![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Éamon de Valera was a Roman Catholic.-- MFIreland • Talk 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The following wording in the Emergency section looks questionable to me, and I'd like to get some other editor's opinions on this:
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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:52, 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))
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)
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)
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))
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)
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
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 K 303 13:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
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))
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))
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
... 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. JonChapple Talk 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
De Valera was born a Hispanic American. His father was Cuban. He was a naturalized irishman Ericl ( talk) 21:30, 22 August 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)
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)
Shouldn't his excommunication from the Catholic Church warrant a mention? JAC Esquire ( talk) 22:14, 5 March 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)
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 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)
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)
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))
|
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)
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)
Was de Valera a criminal? What crime did he commit? Snappy ( talk) 17:35, 8 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)
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. Pam D 09:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:49, 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:
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)
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
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
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)
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
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Éamon de Valera was a Roman Catholic.-- MFIreland • Talk 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The following wording in the Emergency section looks questionable to me, and I'd like to get some other editor's opinions on this:
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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:52, 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))
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)
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)
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))
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)
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
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 K 303 13:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
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))
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))
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
... 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. JonChapple Talk 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
De Valera was born a Hispanic American. His father was Cuban. He was a naturalized irishman Ericl ( talk) 21:30, 22 August 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)
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)
Shouldn't his excommunication from the Catholic Church warrant a mention? JAC Esquire ( talk) 22:14, 5 March 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)
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 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)
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)
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))
|
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)
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)
Was de Valera a criminal? What crime did he commit? Snappy ( talk) 17:35, 8 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)
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. Pam D 09:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:49, 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:
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)
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
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
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)
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