Talk:First Dáil

Comment

Excellent page. I've changed "Some of these were absent from the inaugural meeting" to forty - rather more than some. The others were not all 'on the run' as they hadn't done anything to be on the run for. Many were also prisoners elected on the slogan 'vote him in to get him out'.Wluki 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

"The First Dáil and the general election of 1918 have come to occupy a central place in Irish republican mythology..." The word 'mythology', although it may be neutral in an anthropological sense, in a political sense tends to be pejorative. Or put another way, it's understandable within the context of current Irish political debate, but that's not necessarily the context of an encyclopedia - because it is very value laden and implies a particular interpretation. Is there a quote/source to go with it by any chance? "Until recently republican paramilitary groups, such the Provisional IRA, often claimed that their campaigns derived legitimacy from this 1918 mandate, and some still do..." any quotes/sources? "Many commentators..." who? Quotes/sources? "...including, recently, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, have suggested that despite the ambitious aspirations of the First Dáil, Irish independence only "really" began in 1922 with the foundation of the Irish Free State..." is there a quote/source? Oisinoc (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

General election of 1918

"...most Irish MPs were members of the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) who strove in several Home Rule Bills to achieve self-government for Ireland within the United Kingdom through the constitutional movement for reform." '...constitutional movement for reform' may seem self-explanatory within one particular cultural, political, or historical context; but e.g. in the USA (even in the Republic of Ireland) the word 'Constitutional' carries a very different set of contexts and meanings; a foundational legal document granting legitimacy to the state from the people, guaranteeing certain rights to citizens, that preempts all other executive, legislative, and judicial state powers. This is fundamentally different from the British understanding of 'constitutional', which is closer to meaning 'important constituent law', but which can be overruled at will by parliament, and thus does not have the same prohibitionary power against state action or legislative fiat. This is important, not only because the legitimacy of the British State to rule the Irish people was what was in question, but because the word 'constitutional' is often used as the antonym to politically delegitimise 'physical force' republicanism historically. To use the American example again, no one today would describe George Washington et al as 'physical force republicans' in opposition to 'constitutionalism'. Not saying it shouldn't be in there, only that it should not be regarded as self-evident, self-explanatory, or a NPOV. Oisinoc (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Members

The article states 'Six Sinn Féin MPs were elected in the counties that are now Northern Ireland. Of these two also held seats in other parts of the country.' Looking at http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm Nicholas Whyte's page I can see three - Seán O'Mahony of South Fermanagh, Eoin MacNeill of Londonderry City and Arthur Griffith of North West Tyrone. I therefore propose to amend this statement to read 'Three Sinn Féin MPs were elected in the counties that are now Northern Ireland. Of these two also held seats in other parts of the country.' Alekksandr (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That link doesn't work but the figure is three alright. Snappy (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Labour

The page states 'The Labour Party had decided not to participate in the election, allowing the electorate to decide on the issue of Home Rule versus a Republic by having a clear two way choice between the two nationalist parties.' As Labour did run in four Belfast seats as stated in http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm , I propose to insert the words 'outside Belfast' after 'election'. Alekksandr (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe they were members of the Belfast Labour Party who had split with the Irish Labour Party some years earlier. Snappy (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Numbers present and absent

At one point the article states 'the First Dáil consisted of a total of sixty-nine Deputies or "TDs". Forty-three of these were absent from the inaugural meeting as they were imprisoned or on the run from the British.'. 69 minus 43 = 26. The article goes on to say 'The membership of the Dáil was drawn from the Irish MPs elected to sit at the Westminster parliament, 105 in total, of which 27 were listed as being present (i láthair) for the first meeting. Of the remainder 35 were described as being "imprisoned by the foreign enemy" (fé ghlas ag Gallaibh) and 4 as being "deported by the foreign enemy" (ar díbirt ag Gallaibh). Two names are left unstated as to their attendance or otherwise. The remaining 37 members who were invited but not present were unionists mainly from the northern six counties that would later form Northern Ireland' 27 + 35 + 4 + 2 + 37 = 105.

As far as I can see from http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html the figures are as follows

1. 27 people 'i láthair' (present) – all Sinn Fein. Eoin MacNeill represented 2 constituencies – so 28 constituencies in this category.

2. 34 people 'fé ghlas ag Gallaibh' (imprisoned by the foreign enemy) – all Sinn Fein. Griffith and de Valera each represented 2 constituencies – so 36 constituencies in this category.

3. 3 people 'ar díbirt ag Gallaibh' (deported by the foreign enemy) – all Sinn Fein. Mellows represented 2 constituencies – so 4 constituencies in this category.

4. 37 people 'as láthair' (absent). 26 Unionists, 6 Irish Nationalist Party, 5 Sinn Fein.

5. Total of 101 people representing 105 constituencies.

I propose to amend the article accordingly. Alekksandr (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That is all correct, but you didn't amend the figure to 42 (101 total - 26 Unionists - 6 IPP - 27 present = 42), so I have done so.

What is it?

The introduction to the article doesn't explain what the First Dáil is, or even what a Dáil is. GeoEvan (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tweaked the intro. I hope it better explains what the First Dáil was. Snappy (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

---

First Dáil → 1st Dáil1st Dáil – Standard naming procedure, e.g. Government of the 2nd Dáil, Parliamentary Secretaries of the 10th Dáil, Ministers of State of the 27th Dáil, 31st Dáil, etc. – Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@PolOTuathail, Dicklyon, and EdJohnston: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

---

• Third Dáil → 3rd Dáil – Standard naming procedure, e.g. Government of the 2nd Dáil, Parliamentary Secretaries of the 10th Dáil, Ministers of State of the 27th Dáil, 31st Dáil, etc. Redirect currently exists, preventing page move. – PolOTuathail (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Second Dáil → 2nd Dáil2nd Dáil – Standard naming procedure, e.g. Government of the 2nd Dáil, Parliamentary Secretaries of the 10th Dáil, Ministers of State of the 27th Dáil, 31st Dáil, etc. – PolOTuathail (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• First Dáil → 1st Dáil1st Dáil – Standard naming procedure, e.g. Government of the 2nd Dáil, Parliamentary Secretaries of the 10th Dáil, Ministers of State of the 27th Dáil, 31st Dáil, etc. – PolOTuathail (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I seems like on the above three that a title starting with the spelled out word would be preferable to a title starting with a digit. Looks like someone thought so, anyway; I'd rather see it discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @PolOTuathail: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • This doesn't seem to be a problem with the titles of the 1st-115th United States Congresses. --PolOTuathail (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Or the 1st-42nd Canadian Parliaments, the 1st-51st New Zealand Parliaments, the 1st-17th Congresses of the Philippines or Category:Terms of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to give a few other examples. --PolOTuathail (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd like to see it discussed rather than treated as uncontroversial. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Someone could open a regular move discussion at Talk:First Dáil and have it serve as a precedent for the other similar articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not standard practice to begin a sentence with a numeral except for calendar years. —  AjaxSmack  23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

---

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Dáil. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119184338/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Caption to Members

I am unable to edit the War of Independence section to remove the 'VP of Sinn Fein' bit in the caption. Caption: why single out one person only for extra info.? Billsmith60 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Because Michael O'Flanagan was VP of Sinn Fein but not a TD. Spleodrach (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, fair enough. But why is it not possible to edit that section at all? The 'Publish' button disappears on a mobile edit after one previews a sample change Billsmith60 (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I can edit it, no idea why you can't. Spleodrach (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

---

• 1st Dáil → First Dáil
• 2nd Dáil → Second Dáil

– These articles were moved without discussion in April 2025, while I was on a Wikibreak. The rationale was reasonable (article consistency), but it overlooked the significance of these Dáils. The First Dáil issued the Declaration of Independence, which led to the Irish War of Independence; The Second Dáil is a central point of Irish republican legitimism, which holds that it continues to exist. This is important because all of the many sources that deal with these topics use the expanded "First" and "Second". A Google search for "First Dáil" OR "1st Dáil" will show that Wikipedia is virtually alone in using "1st", and the same goes for "2nd". WP:COMMONNAME would indicate that the articles should be moved back. Scolaire (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I have not included 3rd Dáil in this request, but it can be discussed if desired. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. Personally I had my own concerns with the original move (and its impacts). While the strive for consistent titles is laudable and reasonable, the simple fact is that "First Dáil" (and "Second Dáil") is the WP:COMMONNAME. All sources refer to the subjects/topics as such. I would also note that MOS:SPELL09 and MOS:ORDINAL apply to anywhere the subjects are mentioned. Which suggest that, in running text, we should "generally use first through ninth, not 1st through 9th". Requiring pipes or redirects everywhere "First Dáil" is mentioned. Which we now have in all sorts of rando places. Long-story-short, while I'm happy to see Government of the 1st Dáil stay where it is, and appreciate that it is unideal from a consistency POV to have the "main" article at "First Dáil", from a COMMONNAME (and SPELL09/ORDINAL/practical/piping) perspective, I think First Dáil is/was more appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support, per nom, Hugh Mann-Guy (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Funny thing is, although the move happened more than a year ago, I came to this article from South Kilkenny today intending to propose what Scolaire has just done. Well done for getting there and proposing this! It is quite clearly the common name, and there isn't a good reason for Wikipedia to stand out compared to other sources. I'd be inclined to include 3rd Dáil in this too. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support The previous move was an out of process move that was previously rejected at #Requested move 22 April 2016. If it's done, also retarget 1st Dail and 2nd Dail to the relevant articles. For some reason they currently go to Members of the 1st Dáil and Members of the 2nd Dáil respectively, which doesn't make much sense. I didn't check if the same thing happens for 3+, so someone mignt want to check the rest too. FDW777 (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.