Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Éamon de Valera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angusmclellan (talk | contribs) at 10:41, 12 April 2006 (→Naming policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


On Template:March 9 selected anniversaries

Erskine Childers did NOT sign the 1922 treaty and I'm not allowed to edit the offending page.

Could whoever keeps changing de Valera to De Valera, please stop. He and every member of his family spell it with a small 'd' not a large one. OK JTD

I'm one of those guilty of this. I apologise. I think the confusion arises when his surname is used at the beginning of a sentence when it is always appears as "De Valera".

No problem. We historians sometimes get annoyed over the smallest things! JTD 06:59 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera's nickname was always spelt as 'deV, never 'Dev'. Trust deV to cause problems!!! JTD 00:12 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Excellent. There is someone else here who has read or knows of Boland's book. I actually (somehow) managed to find a copy, which is difficult given that it was vanity-published without an ISBN. Good point on adding in the line about the spelling in the book. I suppose the thing about books, particularly in the old days of 'hot metal', was that you had to presume that the person laying out the page knew how deV used his name. If he didn't, then Dev or DeV or even De V could be written. (Reminds me of the American who wrote a book about 'Mick Collins', sent it to the publisher, who sent it to the printer, who couldn't read the guy's handwriting, and ending up producing a book on 'Rick Collin' . JTD 00:58 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

This article could use a NPOV mention of the end of war speech in response to Churchill's speech. Its perspective on the role of power and the position of weak nations has a continuing relevance today. PML.

Good point. I'll see if I can dig up a copy of it. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:34 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

It's accessible at [1]; I link to it in an article of mine at [2] where I looked at that perspective myself, in relation to the Afghanistan issues. PML.

Could 149.101.1.126 please stop adding in POV additions to this page. And please also stop breaking links. [[Sinead de Valera|Sinead Bean de Valera]] means that the link page is at Sinead de Valera, with Sinead Bean de Valera used in the box because that is how she called herself. Turning it to Sinead Bean de Valera breaks the link. If you don't know the rules of wiki, please check them. FearÉIREANN 20:26 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What caused deV's eyesight to fail so badly? PMA 21:18, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Éamon de Valera vs. Eamon de Valera

Re the most recent changes reverted back:

  1. de Valera and others chose to put a fada on the e in his first name. The article simply reflected that widespread usage when referring to him.
  2. Dev is 100% wrong. His nickname was always deV, reflecting his name, which was spelt with a small d and a capital v. FearÉIREANN 20:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know an awful lot about this matter, but a couple of years ago I was given a copy of a book called "Dev and his Alma Mater" ([sic], about his times at Blackrock College), by the author, a priest who was a contemporary of de Valera. In the book he uses the version "Dev" throughout, and querying him about the fada on the E he assured me that de Valera himself spelt the name without one! I have seen examples with fadas, but only when the writing was in Irish itself. What do you think? --Kwekubo 20:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dev was also used in Kevin Boland's Up Dev . In that case, and in others, it was the typesetter who was responsible. Texts physically written by people who knew deV and historians, as opposed to typeset or typed by others, use deV. As to the fada, deV made a point of using an Irish spelling of his name, hence the one 'n' not two, the normal english spelling of Eamonn. I have come across deV's signature in various documents in the National Archives and other papers, and he used the fada until his eyesight failed in the 1950s because while he could still do his signature in one go while effectively blind, he was hopeless at knowing where to put the fada in at the end as he had no visual guide as to where he had written the E. And if he stopped having written the E to add in the fada, he then had difficulty knowing where to write the amon as he could not see the É to join the rest to. FearÉIREANN 21:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re 'Dev' (and 'De Valera', moreover), what do you think about this [3] image? Cill Ros 00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, jtd. So shall we move the article to Éamon de Valera, then? -- Kwekubo 19:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Can we solve this issue of the spelling once and for all and perhaps have a vote on it? Even the article is no longer consistant. The intro uses a different spelling to the article title and infobox and this is frequently an issue with reversion (although not always the primary reason). Djegan 11:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Eamon de Valera did put an accent on the E, it is pretty much always anglicised by removing the accent. I think it should be at Eamon de Valera. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De Valera died in Linden Convalescent Home, Blackrock, not Lynden as spelt in the article(I should know, the housing estate that now occupies the site is right beside my house.)

Images

Are there any freely available images of de Valera with Neville Chamberlain which could be used to illustrate Neville_Chamberlain#Relations_with_Ireland? (That article could use a few more images given the amount of text.) If not, which would be the closest and most appropriate image of deV to use? Timrollpickering 14:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is his name pronounced? Ground 02:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't do SAMPA, but roughly "Ay-mun dev-a-lair-ah" -- Arwel 00:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of the pictures appears 3 times on the page !!

Fr Thomas Wheelwright

An anonymous editor has just changed the description of Fr Thomas Wheelwright from deV's step-brother to half-brother. I was a bit doubtful as the step-brother description has stood for a long time, but this reference on Roots Web describes deV visiting his mother, then known as Catherine Wheelwright, so I suppose it would be correct to describe them as half-brothers. -- Arwel 00:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Illigitimacy?

Concerning this: Does anyone know what year de Valera's mother emigrated to New York? I seem to recall it was 1879 (de Valera was born in 1882) but I may be mistaken. I point this out because one alledged father was a local man, a neighbour of his mother's back in Ireland. If she did indeed land in NYC in 1879 then it can be demonstrated that this claim, at least, has no basis in fact.

It might also be useful for those interested to read the article in the Irish genealogical quarterly, "Irish Roots" ("Vivian de Valera: The Search Continues", Irish Roots, No. 49, Spring 2004). Also, in his memoir of 2004, de Valera's youngest son, Terry, addressed this issue in amazing depth and gave his father a family tree of quite some depth. But I have yet to see a single shred of evidence corobborating it!

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for the existance of a man called Vivian de Valera, Eamon's supposed father.

For myself, I do not see his possible illigitimacy as a slur - though some, especially the likes of Terry de Valera most certainly would, given his relationship and the era he was raised in. The only persons yet living who could give us a definitive answer to this puzzle have not done so; perhaps that will change when the last of de Valera's children dies? Fergananim

Fergananim, I think the relevant part of what Terry de Valera has to say is regarding the registration of de Valera's birth and baptism, his mother's registration with the maternity hospital, etc. As you say, the family tree etc does nothing to prove his case unless there's some documentary evidence out there to back it up. I think the rumour regarding the local landowner being de Valera's father can be ruled out - even Tim Pat has acknowledged it, having ascertained that Kate Coll arrived in the U.S. in 1879. I thought the photo of Vivion de Valera did bear a family resemblance to Éamon, allowing for the fact that the latter looks more like his mother. Cill Ros 00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is a TV series being made right now that goes into a lot of detail about deV's paternity. I just heard a bit about it on the gravevine. Like earlier studies, AFAIK it has failed to find any evidence that Kate Coll was married when she gave birth to Éamon. In fact it has supposedly shown pretty clearly that the father of her son was an immigrant from Cuba with whom she had a short relationship. Single women who emigrated had a habit of claiming to be widows when they returned with a child. It was the standard explanation which usually no-one, least of all the family at the time, ever believed. But her son and descendants tend to stick rigidly to the 'Mammy was married to Mr. so and so' belief. I believe however that the younger generation of de Valeras all accept that she had Éamon out of wedlock. Claiming a foreign name as the father was usually done because it meant there was no danger that a friend of her family would know someone who knew someone who happened to know her supposed husband if she claimed he was a Tom O'Leary from Cork. The chances of anyone in Limerick or Clare knowing someone who knew someone who knew a de Valera in Cuba were slim. FearÉIREANN 03:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its amazing how rumour and innuendo can be accepted as factual information by some people. Tim Pat Coogan suggests that de Valera was illegitimate, the love-child of a trist between his mother and the local promiscuous landlord. His souces for this are rumours contained in Richard Mulcahy's papers, a man who hated de Valera with a passion. The first speaker on this section is totally correct, Kate Coll went to America in 1879 and de Valera wasn't born until 1882. How he could be this love-child of an English landlord is utterly impossible unless like Tim Pat Coogan one believes that women take over three years to give birth. There is evidence on de Valera's father its just that Coogan didn't bother to find any. The slurs about his legitimacy should be removed. Lest people feel that it is precious to reject these claims it is important to remember that this kind of innuendo was first started during the Treaty debates by his opponents and continued well into the 1940s when de Valera was alleged to be a Spanish bastard and a Spanish Jew among other things. Just like the stuff about the Easter Rising which comes from the discredited Max Caulfield its nothing new its just rather sad that people give Coogan any credence on this topic. SoldierofDestiny

Footnotes..

Hi you have two footnotes in this article. One of them had become broken so I restored it for now just to make them be numbered correctly and work properly. General agreement, however, is that footnotes should only be used for citing sources I suggest converting them both to parts of subsections somewhere and using normal subsection links instead. For more information about using footnotes, please see Wikipedia:Footnote3 and all the articles linked from it. Mozzerati 15:13, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

The footnotes are used as they are in hundreds of thousands of articles to deal with information that is worth including but which if included in the the body of the text would go of the central message of the main text. That is the way footnotes are used in professional texts. Many historians on wikipedia regard the supposed 'general agreement' as inadequate and have made a point of not following them and will not follow them. FearÉIREANN 20:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claim of German planes overflying 'Éire' to bomb Belfast docks

Re the above claim from an anonymous user: I disagree fundamentally with much of de Valera's actions during his life but the claim that he permitted the bombing of Belfast docks by German bombers is a complete fabrication and lie. Thankfully that garbage has been reverted. FearÉIREANN 20:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

International

Perhaps the article should have something about his role as Chair of the League of Nations and his earlier dealings with Ghandi. --ClemMcGann 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Aughavey 3 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State / Irish Republic 1930

"Justifying the sacking of a properly appointed librarian in Mayo, because, though highly qualified, she was a Protestant, de Valera argued in June 1930: "I say the people of Mayo in a county where I think 98% of the population is Catholic are justified in insisting on a Catholic librarian." He went on to widen the issue indeed, and asserted: "a Protestant doctor ought not to be appointed as a dispensary doctor in a mainly Catholic area."

Not long after partition:- During the debate on compulsory Irish, Deputy Wolfe (a Protestant) protested:

"I doubt if compelling people to learn is a good way of spreading the language; it is a very difficult thing to compel an Irishman to do anything." It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2205) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland.

Yeats a prominent Southern Irish Protestant TD in the Dail / Irish Parliament gave the Government a warning:

"If you show that this country, Southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North . . . You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation."

Aughavey, De Valera was not even Prime Minister until 1932, so your first charge against him is silly. He may have made those remarks on the Opposition benches though. - Eamonn

--- Eire's Axis Neutrality

During the course of World War Two the Irish Free State remained officially neutral. In 1938 a year before the outbreak of war de Valera took control of the three treaty ports of Queenstown, Berehaven and Lough Swilly making them unavailable for British and thus allied naval operations. These ports were of such significance to allied naval activities that the US ambassador to Eire, David Gray urged President Roosevelt to seize them.

Without the free access to ports and seaways around Northern Ireland operations would have been near impossible, as was later testified to by President Eisenhower who said, "without Northern Ireland I do not see how the American forces could have been concentrated to begin the invasion of Europe. If Ulster had not been a definite, co-operative part of the British Empire and had not been available for our use I do not see how the build up could have been carried out in England". In 1943 Churchill paid a similar tribute to Northern Irelands contribution in the face of the Irish Free State's hindrance and obstruction: "Only one channel of entry remained open. That channel remained open because loyal Ulster gave us the full use of the Northern Irish ports and waters and thus ensured the free working of the Clyde and the Mersey".

However "the bombing of Belfast by the Luftwaffe in April 1941 in which 750 people were killed was a signal lesson to the Irish government then of what might happen should they join the belligerents. In May, German planes bombed Dublin killing 34 people and destroying 300 houses in the North Strand .

While De Valera would not be coerced into joining the war, pragmatism demanded that, despite strained Anglo-Irish relations, an official blind eye be turned to what became known as the 'Donegal corridor', a route over south Donegal/north Leitrim/north Sligo , which led to the Atlantic . This concession was subject to the condition that flights be made at a good height and that the route over the military camp at Finner be avoided, both of which conditions subsequently received scant attention from the British.

The 'nod and a wink' policy of 'neutral Ireland ' quickly extended to more than just a shortcut to the Atlantic ! As the bombs rained down on Belfast on the night of 15-16 April 1941 a panic-stricken call from the Six County Security Minister, John Mc Dermott, brought a humanitarian dash by thirteen units of the Dublin Fire Brigade to the rescue of the devastated city.

Other concessions followed. The establishment in June 1941 of an armed air/sea rescue trawler, the 'Robert Hastie', manned by eleven British personnel, at Killybegs fishing port was shrouded in secrecy. Its purpose was to provide assistance to shipping casualties and to supply planes that had run out of fuel. The need for such a vessel was clearly illustrated the previous April when Pilot Officer Denis Briggs, returning from a routine U-boat patrol, was forced to ditch his Saro Lerwick sea-plane in the sea off Tullan Strand, Co. Donegal when he ran short of fuel. Watching the descent of the stricken plane Irish army observation posts shortly afterwards beheld the unusual sight of an airplane being towed to Bundoran by a passing fishing boat and immediately reported the incident to HQ.

This was a new dilemma for all involved. Local units of the Army, unaware of decisions made at higher levels, proceeded on the assumption that the crew would be interned for the duration of the war in neutral Ireland and the plane impounded. Following some hasty consultation and diplomatic manoeuvring a camouflaged air force lorry arrived from across the border in Castle Archdale with eighty gallons of aviation fuel. The plane was made ready and took off with its crew for their home base on Lough Erne."

"On the evening of December 5 th 1942 people from all over North Sligo looked up into a lowering winter sky, watching fearfully as a huge Flying Fortress circled noisily overhead looking for a safe place to land. 'The Devil Himself' created a sensation when it dropped safely out of the sky on to Mullaghmore beach. The crew of American officers and airmen were feted in accommodation at the Beach Hotel, Mullaghmore and at Finner camp for 17 days while a replacement engine was supplied from Northern Ireland and fitted to the plane."

It is wrong to refer to Sean T. O'Kelly as "virilantly anti-British". He wasn't. He proposed for example paying a courtesy call of King George in Buckingham Palace nearly half a century before President Robinson broke the mould by doing so. (Changes in the presidential timetable meant that Sean T's planned stop off in London had to be cancelled, so his planned meeting with the King couldn't take place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

POV

I can't believe how POV the sections ofthis article on the Treaty and the Civil War were. From reading what was here, you'd think that DV single handedly started the civil war instead of being dragged unwilling into it. And is there any evidence that he wouldn't even read the treaty when it was brought home? Isn't this a little, petty anyway? I've been looking aorund the Collins article and several others as well and it seems to me as if certain people are trying to re-fight the Irish civil war on wikipedia. The anti-treaty side were probably mistaken, but they do not deserve to be caricatured or demonised either. Jdorney 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to read Maurice Moynihan's "Speeches & Statements of Eamon de Valera" book about the Civil War period. The only reference ever provided for the allegedly vitriolic speeches are from the newspapers. Included in Moynihan's book is de Valera's letter to the newspapers which challenged the allegations. They were also raised in the Dáil by Kevin O'Higgins and were rebutted there as well. SoldierofDestiny.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Contemporary accounts record that when shown the Treaty de Valera refused to read it, instead going into a rant along the lines of "how dare they sign it without consulting me, their president!" The sources are both supporters and opponents of de Valera's. All are agreed that the issue with him was not the contents but the fact that it had been signed without reference to him. There would have been a split on the Treaty anyhow, but it was de Valera's siding with the Anti-Treaty side that gave it public credibility. He was regarded as the embodiment of the Republic. Large numbers of people would have sided with whichever side he picked. He had little impact in the conduct of the civil war but he bore direct responsibility for personalising the split. Even his supporters regard his speeches as inflammatory in the extreme. He himself admitted that the biggest mistake he ever made was his stance on the Treaty. He personalised the split. He swung a large bulk of republicans the Treaty. He deliberately falsified the whole debate on the Oath of Allegiance when he knew what the oath didn't mean what he said it meant because he was the one who suggested the bones of the wording to Collins. He used grossly inflammatory language. Even if greatest supporters admit that his behaviour at the time was reprehensible. So did he. He never forgave himself for how he behaved at the time, and said that to W.T. Cosgrave in the 1960s.
De Valera has got an unfair press for his later political career. However it is hard to find a single redeeming quality in his behaviour over the Treaty. Others on the anti-treaty side were motived by high ideals and principle. De Valera, according to friend and foe alike, acted with immaturity, tantrums and cynicism. It is hard to find a single redeeming feature in his actions at the time. Lemass, his biographer Lord Longford, Fianna Fáil leaders, and figures like Martin Mansergh, all spoke of de Valera's actions in 1922-1923 as his least glowing period. He himself was always haunted by it. By the 1970s, when in the last years of his presidency he began to get confused and ramble a lot, he forever talked about his bitter regret over what he did during the Treaty debates and afterwards, and how it was the biggest mistake of his life. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Certificate

The General Registry Office of Ireland have provided what appears to be a certified death certificate on the internet[4] as a sample of their modernisation plan. Djegan 16:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Name

Please change the name of the page to Éamon de Valera, as that is the proper spelling of the first name, not Eamon.

63.164.145.33 11:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Amazing how this basic fact of de Valera's existence is rejected in this article because one editor here is convinced that the rest of us are as ignorant when it comes to spelling Éamon, Seán, Ciarán etc correctly. For instance, a quick Wikipedia search has no less than 596 entries under the name 'Seán'(with accent): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Se%C3%A1n&fulltext=Search. Yet one poster here is adamant that Éamon de Valera was not dev's real name, even though dev's grandson's name, also Éamon, is spelt correctly on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_%C3%93_C%C3%BAiv Maybe we could have a reason why Wikipedia is institutionalising idiocy when it comes to dev's first name? El Gringo 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis & Neutrality characteristics

The opinions repeatedly expressed by Demiurge re his analysis of WWII era geopolitics are just that--opinions. There are no citations or sources.

He continually skews everything to favour the Irish government whose refugee policy was genocidal in nature.

As far as whether or not the US entering the war earlier would have been a good thing is self-evident to any sensient human being on the face of the earth, and if Demiurge chooses to disagree, he will have to provide SOURCES and CITATIONS as he routinely demands of others.

He is clearly behaving as a censor in this matter, and I have no intention of backing down. The war dead, who might have survived, had it not been for Irish and Irish-American selfishness and hatred during that period of time demand no less from posterity, and as an Irishman I can do no less than oblige.

Brandubh Blathmac 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effective April 6, 2006 (European time)

Demiurge, Jtdirl, et al: I am not going to engage in a revert war at this time. I have contacted the necessary outside individuals to review this matter, and have advised them as to what they can expect to hear from you (boilerplate nonsense) regarding this matter.

As the Irish say, when the Good Lord created time, he made a lot of it, so I am willing and am going to wait for these individuals to review this matter. Brandubh Blathmac 00:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly from the last set of reverts, the pieces in question are Brandubh's para re. refusal to admit refugees - should prob be put back with a citation and reword a bit more neutral. Comment re. weather provided to allies - given that Eire was also providing access to weather until 1943, this can perhaps be phrased a bit more neutral, as it stands it all sounds quite pro-allies. The info re. US entry into WW II has, however, in my opinion little significant bearing on this article and is best discussed elsewhere. In other words, IMHO both parties are 'partly' in the right here Bridesmill 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume only that the RfC seeks comment - RfC is not in my understanding a campaign against an individual but rather an avenue towards resolution of conflict - that is what I am proposing in this case. The piece appears in its current view somewhat hagiographic; if indeed there was some restriction on refugees that should be stated - right, wrong, or otherwise - if it happened to gloss over it would be dishonest. To reiterate though, there is also no place here to attempt to reinterpret or vilify. Bridesmill 15:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridesmill - I am sorry to have disappointed you earlier. I was not being "disingenuous"; I was genuinely grateful to have what I thought was an ally against a clear collusive effort by several individuals (all from Ireland) to pre-emptively censor me and to clearly be acting in collusion using boilerplate nonsense to preemptively rv anything I wrote. If I had written the Declaration of Independence Demiurge would label it "sockpuppetry". And I am not a Marshall Plan expert but according to the Marshall Plan wikipage the Plan was "to rebuild Europe".

So why would a neutral country which suffered no damage during the war, and which worse yet, had allowed the German embassy (in violation of the Free State's own neutrality) to possess potentially anti-Allied communications equipment until 1943(!!), and which, worse still, refused to accept more than a handful of refugees during the entire Holocaust, have been eligible for $133,000,000 worth of Marshall Plan loans, which it could never afford to repay, w/o friendly congressmen as I suggested?? I guess you know better.

  • Maybe for the same reason that other neutral countries such as Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland got $70 million, $347 million and $400 million respectively, and even the belligerents Germany and Italy got $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion respectively? There is nothing unusual about Ireland's receipt of Marshall Plan funds, and certainly nothing that needs to be explained by Rms's conspiracy theories. Demiurge 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have added (since the page is protected) to de Valera's page re characteristics of neutrality:

  • Unwillingness to permit Jewish refugees from the Holocaust into Éire during or after the war (see [[5]],

[[6]]).

At the "first Irish holocaust memorial day on 26th January 2003", Justice Minister Michael McDowell apologized for "a culture of muted antisemitism in Ireland which discouraged immigration by Europe's shattered Jews. He said that "at an official level the Irish state was at best coldly polite and behind closed doors antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling toward the Jews."" ([[7]].)

Respectfully submitted.

Brandubh Blathmac

  • Already covered in The Emergency and History of the Jews in Ireland (as a matter of fact I added it into the latter article, so much for Rms's claims of "censorship"). That "victims.org.uk" site is not an acceptable source by the way. If you can find a reference relating to DeValera himself and Jewish refugees, then it can go in. But if you're just going to shovel in all the negative references to the Irish state you can find regardless of relevance, or depict Ireland as uniquely prejudiced against Jewish refugees (it wasn't -- other countries including the US and UK also behaved in a similar manner), or put in your usual bigotry about "Irish Catholic disloyalty" then I'll revert. Demiurge 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of illegitimates

At the bottom of the article, it states:

"See also

  • List of illegitimates"

There isn't even a webpage for "List of illegitimates" and even if there was a wikipedia webpage, de Valera should not be on it because there is no PROOF that he was illegitimate.

I think that this should be removed from de Valera's webpage. It is not a NPOV. I would remove it myself if the page weren't protected. Bcsurvivor 17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did - the page linked to was AfD'd if I recall correctly.Bridesmill 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming policy

According to the Manual of Style: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." No-one talks of Edward de Valera, the Irish statesman. They all talk of Éamon de Valera. If that means the article should be moved to Éamon de Valera then we should do so, and start correcting all the links without delay. David | Talk 09:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply laughable having the article under "Eamon de Valera" and then using "Éamon de Valera" in the text as if people would not notice. Djegan 10:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no absolute rule. Look at Bobby Sands which begins with his full name Robert Gerard Sands. If you think the article is better at Éamon de Valera then I agree with you: let's move it now. David | Talk 10:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Far to often Irish names are accented by mistake and ignorance. A move would premature without consensus and a vote maybe neccessary. For such a prominant article its not something that should be decided by two people on a Wednesday morning. Djegan 10:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I think the intro to the article is fine for now. I've advertised the debate over whether to move the article to Éamon de Valera in a few places so that we can see what the consensus is. David | Talk 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both the BBC and RTÉ refer to de Valera without the accent on the E - and for RTÉ it's not a matter of convenience, seeing as their own name has the same kind of accent in it. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look through Department of the Taoiseach website, and the English version uses Eamon de Valera. The Oireachtas debates online don't look to be any use as in those he's (as you'd expect) referred to as Mr. de Valera or President de Valera. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Éamon_de_Valera&oldid=48097178"