Talk:Éamon de Valera

Views on religious discrimination

I edited the page to include the following:-

In 1931 he said in the Dáil that "if I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic. Let us be clear and let us know where we are."

User:FDW777 reverted this on the following basis "He said a lof of things in Dáil Éireann, what's the significance of that one?"

I will answer in the words of Dwyer, Ryle (2 February 2008). "Political hypocrisy has long history, but Bertie is guilty of much worse". Irish Examiner. Retrieved 26 December 2021.

"If those were his honest views, one could also say without hesitation that the Long Fellow was a bigot. But, in fact, he was just playing the role of a political hypocrite."

And Mohr, Thomas (8 November 2021). "Religious Minorities under the Constitution of the Irish Free State, 1922–1937". American Journal of Legal History. 61 (2). doi:10.1093/ajlh/njab002. Retrieved 26 December 2021.

"the Irish government’s argument that the Protestant minority did not require external safeguards, such as the Privy Council appeal, in order to uphold its rights ... Unfortunately, this stand was undermined when Eamon de Valera threw the support of the main opposition party behind Mayo county council. De Valera maintained a similar stance with respect to the appointment of non-Catholic dispensary doctors in Catholic areas."

The article on James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon rightly quotes his reference in the Northern Ireland Parliament to "a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State." I suggest that De Valera's article should also quote his statement in the Dáil which I quoted." Alekksandr (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the basis of partition was largely influenced by religious difference - a "Catholic and nationalist" Republic and a "Protestant and Unionist" NI - I'd certainly think this was WP:DUE for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now reinstated the quotation and added the sources given above.Alekksandr (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Still cherry picking, the Examiner article makes it clear the quote is part of a much wider context which you are not attempting to explain. See WP:ONUS. FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to amend my edit to read as follows

In 1931 he said in the Dáil that "if I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic. Let us be clear and let us know where we are." A commentator said in 2008 that "If those were his honest views, one could also say without hesitation that the Long Fellow was a bigot. But, in fact, he was just playing the role of a political hypocrite. It was cynical, but it should be stressed that he behaved responsibly in this regard when he came to power."

In answer to your request for 'wider context' I refer to the following

1. "The debate which ensued in the Dáil forms a connoisseur’s guide to prejudice in Ireland. It is characteristic of it that books were spoken of throughout as if they were dangerous drugs; and the central issue really had nothing to do with Miss Dunbar Harrison’s competence in Irish, but turned quite simply on one question-could a Protestant be trusted to, hand out books to Catholics? It is worth noting, moreover, that this question was canvassed most actively by the members of Fianna Fáil (Mr de Valera’s party) ... Mr de Valera himself (who was to become President of the Executive Council in the following year) did nothing to discountenance these attitudes: 'I say that if I had a vote on a local body, and there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic.' Other things, of course, being equal. If the work, Mr de Valera went on, was to he considered as ‘active work of a propagandist educational character’, then the people of a county where over 98 per cent of the population was Catholic were justified in insisting upon a Catholic librarian. ‘The Deputy’, said the minister, ‘has gone as near saying as constitutionally he can that no Protestant librarian should be appointed to county libraries in this country.’

2. "One thing can, however, be said in favour of unionist polemics, namely, that, while much energy was put into rebutting charges of discrimination, little was wasted upon positive claims of angelic fair- mindedness. By contrast, nationalists in the South have always been driven by some inner compulsion to descant without end ... But such molehill peaks of togetherness stand out merely because of the flatness of the surrounding countryside. Douglas Hyde may have become President in 1938 but the service held in St Patrick's Church of Ireland Cathedral to mark his inauguration took place without the attendance of the Catholic Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, who, some years before, had told the Dail that 'If I had a vote on a local body, and there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community [as, for example, librarians], and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic. ' Though none can reasonably claim that the minorities North and South were treated with similar harshness ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekksandr (talk • contribs)

FDW, there is consensus for inclusion. By all means, improve what's been included, but don't excise it. It's absolutely WP:DUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion of the current text, since it's clear cherry-picking and a violation of WP:NPOV. It's up to those seeking to include to propose a policy compliant version. FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have already addressed the point about cherry-picking. Please confirm the basis on which you believe that the proposed edit, with citations to sources, violates NPOV. Alekksandr (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_consensus-building_process -

Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution.

Example: An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate.

Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_unanimity "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. ... Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system"

Wikipedia:STONEWALLING, including Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Ignoring_good_faith_questions

In this case, you immediately revert any edits which I make to article space. I have sought to address the points which you have made on the talk page. You tend to ignore my posts on the talk page. You have not indicated why you do not accept my response to your suggestion of cherrypicking. You have simply asserted that the proposed edit breaches WP:NPOV, without explaining the basis on which you believe this. I am concerned that your approach is to (1) revert any edit to articlespace (2) once you have done so, refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. Alekksandr (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite straightforward. You made an edit, you were reverted. Rather than actually seek consensus for your change (per WP:ONUS, repeatedly mentioned) you reinstated the edit. That is edit-warring, and it is disruptive. Your proposal is unacceptable, as it remains cherry picking. De Valera's comments were preceded by another comment where he disavowed discrimination, yet you have neglected to include this at all. I also believe the addition to be misplaced, and may be better off explored elsewhere in the article. Do you actually have any references that suggest those specific comments by de Valera prompted Craig's much more well documented outburst? FDW777 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

They reverted the edit presumably because I also commented to say their addition was indeed WP:DUE and should be covered in the article. I stand over that. By all means help to improve the coverage of the issue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my initial edit, asking 'what's the significance of that one?' I quoted Dwyer and Mohr on the talk page at 18:53, 26 December 2021 and then, after there had been no objections and one comment in support, amended the previous edit to include them at 17:16, 27 December 2021. I did not 'reinstate the edit'. At 17:30, 27 December 2021, you said "Still cherry picking, the Examiner article makes it clear the quote is part of a much wider context which you are not attempting to explain.". At 18:17, 27 December 2021 I confirmed that I was happy to amend my edit to include the quotation from the Irish Examiner to which you referred, and provided quotations from White and Hoppen in answer to your request for 'wider context'. You then repeated the allegation about cherrypicking to which I had already replied. In an attempt to deal with your point that "De Valera's comments were preceded by another comment where he disavowed discrimination, yet you have neglected to include this at all.", and in a further effort to gain consensus, I am happy to further amend my proposed edit to read as follows:

In 1931 he said in the Dáil that "If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle, introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I would vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so. ... if I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic. Let us be clear and let us know where we are." A commentator said in 2008 that "If those were his honest views, one could also say without hesitation that the Long Fellow was a bigot. But, in fact, he was just playing the role of a political hypocrite. It was cynical, but it should be stressed that he behaved responsibly in this regard when he came to power."

I had put the reference to the 1931 speech in its chronological place in the article. If you feel that it would be better placed somewhere else in the article, please say where you feel that that is. As stated in James_Craig,_1st_Viscount_Craigavon#Politics and the source cited therein, Craig began his comments by the words "The hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State.". In light of the sources which I have cited, I am not sure of the basis on which you suggest that De Valera's statement is not "well documented" as opposed to having been quoted less often. Alekksandr (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added the Dwyer quote and moved those sentences to the 'Catholic social policy' section, as it seemed incongruous in the 'Founding Fianna Fáil' section. (As an aside, Alekksandr, please have a look at WP:INDENT - a couple of your replies look like they're directed at me rather than FDW (fixed now) and remember to sign your posts). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance about indentation. Alekksandr (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The quote you insist on adding is prefaced by the following;

I have stated more than once what my position on these matters is, and I do not hesitate to state it now. I believe that every citizen in this country is entitled to his share of public appointments, and that there should not be discrimination on the ground of religion, discrimination, mind you, in the sense that because a person was of a particular religion, religion should not be made an excuse for denying a person an appointment for which he or she was fully qualified. Then there comes the question, what are qualifications? If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle, introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I would vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so. So does the Minister for Local Government, and so does every Catholic Deputy in this House. They know, if they have been instructed in the matter at all, that the guardianship of education has been jealously looked after, so far as Catholics are concerned. So far as education is concerned they made tremendous sacrifices in order to see that Catholic children were educated in accordance with Catholic principles. There is, however, even more than education in it, and the Minister knows it. On the occasion to which I refer the reason that I was going to speak was because the appointment was in connection with a doctor. Now, I say deliberately that it is not because we want to use religion as an excuse that this matter is raised by Catholics in the country. If they are raising it, it is because everybody knows that at the moment of death Catholics are particularly anxious that their people should be attended by Catholic doctors.

My point about cherry-picking remains ignored, as ever. FDW777 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the content. It is both WP:DUE and reliably sourced, and there is consensus for inclusion. WP:ONUS is satisfied. If you think there's a WP:BALANCE that's missing, we can certainly address that. I'd have no problem including the full quote above, for example, or a portion of it. What is not acceptable is excising the content because you disapprove of it. Please do not remove the content again without consensus. Right now, you don't have it. (You're no doubt already aware, but please note the article is subject to 1RR). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. FWIW, I think the addition is warranted and balanced. The verbatim (1931; De Valera) quote is valid, and the context is qualified and balanced by the later (2008; Dwyer) quote. I would separately remind involved editors of the {{Troubles restriction}} notice at the top of this talk page and applying to this article. The (to my eye) warring, IDHT and reversion here is within the related scope. Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Except, as the Dwyer article says, the de Valera quote began "I believe that every citizen in this country is entitled to his share of public appointments" and made several other excised points. Therefore it is wholly unacceptable to significantly truncate what was said in order to paint de Valera said in order to paint him in an unfavourable light. FDW777 (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I had already said at 23:36, 28 December 2021 that I was "happy to further amend my proposed edit to read as follows:

"In 1931 he said in the Dáil that "If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle, introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I would vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so. ... if I had a vote on a local body, ..." "(quotation marks added for clarity)

If no-one objects, I will edit the quotation to read

" I believe that every citizen in this country is entitled to his share of public appointments, and that there should not be discrimination on the ground of religion, discrimination, mind you, in the sense that because a person was of a particular religion, religion should not be made an excuse for denying a person an appointment for which he or she was fully qualified. Then there comes the question, what are qualifications? If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle, introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I would vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so. ... if I had a vote on a local body, ..."

For completeness, should the 'de' in 'de Valera led Fianna Fáil to adopt conservative social policies' be capitalised? Alekksandr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that Dev should be capitalised - good catch. Done now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Edited quotation as set out above. Should the quotation be indented? Alekksandr (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Alekksandr It might be even better to use a {{Quote}} template to make the quotation more prominent rather than a simple indent, or even a {{Quote box}}. ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"Contentious changes"

Using the ruse of defending NPOV to restore text that describes a revolutionary group, their internal organization, and their internationally unrecognized "republic" as if it were valid state with legitimate, legal offices is utterly laughable. Historial revisionism at its finest. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Be careful around Irish political pages. It can get mighty rough. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at some of the language used in your edits:

• to ask for official recognition of the revolutionary republic, wikilinking to Irish Republic. Fails WP:ASTONISH.
• While American recognition of the rebel republic had been his priority. Fails WP:NPOV by being distinctly non-neutral. And I believe unsupported by the source.
• President of the revolutionary republic. Also fails WP:NPOV as de Valera's title during the period of 26 August 1921 and 9 January 1922 was President of the Republic.
• When fighting broke out in Dublin between the Four Courts garrison and the new Free State Army, republicans backed the IRA men. Removes context that was present in the long standing text.
• The prime minister of the Free State, W. T. Cosgrave Cosgrave never held the position of Taoiseach/prime minister, as the position didn't exist until 1937. During 1923 Cosgrave was President of the Executive Council.

You are welcome to take this to the WP:NPOVN, if you are unhappy with my responses. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi both. With apologies, I hadn't noted this discussion before making some related edits myself. In short however, I agree with Sideswipe9th on several points here. And have restored the description of Cosgrave's role (because, as noted by Sideswipe9th and my own edsumm, "prime minister" isn't entirely accurate. And certainly isn't more accurate or an improvement over the existing wording). And have also restored what would seem to be the most important part of the sentence about the start of the civil war. I have also restored the quoted text. Which was changed in a way that is problematic under MOS:PMC guidelines. (In short, if the source uses caps, then the quoted text should use caps. We don't "correct" sources to suit our own or the project's stylistic preferences...) Guliolopez (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It's all good. For some reason Twinkle only rolled back three of the edits and not all four, and I'd missed that until now. The changes you've made Guliolopez look good to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism?

He was re-elected President in 1966, aged 84, until 2013...

Is this vandalism?

Valetude (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you cut off the rest of the sentence. But, in full, it reads "[...] until 2013 a world record for the oldest elected head of state". The authors intent was clearly to communicate, not that "until 2013 [he was president]", But that "until 2013, this was a record for oldest head of state". Perhaps the writer could have been clearer in wording and sentence construction. But there is no indication that the writer intended this as vandalism. Guliolopez (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The Date of de Valera's Birth Certificate Amendment

de Valera's birth certificate on file with New York City's Department of Records shows that it was amended on June 30, 1916 (https://a860-historicalvitalrecords.nyc.gov/view/68888). However, a deleted (but archived) blog post on nyc.gov cited the year as "1910" not 1916 because they relied on a low resolution copy of the original (see here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040208005923/http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/html/features/devalera.shtml). The low resolution copy made it appear as though the 1916 says 1910 and it is what Wikipedia currently relies on for de Valera's birth certificate amendment date. The date of the amendment should rely on the primary source, which is the high resolution image of the birth certificate viewable on file at nyc.gov that says 1916, not a deleted blog post that used a less legible low resolution copy. The date should be corrected to 1916. Thank you! Seanmca2 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)