:

In June 1940, following the Fall of France, the British government invited de Valera to discuss the partition of Ireland. However, de Valera declined the offer, since he felt travelling to London to negotiate would be incompatible with neutrality. In addition, de Valera knew the offer was largely illusory - Ireland would be involved in World War II and the ending of partition would be no more than a half promise over which Belfast would have the full right of veto.

This is taken directly from Longford and TP O'Neill, pages 365-368. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.26.216 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death

Is there a reason why the article doesn't mention that de Valera died from pneumonia and cardiac failure? (92.20.46.8 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Oldest elected head of state claim

The comment that de Valera was 84 at re-election and that this made, and makes, him the oldest ever elected head of state are both incorrect. His reelection came more than four months before his 84th birthday. By contrast, Paul von Hindenburg was reelected president of Weimar Germany in 1932 when he was 84 (I don't know if this is the record but it proves that de Valera never held it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.53.179 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that de Valera was the oldest head of state when he retired at the age of 90. Hindenburg died at the close of his 87th year. (HantersSpade (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Newsflash

Apparently during the civil war Dev fought against people who were previously on the same side as him when he was fighting against the British. O Fenian (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Newly Released Documents re 'How De Valera asked UK to smear IRA chief Sean Russell'

See this BBC News item - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12848272 . Can it be inserted into the article? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Certain editors are attempting to prevent it's addition although the BBC considered it's content powerful enough to use it as their headline.Twobells (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The BBC are free to write any headlines they like. Headline writers always present the banal as the latest, greatest, most important and interesting 'discovery' ever committed to print. It doesn't make it so. RashersTierney (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for a claim

On the section regarding the 1937 constitution, there's the following line:

In July 1936, de Valera as constitutionally the King's Irish Prime Minister, wrote to King Edward in London indicating that he planned to introduce a new constitution, the central part of which was to be the creation of an office de Valera provisionally intended to call President of Saorstát Éireann, which would replace the governor-generalship.

I found that line to be the only mention of the 1937 constitution with a pre-1937 date, and would be important. But, what's the source for this?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are looking for. Documents on Irish Foreign Policy Vol IV 1932 - 1936 pp446-447 Letter from Joseph P Walshe to Michael MacDunphy (Dublin) enclosing a memorandum on the draft Irish constitution (Secret) Dublin, 10 June, 1936. "...I send you herewith a copy of the Memorandum relating to the proposed new Constitution which the High Commissioner has been instructed to deliver to King Edward." Hope this helps. RashersTierney (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Good enough.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, searching that database discovered several earlier discussion on drafting what eventually became the 1937 constitution, esp on the role of the King:
  1. 22 October 1935: Diplomatic role of the King is convention "as long as Saorstát Éireann remains associated as a Member of the British Commonwealth of Nations," minister needs to countersign such documents.
  2. 12 June 1936: Similar to the 10 June 1936 letter above, and establishing the separation of internal and external heads of state.
  3. 6 September 1936: What de V wanted the External Relations Act to be should Edward VIII not abdicate, such that the law is passed after the 1937 constitution is in effect.
--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Éamon de Valéra"?

I've certainly come across the spelling "Valéra" in the past, and the example of his signature in the article seems clearly to show a fada over the surname; a quick google finds other examples. Did he in fact spell/write his surname in this way, even if only for a time? I see a couple of other people in this talk page's archives have mentioned this second fada in passing. It seems a bit odd that his signature had been used in the past here to argue about "Éamon" vs. "Eamon" but "Valera" vs. "Valéra" has not been addressed. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

What's more, he sometimes used the even more Gaelicised form "Éamon de Bhailéara" See for example this signature, or this example in the Dáil "Hansard". --Kwekubo (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
We can ignore your second example, as that's someone else calling him by that name. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
So we have made up Irish versions of a made up American name, curious! Snappy (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nationality field in infobox

... is linked to Irish people, an article that describes the Irish as an ethnic group and "nation" in the historical sense of a group of people. It should really be linked to the state in which he lived (for example, Britons' infoboxes are linked to United Kingdom, like so: British. However, as de Valera was born into the UK of GB & I and lived thru the Free State and into the Republic, it's best left unlinked. At any rate, it shouldn't be piped to Irish people, but I'm coming up against some opposition in changing it. Let's discuss. JonChappleTalk 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly can't see what your problem is with linking to Irish People. If de Valera isn't an Irish Person then who is? Bjmullan (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying he's not an Irish person. Did you read what I wrote or just post a knee-jerk response? I'm saying linking to his ethnicity is wrong for the "nationality" field when it should be linking to a state/country, if at all. Ethnicity and nationality are two different things. Gilles Villeneuve's nationality was Canadian, not French Canadian; Van Morrison is described as Northern Irish, not an Ulster Scot, etc. JonChappleTalk 06:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That is to take only one of the meanings of the term. The dab at Irish clearly indicates that the article Irish people is broader than just its meaning in the sense of 'citizenship'. If that is what was intended, the 'Citizenship' parameter is available for use at the 'Infobox Office holder'. In Dev's case, this would give rise to whether at various times he was a US citizen, a British subject, citizen of the Irish Free State and Ireland (and even if it makes sense to draw a distinction between the latter two). The article on 'Irish people' is not a legal or even dictionary definition, but one where the general reader can find supplemental info on the subject, broadly drawn. It would also mean that reference to de Valera's mother; "De Valera was born in New York City in 1882 to an Irish mother", would also have to be de-linked, as would all current links at pre-1937 constitution figures across the project RashersTierney (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rashers. Btw, "as de Valera was born into the UK of GB & I", User:Jonchapple - try reading the article! Snappy (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You knew what I meant. JonChappleTalk 18:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not. I only know what people write down. I am not a mind reader. Snappy (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

De Valera was born a Hispanic American. His father was Cuban. He was a naturalized irishmanEricl (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And when exactly did this hitherto unknown naturalisation process take place? RashersTierney (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Given that he was born American, shouldn't it say American / Irish? I realize it might be a little shocking, but it's true, right? --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to be a an Irish citizen to be President , anything else would be incorrect . So next the arguement coming would be its nationality v citizenship , in that case it would need to be shown that at some stage he had British citzenship , which can be disproved by the article itself "the US Consulate in Dublin made representations before his trial while the full legal situation (i.e., was he actually a United States citizen and if so, how would the United States react to the execution of one of its citizens?) was clarified." So Did he hold dual Brtish/American citzenship and where is the proof of such ? I will put in Irish , most accurate I believe as it indicates what is required to be Irish as a nationality or citizen as opposed to the ethnic grouping . Murry1975 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
American-Irish he was, just like Mary McAleese is British-Irish. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:What is a troll?. --Red King (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Jordan ? Provide an ISBN to his book

I have removed this as I can't find a publishers link to the book cited as from Jordan. If any other editor has an ISBN for this book, please provide a reference to it. "In the most recent [2010] biography by Anthony J. Jordan, the author cites the film "Michael Collins " as contributing greatly to the undermining of deValera's reputation among younger people, by portraying him extremely negatively in comparison to Michael Collin . Jordan writes " It is often the case that that works of fiction, which films are, bear a stronger witness for many , than a written biographical or historical treatment". [ANTHONY J. JORDAN OP CIT. P. 293]" 83.70.253.238 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The book appears to be this one: NLI catalogue record (ISBN 9780952444794). Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Excommunication

Shouldn't his excommunication from the Catholic Church warrant a mention? JAC Esquire (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes if you can provide the citation. --Red King (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/The_31st_International_Eucharistic_Congress_Dublin_1932 (highlighted here -> awurl.com/52OtFuZtp) JAC Esquire (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The Catholic Churh issued a pastoral letter in 1922 excommunicating those who were continuing to support the Republican / Anti-Treaty side in the Civil War. I don't de Valera was explicitly mentioned, and probably never believed that it applied to him. [2] Snappy (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakenham states he was not excommunicated though 'denied the sacrements', Conor Cruise O'Brien has taken less oblique approach. Apparent reliable sources appear to differ, depending on 'sympathies'. RashersTierney (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should have checked the Talk Page first, but this was a new fact for me, so I didn't realize it was an old chestnut here. In verifying it before editing, I found quite a few sources, including the history book I cited from a university press, that reported he was excommunicated. What makes them seem credible to me is that these sources have either a neutral viewpoint or a pro-de Valera slant. If the 10 October 1922 pastoral letter cited above was indeed vague, not naming specific people, then that explains the subsequent decades of ambiguity...though it also seems to undermine the point of the excommunication, if even the people involved can't be sure whether it applies to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.196.253 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking for an online full text of the October 1922 Pastoral Letter, but no joy. Anyone? RashersTierney (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprised

Should there not be a section or even a separate article dedicated to criticism and controversy of Eamon De Valera? Sheodred 21:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that you won't get anywhere with that irrespective of it's legitimacy, this article is locked down by partisans. Makes you realise why Wikipedia has been banned by educators as a research tool doesn't it? For example how come this startling biography has no mention here? That alone deserves a paragraph. Twobells (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps because that book is based completely on supposition, propaganda stories, wild interpretation of accepted facts, hear say and illogical conjecture. Snappy (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Mayo librarian

I intend marking this entry as 'failed verification'. De Valera had realised that to win power he had to appeal to as wide a possible of constituency. This was best demonstrated in Mayo by his objection to the appointment of Letitia Dunbar Harrison, a Protestant librarian. The reference given is The Curious Case of the Mayo Librarian, pp98-99,124,167,177,181,198-199, a series of page numbers from a book about the failure to appoint Letetia Dunbar Harrison. The implication of the edit is clear, if unstated; De Valera needed to appeal to a presumed anti-Protestantism of the majority for electoral purposes.

The book makes no such claim from my reading. It certainly shows criticism of De Valera's stance, and that of others (including the governing Cumann na nGaedheal party), but that is very far from being the same thing. He is chastised for "claiming to oppose discrimination in theory yet endorsing it in this particular instance." (pp99-100) The issue was as much about local/central government tensions as sectarianism (an undeniable undercurrent), though not confined to any individual or party. RashersTierney (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't the sentences just be removed? The first one is just ridiculous. "De Valera had realised that to win power he had to appeal to as wide a possible of constituency" - doesn't that hold true for almost any politician? 2 lines of K303 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Just giving a heads up, with explanation, before removal. RashersTierney (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah thanks, I'm not sure about all the ins and outs but it does seem a bit much to go on about his contribution or lack therof to all that when he wasn't even in government at the time. Plus I don't think trying to figure out his motives was ever a particularly simple or accurate process! Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Early life edit

At the end of the section "Early life", there is a sentence on de Valera's children "De Valera's children were five sons: Vivion, Éamon, Brian, Ruairi and Terence (Terry), and two daughters: Máirín and Emer. Brian de Valera predeceased his parents." But there is no mention of a marriage, which should precede the sentence listing his children. I am going to move the first paragraph of "Early political activity"-- which does discuss his marriage-- to precede the sentence listing his children. SaturnCat (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ireland's struggle was for independence from the UK (then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), not from Britain which is a separate island. (PaulJennsen (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC))

The UK is sometimes refered to as Britain, BTW this article is under the 1RR rule. Murry1975 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is confusing: "Tim Pat Coogan, speculated that questions surrounding de Valera's legitimacy may have been a deciding factor in his not entering religious life, since being illegitimate would have been a bar to receiving orders only as a secular or diocesan cleric, not as a member of a religious order." Needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.25.251 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Father

The Spanish Wikipedia says his father was Cuban. Does anyone have verifiable information as to his father's origin?98.170.192.214 (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, no-one has. None has ever been found, hence the endless speculation. Snappy (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Criminal category

Was de Valera a criminal? What crime did he commit? Snappy (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Treason, presumably. He was convicted at a court-martial in 1916. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
De Valera was not an elected politician in 1916. Are you proposing to add all those who fought for Irish freedom between 1916 and 1921 (who were also politicians) in the this category? Are you equating fighting for your country with criminality? I thought this was more a common criminal type of category. Snappy (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that the category applies to anyone who's been convicted of a crime. You ought to know by now that fighting for your country can often land you in that boat. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this category applies to rebels/revolutionaries. It's too crude, there was a category called Jailed TDs which was deleted and replaced by List of imprisoned members of the Oireachtas, where the table could show in detail who was in prison for what. The Irish politicians convicted of crime would lump the revolutionaries (de Valera), the common criminals (Henry Coyle, a fraudster), and those where campaigning for a particular cause (Joe Higgins, Anti-Bin Tax). Any category which does that is a poor category indeed. I propose a new category for the Irish revolutionary period. The tree would be - Category:Irish prisoners and detainees -> Politicians imprisoned during the Irish revolutionary period. There is also the Category:People convicted of treason against the United Kingdom which would be fine for de Valera but not all prisoners in that period were convicted of treason. Snappy (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but what about the Provisionals? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, they were not active in 1916-23. Don't they have there own category in the same tree, e.g. Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and its various subcats?
1916-23? What's that got to do with it? Those categories don't cover combatants who went on to become politicians. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
1916-23 is the area I focusing on hence the name of the suggested category: Politicians imprisoned during the Irish revolutionary period. If you are interested in the Provos, then I suggest you create a category to cover them, e.g. Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict who finally saw the futility of the armed struggle and later went into democratic politics. Bit long winded, but a starting point. Snappy (talk)
Are you trying to insult Dev by indirectly linking him with the Provos? This is not a forum, Snappy; try to stay focused. You haven't convinced me that Dev et al ought to be left out of this category. You may approve of their crimes, but that's not a good enough reason. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. You're the one who bought up the Provos. You've gone off on a tangent as usual. You stay focused! Snappy (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me you're making snide asides about Dev's militarism and subsequent entry into democratic politics; I'm letting you know you ought to save these sentiments for a blog or similar, and focus on the issue here. Here, you're saying Dev's criminal conviction ought to be disregarded because you approve of his crime; I say you ought to try to be more neutral about these matters. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I've created the category and added de Valera to it. See above for suggestion of other category if you want to add that. Snappy (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
But your category can't be nested into mine as not all of those imprisoned had been convicted. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not supposed to be, they are different category trees. Snappy (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there some reason you added back in the incorrect category? I thought it was clear after the discussion. Snappy (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
So did I. Why do you refer to it as incorrect? Do you not believe he was convicted? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I have now added the specific category for his crime, that is Category:People convicted of treason against the United Kingdom, so need need for the category you proposed. Snappy (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
But that category can't be nested in mine either, nor is it specific about his nationality and profession. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, De Valera was not an elected politician in 1916. The category that you are proposing is for politicians who committed crimes while in office, or were convicted of crimes arising from their time in office. Snappy (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? It contains a lot of people who weren't politicians at the time of their convictions. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Snappy? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Then they should be removed, as it should be for those convicted of crimes while in office or arising from acts in office. Snappy (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to go along with that for now, but I caution you that your interpretation is likely to meet opposition from others. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The rationale already exists elsewhere on wikipedia, see intro of List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes.
OK. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've put the question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Politicians_convicted_of_crimes Gob Lofa (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(The) Long Fellow?

Discussion of a Neelix redirect from long fellow to Longfellow brought up the comment that De Valera was nicknamed Long Fellow. This seems supported by various book titles, and articles eg in Irish Examiner, Irish Times, bbc site etc, but the name does not appear in the article at present except in book titles in the references. Not my subject area so I leave it at that. PamD 09:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Éamon de Valera. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Éamon de Valera. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Éamon de Valera. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Down/South Down?

As is noted in the text, Dev was elected to the Stormont parliament for Down and then South Down, but abstained along with the other republicans. Should these roles be added to the (already very long) infobox, or is that just making things more lengthy and unmanagable? jxm (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Jorge de Valero"?

The opening paragraph lists this as his original name; I can't find any references to this online. Is it true? 37.228.241.242 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Irish people of Basque descent

Spleodrach historians agree that Vivion de Valera existed and that he was Basque. Source = https://books.google.ae/books?id=Foz2CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&dq=vivion+de+valera+basque&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8v47XqIPbAhVMiaYKHYlzDKgQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=vivion%20de%20valera%20basque&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.202.166.178 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at the archives for this talk page, search for father. You will find that no evidence that Juan Vivon de Valera ever existed. The link you have, just repeats what was on the birth cert, which was put there by his mother. Spleodrach (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Spleodrach, did you read the link? I think either you never actually read the link or you read it too quick and need to read it again. Ronan Fanning is stating that he existed and that he was Basque.82.202.166.178 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you read it? All information about Juan Vivon de Valera came from Catherine Coll, De Valera's mother. People looked for many years for independent evidence of this man's existence and none was ever found. he apparently lived and died without ever leaving a paper trail. The most glaring being no marriage certificate was ever found for De Valara's parents. Again, read the archives. It's been discussed before many times. Spleodrach (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Spleodrach, I am getting the impression that this is just your personal opinion. I think the article should convey what academic historians have to say and not what one guy on Wikipedia thinks.82.202.166.178 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no opinion, I'm looking for evidence. You have provided none, just a historian whose evidence comes from one biased source. Same source say De Valera's parents were married, but as I have already pointed out, no marriage cert was ever found, even though all marriages, church and registry office, were at the time. It says the father died in Denver in 1884, but again no death cert was ever found. Also, other sources say the father was Cuban. Spleodrach (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Spleodrach you say you have no opinion bit yet you precede to criticise academic historians saying they are using a biased sources. I feel like in situations like this (One random guy on Wikipedia vs the academic consensus) the academic consensus should not be supplanted by the views of one random guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.202.166.178 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi 82.202.166.178 (open-proxy anon). As per the archives which Spleodrach has directed you to (and which, likely, in a previous guise you were at least familiar with), DeV's father is variously given as Argentinian, Basque, Spanish, Cuban of Spanish descent, Portuguese of Jewish descent, and other nationalities and ethnicities. Across multiple academic and research-driven sources. Favouring just one derivation (and then warring over it from an open proxy IP) is not in keeping with consensus. Either the "academic consensus" - which you reference. Or the editor consensus - which this project upholds. Slán/Уви́димся. Guliolopez (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In case it is needed to be known, there's currently a sockpuppet investigation open of the IP. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Guliolopez I can't seem to find a source that denies De Valera's father was born in the Basque Country, could you provide one?216.162.47.18 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Not engaging with block evading open-proxy hopping sock any further airtime beyond this:
  • Proinsias Mac Aonghusa (author "Eamon De Valera - Na Blianta Reabhloideacha" / editor "Quotations from Eamon de Valera") gave Juan Vivion de Valera as being born in Matanzas in Cuba in 1853 (Irish Times, Jun 1999).
  • Brendan Ward (Columbia University, New York) claimed to have evidence of the same - including Cuban birth/baptismal certs/etc (Irish Independent, Nov 2005)
  • J Edgar Hoover (paranoid FBI director) ordered an investigation into DeV - based on a suspicion that he was a "Portuguese Jew" and/or "Cuban". The former almost certainly complete nonsense. (Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J Edgar Hoover, Summers, 2011)
Instead of spending your time flicking between proxies, try reading a book instead. Slán. Guliolopez (talk)
Guliolopez you cite three sources. The first is a journalists who has no academic credentials whatsoever, the second is an academic who could not get his findings published so he was forced to make a documentary and the third was the suspicions of a former FBI director. If those are the only sources you provide that state de Valera's father was born in the Basque Country then it seems that is nothing but fringe opinion and should be ignored195.159.175.68 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no policy to ignore potentially conflicting sources. And so I will not support changing the text and cats.
There is however a policy to ignore block evading IP hopping LTA trolls. And so I will do that. Bye troll.
Guliolopez (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

November '18 edits

CnocBride wrote: I don't really understand how my contributions were not neutral? The only section I can see as being remotely seen as violating WP:NPV is: 

De Valera's political beliefs evolved from militant [[Irish republicanism]] to strong [[Social conservatism|social]], [[Cultural conservatism|cultural]] and [[Economic Conservatism|economic]] conservatism.<ref name="Ferriter, 2007">Ferriter, ''Judging Dev: A Reassessment of the Life and Legacy of Eamon De Valera'' (2007), {{ISBN|1-904890-28-8}}.</ref> While being venerated as a messiah like figure within Fianna Fail, he has been characterised by a stern, unbending, devious demeanor. His roles in the Civil War have also portrayed him as a divisive figure in Irish history. Biographer [[Tim Pat Coogan]] sees his time in power as being characterised by economic and cultural stagnation, while [[Diarmaid Ferriter]] argues that the stereotype of de Valera as an austere, cold and even backward figure was largely manufactured in the 1960s and is misguided.<ref name="Ferriter, 2007" />

Which was not heavily modified. I only expanded information about his time in office and stated that he was a 'prominent' politician, a neutral world for a person who is notable in a certain field, which every person who has studied de Valera is. I never intended to cast any of my own political beliefs upon de Valera and the article itself and I will gladly remove any parts that you believe were not 'adequately sourced' and were not written from a 'neutral point of view'. I'm a firm believer in NPV and I would like to fix this issue. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 23:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi CnocBride. I reverted because to me, the change didn't seem like an improvement. While there are obvious issues such as the unreferenced "venerated as a messiah like figure", other issues inlcude:
  • reference to "the botched Irish revolution" (my emphasis); this is an odd interpretation of the Rising, to say the least, and shouldn't be presented as fact in WP's editorial voice;
  • "released after public opinion against the British response to the rising turned sour" is only one of the four reasons presented later in the article for why Dev's sentence was commuted;
  • "He returned to Ireland" is disjointed - no explanation of why he wasn't in Ireland.
Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Bastun (talk · contribs) Ok, thank you, the last part was lacking clarity, clearly. The fact I used the word 'botched' was because the Rising did indeed fail initially and led to the execution of some of Ireland's top political and military leaders at the time. The public opinion one was, well, it was the first one that popped into my head and I believed it was the most prominent reason. Regardless, I have made edits to the issue. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 17:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a rather large body of work that suggests a "failed" Rising was the whole point... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

De Valera, Asperger’s and psychiatry

Not sure if this can be included, but I found it an interesting review of some biased and downright nasty attacks on him. https://siulach.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/de-valera-aspergers-and-psychiatry/. For the record, I read the book when it came out and found each diagnosis unpersuasive. With subjects like de Valera it seems necessary to get some balanced conclusions rather than the wild opinions that pass for them. Fergananim (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it can't be included, its from a blog and those "diagnoses" were made after the subjects were dead. Spleodrach (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Goldwater rule Irishpolitical (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose the creation of a stand-alone 'Honours' section within the Eamon de Valera article, to help streamline the article a bit more.

Dear all,

I would like to propose the creation of a stand-alone 'Honours' section within the Eamon de Valera article. The purpose of this would be to create a more clearly defined 'Legacy' section of the article, by having the honours that Mr de Valera received during his lifetime to be contained within a single 'Honours' section (as if often done with the subjects of other Wikipedia articles), instead of being mixed in with points about Mr de Valera's general legacy in the political, economic and cultural spheres.

This 'Honours' section would take the information regarding Mr de Valera's chancellorship of the National University of Ireland, his various honorary doctorates, his papal knighthoods, his membership of the Royal Society, etc, out of the current 'Legacy' section and placed in a new, subsequent section. I feel that this would help to streamline the article somewhat more.

I also propose improving the top of the template within the article. The current template photograph of Eamon de Valera is excellent and I would not suggest changing it. I would however like to include his post-nominal letters for the information of the reader, as an honorific suffix. For example, the letters denoting his dignity as a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Pius IX (GCPO) and those of his membership of the prestigious, learned Royal Society (FRS). I would propose including his post-nominal letters not at the beginning of the main article itself, but only in the template section on the right-hand side of the article.

Looking forward to your views Editor'sEye (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for opening this thread. It is a much more constructive approach to editing (and consistent with the guidelines on consensus-based editing) than other recent contra-guideline approaches (warring). In terms of the proposal, personally I don't support it. As:
  1. It's unclear what problem we are trying to solve. The legacy section reads "OK" to me as it is. I'm not seeing large blocks of text or sub-topics that need to be separated.
  2. You mention that having a separate section for "honours" would be consistent with "the subjects of other Wikipedia articles". What other similar articles would those be? I'm not sure I've seen an article on a president containing a table or list of every honour they were afforded? (I don't see anything for Hyde or Lincoln or Roosevelt or others. On the De Gaulle article (an article notably tagged for containing too much crud as it is) the "honours" section lists military honours. Not honorary doctorates or what have you. Even on the Gandhi article, the "awards" section is a concise sub-section of "legacy". Not a standalone/exhaustive table or whatever.)
  3. Awards held and offered to holders of high-office (honorary degrees, honorary titles, memberships of associations, leadership of boards, etc) are often extensive. When holders of high office "show up" to places (universities, societies and even countries) they are often afforded honorary titles. Any list would therefore be extensive and, in all honesty and in many cases, not especially noteworthy/special.
  4. De Valera didn't put much stock in titles. His own first Fianna Fáil government, notably, was "strongly opposed to the establishment of any decoration or order". And, despite pressure to do so, did not "invent" an honour (and change policy or law) or give Lauri an honorary Irish title when he arrived for the Eucharistic Congress. Ireland (even today) remains a republic - without an honours system. (As the first government(s) were aware that titles and honours had been used by the Dublin Castle administration as part-"bribe" part-"golden-handcuff".)
  5. WP:USEPROSE and WP:NOTSTATS advises against excessive and "exhaustive detail on everything - presented as a table". Convention is to summarise key points in prose. Not disrupt articles with extensive tables and lists.
Personally I don't see it. Guliolopez (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Guliolopez, thank you for your points. And I apologise for undoing your editing of my first edit to the Eamon de Valera page (a week or so ago), without first having a discussion with you about it. That action was due to my inexperience as an editor, but I want to do better. I really am not interested in edit wars, but rather in having a constructive relationship with other editors.
I am mindful that the Eamon de Valera article, in its current form and as it is currently presented, is rated as only a 'B-Class' article, meaning that "a few aspects of content and style need to be addressed". I would like to help it to become a good article, and maybe even a "featured article" some day. That said, if you are strongly opposed to my suggestion of creating a new section in the way I have proposed, then of course I will not do it.
I agree with you that Eamon de Valera arguably did not put much stock in titles. This is largely because of how the British had used them in the way that you have outlined. However, we have to accept that Eamon de Valera did accept two papal knighthoods[1], and even travelled to Rome to receive them[2]. He, like any other proposed recipient, would have had the option to decline the offer of membership of those orders of knighthood (the Pontifical Order of Pius IX and the Supreme Order of Christ) if he had so chosen.
Would you be very much opposed to me simply adding the post-nominal letters G.C.P.O. (denoting his papal knighthood) and the letters F.R.S. (denoting his membership of the learned Royal Society) underneath his name in the template (not at the beginning of the article itself)? Editor'sEye (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I would be opposed. WP:POSTNOM applies: When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. Neither clause applies in this case. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The Holy See is a "widely recognized organization". I have also cited two reliable sources which have attributed these honours to Eamon de Valera. Any reputable, professional historian on the subject of Eamon de Valera would also confirm that Mr de Valera accepted membership of these aforementioned orders of knighthood from the Holy See and also accepted a fellowship of the Royal Society, therefore entitling Eamon de Valera to the use of the post-nominal letters: 'F.R.S.' (Fellow of the Royal Society). The Royal Society is, of course, a "widely recognized organization", being one of the pre-eminent learned, scientific societies in the English-speaking world. Mr de Valera's membership of the Royal Society is, indeed, referenced in the main Wikipedia article on Eamon de Valera. Editor'sEye (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
No need to put your signature on a separate line, you're not writing a letter to the Irish Times. ;-) Yes, the Vatican is a widely recognised organisation. It is not, however, one widely associated with De Valera. Nor is the Royal Society. Yes, they awarded him their honours. Are they what "reliable sources regularly associate with the subject"? No. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi both. In all honesty I think I've lost track of what is being proposed. The original proposal/discussion was (to my read) about creating a section and/or table of "honours" (incl. positions on boards, honorary doctorates, membership of societies, etc). But we also seem to be discussing on whether and what post-nominal letters to include in the lead. For my part, in terms of the:

  • Lead; I do not see how the guidelines support something like "Éamon de Valera, GCPO, FRS, was a prominent statesman and political leader in Ireland". Considering that no other sources (that I can find) lamp those post-nominals onto the subject's name. As if they form part of his common name. And, as Bastun notes, WP:POSTNOM states that "When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state [..]), they should be omitted from the lead". In a way that would seem to completely and directly apply here.
  • Body; I do not see what a "table of board representations, honorary degrees, society memberships, etc" would add. Likely being or becoming an unbounded and distracting (CV-style) table of everything and anything. In a way that doesn't seem to fit with related guidelines. If someone's membership of a board or participation in a society is substantively relevant to their life and legacy, then it should be covered in the body. Rather than as a random entry in a broad "matrix of miscellany".

Anyway. perhaps I'm overlooking something (as I'm not even sure I'm following the argument being made or the specific change actually proposed), but if either of the above are what's being proposed (post-nominals to lead and/or table to body), then I wouldn't personally support either. Guliolopez (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guliolopez, thankfully I am not proposing either of those two things that you say you wouldn't personally support (post-nominals to lead and/or table to body).

In my initial post on this thread, I proposed creating a new, additional section within the body of the article. This new section would be positioned between the existing 'Legacy' and 'In Popular Culture' sections (it would not replace any existing sections). My idea was for this new section to be written with sentences (not with a table/list of things), in the same way that most of the other sections within the body of the article are written. This new section (entitled: 'Honours') would mention the honours that Eamon de Valera received throughout his lifetime and would mention the context in which he received them. It would mention the honours that are relevant to his life and legacy. However, I am not wedded to this proposal of creating a new section, and I am happy to stick with the current approach of mentioning Eamon de Valera's honours in the existing 'Legacy' section (as is currently done), without the need for a new section.

In regard to the post-nominal letters, I think that I should have written my first post on this thread with a bit more clarity. The only thing that I am still proposing is for Eamon de Valera's post-nominal letters (GCPO, FRS) to be included in the infobox parameter for post-nominals, not in the lead sentence of the body of the article itself. I previously used the words "template within the article", which I think has led to confusion. I should have, instead, written: "infobox outside of the body of the article". Editor'sEye (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jordan, Anthony J. (2010). Éamon DeValera, 1882-1975 : Irish : Catholic : visionary. Dublin. ISBN 9780952444794.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. ^ Cardinale, Hyginus Eugene (1985). Orders of knighthood, awards, and the Holy See (3rd, further rev. and enl ed.). Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire: Van Duren. ISBN 0-905715-26-8.

Civil War - wrong dates

As a close watch is (correctly) kept on this article, can someone fix the 'Civil War' section, para. 4? Perhaps the foll. text would do: On 30 April 1922 ... a ceasefire. This was followed on 24 May by an order for volunteers to "dump arms". Billsmith60 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Little Museum of Dublin

Hi guys, what do you think about this new element:

The original version of the decree signed by the hand of Eamon de Valera that secured Ireland's independence in 1921 is currently in the Little Museum of Dublin, located in the centre of the capital opposite St. Stephen's Green [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Léa Di Francesco (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ White, Trevor, et al. Little Book of Dublin. The Little Museum of Dublin. 2017. Print
Object This is spam by an editor with a Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 16:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Not done. I, for one, will not make the proposed edit on the behalf of the connected editor. And would not support others doing so either. This is another in a long line of attempts to "mention the subject with which I have a connection in otherwise unrelated articles". With a goal to promote that organisation/museum (the Little Museum of Dublin) rather than to actually improve this project or the reader's understanding of the subject here (Éamon de Valera). Guliolopez (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hi Léa Di Francesco. Before we would even consider this, you would need to actually engage with the editors on your own talk page, declaring your conflict of interest, as requested by several people now. Really, though, the Little Museum of Dublin needs to stop trying to insert WP:LINKSPAM on Wikipedia. As to the actual change? No! The "decree" you're talking about doesn't exist! The Anglo-Irish Treaty secured Ireland's independence, and that wasn't signed by de Valera. Judging by linkspam removed elsewhere, what you're actually talking about is a decree appointing plenipotentiaries to the treaty negotiations. That isn't WP:DUE for inclusion here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Éamon_de_Valera/Archive_6&oldid=1137346122"