This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Secret Societies (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

60 years worth of background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.129.251 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a reference to the I.R.B's founder James Stephens?

Yes... He has been included (some time before this response). --(Mingus ah um 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Should it not be noted that the acronym was also used to stand for the Irish "Revolutionary" Brotherhood? (see the preface of Rossa's Recollections..

"..in replying to a query (the "letter") from a San Francisco correspondant.."

"11 April 1896

The letters IRB meant the Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood. Without showing your letter to some of the Old Guard whom I met in New York this week past- Tom Brennan of Dublin, Tom Ronayne of Midleton, Charley O'Connell of Cork, John W. Keogh of New York, I asked each of them what the letters IRB meant when he was a young man in Ireland, and each, without hesitation, answered 'Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood'. "

- O'Donovan Rossa, Preface of Rossa's Recollections

Yes that lad is very important in Irish history.

Perhaps more should be included on the IRB's effects on other forms of Irish Nationalism. The importance of their infiltration of the cultural movement and affiliations with constitutional nationalism should be explored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.160.117 (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Was not James J O'Kelly IRB Secretary circa 1868 - 1869?

Probably — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.35.204 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS ?? Re: Jose Marti & meetings with International Republicans (including IRB & other European representatives). I was once told of a meeting held (apart from the 1st American Conference) of International Republicans in North America, at which Jose Marti, Irish Republicans and others met. Does anyone have any details ?

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_International_Conference_of_American_States

In "Founding the IRB", the text refers to many secret revolutionary societies operating in Paris, and says the founders of the IRB became members of the most powerful one. Which one? Or is that still a secret? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgcnow (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stood down Provisional IRA have been referring to themselves as the IRB for 6 months and more. Someone needs to update the article to reflect that fact. Fluffy999 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't members of the Fenians in touch with Marx and the First International? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramscis cousin (talk • contribs) 17:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I will add sections on these two topics first chance I get. --Domer48 (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is coming along. I see some people have McGee's book; I just got it yesterday, though it isn't at the top of my reading list, so I probably won't be adding to this article using it. There are some pretty substantial issues with the prose, however. Not enough to warrant a cleanup tag, but much of it reads like a bulleted list of facts rather than a cohesive paragraph or section. This sentence, for example: "The IRB were behind the initiative which lead to the series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Irish Volunteers," is one of the most awkward groups of prepositional phrases and clauses I've encountered in some time. I'll take a shot at some tidying, but if it's going to be undergoing some substantial rewrites I'd rather wait.

Additionally, sourced and quoted it may be, Damac is right in the that use of the word "democratise" in this context doesn't get across what it was they were doing. Can that be clarified somehow? -R. fiend (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the term democratise: the notes in the reference simply state that Butt and the HRL MPs were opposed to the membership having any say in the political direction of the parliamentary party. No where does the text mention how the Fenians sought to change this.

We know that members of the IRB cooperated with the Home Rule League; as it stands, no substance has been provided to say they sought to "democratise" the League, nor what the term of this democratisation involved. Did they, for example, campaign for the women membership?--Damac (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the second paragraph in the origins section. Do not remove referenced information. --Domer48 (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information you've provided does clear matters up, to a certain extent. Now, when did Charles Doran make that statement and in what context? Tim Healy claims that in 1876 he opposed IRB members who had become MPs (John O'Connor Power, Joseph Biggar and others), and voted for their expulsion from the Supreme Council.[1]--Damac (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on the Citation template "You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations." This template is preferable to "fact" tags all over the article. I will continue to reference the article, and would welcome a hand. --Domer48 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "hand" can and has been extended in many ways. Copyediting is just as important as adding references. While copyediting, I've tried to render the text into readable and understandable English, and in doing so, have raised some questions about particular parts of the text. The democratise issue has not been cleared up, in my opinion, for the reasons I've outlined above.--Damac (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you start a section titled "The Land League" and give the history of the IRB's relationship with it, starting with the Home Government Ass, Home Rule Confederation of Great Britain, Home Rule League, etc, etc. Because you are not going to fit it all into the Lead. --Domer48 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is coming along, however, I think it could use some reorganization. Some of the sections appear thrown together haphazardly. Likewise I'm not convinced Irish People, Arrests, Special Irish Branch, and the Invincibles need their own sections. I think they can be worked into exiting sections to make the article appear a bit less like a laundry list. Also, does anyone else think this Hindu German conspiracy is being overplayed in these Irish republican articles? I don't ever recall hearing about it before reading about it here. It sort of seems to me that a few interested parties have been a bit overzealous with including it in every imaginable article, and not usually worked in very elegantly or explained well. -R. fiend (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections and subsections certainly were haphazard. I've tried to put them in a bit better order. I also found that the number of images, and the way they were arranged, made the article difficult to read, so I've tried to string them out a bit better. In the process, I removed two images altogether:

• File:Cell for Miss Erin.JPG (A cartoon of 1887 to mark Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. Eighty-seven years after the Act of Union, Ireland was said to be "distracted, disloyal and impoverished."), and
• File:Freedom to Ireland.png ("Freedom to Ireland", a patriotic lithograph by Currier & Ives, New York, ca 1866)

There is space for more images further down the article, but I think they ought to be more 20th-century-specific images, such as John Devoy, Tom Clarke or Mick Collins. I agree with you about the Hindu German conspiracy. I'd like to see that template gone from the bottom. Scolaire (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the rework, Scolaire. I agree we need more modern images and I'd like to see Mick Collins. I also agree that the Hindu German thing is overplayed would like also like to see the template gone from the bottom. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sooner said than done. I think whoever wrote the paragraph didn't have a great grasp of Irish history. There was no such thing as "the IRB in the United States", only individual members who travelled to the States from time to time; the American organisation was Clan na Gael. With a little bit of editing the paragraph could be improved, but it should be included in a larger section on IRB activities 1914-1921. Scolaire (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now get us a fine picture of Mick.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A man called Billy McGuire has proclaimed himself head of The Irish Republican Brotherhood and performs a pseudo-political, pseudo-religious ceremony called the "Turning of the Sovereign Seal" every year on 21 January at the Mansion House, Dublin. This has been picked up by some of the national papers, including the Irish Independent in this story. On the basis of this he is being added to the list of presidents, but I am reverting under WP:V and WP:RS. A newspaper can be called a reliable source only to the extent that the writer of a given piece can be seen to have researched it properly. In this case, the "facts" have clearly come from Billy McGuire himself, and taken at face value by the writer. In the absence of any corroborating evidence for the existence of the IRB beyond the Army Mutiny of 1924, that puff piece cannot be taken as a reliable source for the assertion that it exists today, and that McGuire is its president. Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter beside taking your rigid stance regarding Billy McGuire have you made any inquires at to the possibility that the man may just be telling the truth. Orrinoconnor User —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, yes. The oldest mention I found of the "Turning of the Sovereign Seal" was in the Irish Independent of 29 January 2006, and although McGuire was at that time making the same claims regarding the seal, he did not claim even to be a member of the IRB, never mind its president (your edit said he had been president since 1964). It appears that McGuire was then claiming the ceremony was first performed in 1921, not 1919 as he says nowadays – "We've been doing it for the last 85 years," he is quoted as saying. McGuire was mentioned in the same paper on 13 October 2001, in connection with the state funeral of the Forgotten Ten. That report says that he was the grand-nephew of Tom McGuire of Vaughan's hotel, and that Tom (the great-uncle) was involved with the IRB. It said that he would lay a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance "to personally mark the occasion" (my italics). No mention of the seal, the seal-keeper, the present-day IRB or McGuire's membership of it. In this week's story, again in the Indo, all these claims are trotted out. So in the course of thirteen years in the same paper, under the same ownership, under the same conditions of press censorship or the lack of it, we see "the man's" claims becoming progressively more extravagant. Does that answer your question satisfactorily? Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding this edit summary, there is reason to doubt that "the Supreme Council, under Collins' protégé Richard Mulcahy as chairman, voted to dissolve the organisation." Joe Lee, in Ireland, 1912-1985: Politics and Society (p. 100ff), suggests that far from dissolving it, Mulcahy tried to revive the IRB. J. Bowyer Bell, in The Secret Army: The IRA (pp. 46-7), says in so many words that the organization of 1923 was "a 'new' organization rather than a revival of the old IRB", and that "for most Republicans the IRB was dead and discredited." Moreover, he says that Seán McKeon, not Mulcahy, was chairman. Owen McGee, in The IRB (p. 363), says that the organization was "outlawed and suppressed by Kevin O'Higgins". None of the recognized authorities make any mention of a Supreme Council vote. Scolaire (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited accordingly. --Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Robert Kee (The Green Flag, Penguin, London, 2000, p. 322), Francis Frederick Millen was temporarily elected a head for the IRB in 1865, as James Stephens was in prison. Following Kee too (p. 423), Frederick James Allan was the “President of the Irish Republic” in 1898. Could anybody verify this? If true, the list of IRB presidents should be corrected and both names included. 79.144.84.132 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the presidents or dates in that table have citations, and I've no idea where they come from. If you have names and dates that can be referenced to Kee, by all means add them. Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list of the IRB presidents and the dates are taken from McGee op.cit, passim. I'd say they're quite correct. McGee doesn´t say that Millen and Allan were IRB presidents, but he doesn't deny it either.79.144.84.132 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McGee op.cit, passim? I presume you're referring to The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from The Land League to Sinn Féin. Are you sure they're all there? I just took a quick look at the index and failed to find Patrick Moylett, Richard Mulcahy or John Mulholland, the first three names I tried. Scolaire (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone make sense of this section? I will admit it is the first time I have heard the word "uncohered", although surprisingly a genuine word I doubt many readers would appreciate its meaning. The second sentence of the paragraph is even more confusing to me, as it is seemingly talking about co-opting into two different organisations while not being particularly clear. FDW777 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is confusing, even "incoherent". I wouldn't have thought Edward MacLysaght's Irish families – Their Names, Arms and Origins was the obvious go-to to get information on that. There should be some account of the origins of the US movement, if it can be properly researched. One thing: "the Fenian Brotherhood, with which the Irish Republican Brotherhood thereafter exclusively coordinated its activities", is wildly inaccurate. The IRB, very early on, switched its adherence to Clan na Gael. --Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a reliable source in itself this is quite revealing, stating "MacLysaght indicates McNulty founded the movement in the U.S., for which I have not uncovered one shred of evidence. Perhaps MacLysaght uncovered sources somewhere wherein McNulty founded a Fenian branch in Wisconsin or Minnesota and was confused. Anna Victoria McNulty, his daughter, confirmed to my mother his Fenian involvement". So I think while it is reasonable to assume Bernard McNulty had some involvement in Fenianism, it is unreasonable to assume he formed an official US branch of the IRB in the absence of confirmation from sources which have dealt wih the IRB in more detail than Edward MacLysaght's book. I assume you would have no objection to its removal? FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely agree with removing McNulty from the narrative, and MacLysaght as a source. If you want to replace the whole section with a few sourced sentences, there is this, this and this. The second two are old but good. Scolaire (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those, although they seem to muddy my thoughts even more. Ireland and the Americas states O'Mahoney was a founder of the Fenian Brotherhood, basically describing it as the American branch the IRB. The American Cyclopaedia says the Fenian Brotherhood, IRB and Phoenix Society were all local names for Fenians. While true, to me that sounds like saying the Real IRA, Continuity IRA and Óglaigh na hÉireann are all local names for dissident republicans. A Compendium of Irish Biography says "The Fenian Brotherhood, or Irish Republican Brotherhood...". The theme I seem to be getting is that the sentence "Its counterpart in the United States of America was organised by John O'Mahony and became known as the Fenian Brotherhood (later Clan na Gael)." in the lead sums things up accurately, and that what we really need is a paragraph or two summarising the founding of the Fenian Brotherhood? FDW777 (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I almost totally agree. What I disagree with is the end of the sentence in the lead, which implies that the Fenian Brotherhood morphed into Clan na Gael, which is incorrect. Clan na Gael was a new organisation, started in 1867. The FB split in the same year; the IRB withdrew its support from both factions and transferred it to the Clan. This is in both the Fenian Brotherhood and Clan na Gael articles, but unfortunately unsourced. This should be added to the "US organisation" (it was never a branch) section, and the sentence in the lead should be changed from "later Clan na Gael" to something like "later superseded by Clan na Gael". Otherwise, I fully support your proposal. Scolaire (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the section, including the section heading. Better late than never! It's still only short, but it could be expanded. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne: I see you have added more specific dates for some of the presidents here. Can I ask you where you got these dates from? That entire section is unsourced, and people have been changing entries at random for years. There was a discussion in 2017, but still no citations have been produced. You obviously got that information from somewhere. Can you tell us where? Scolaire (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire: In most cases they were logical deductions based on the death of the office holder. For example, I took it that the presidencies of Thomas Ashe and Michael Collins ended with their deaths, so I just applied the month of their deaths as the end of their presidency. In other cases, I was linking up dates suggested by the article itself: For example Seán McGarry's presidency was already listed as ending in May of 1919, so rather than leave Boland's start of term as "1919", I placed it at May 1919. I admit though, that this is a bit of haphazard way of doing it and that in hindsight, the list should follow the same format as Chief of Staff of the Irish Republican Army, which has a dedicated column for sources confirming terms.CeltBrowne (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne: Thanks for the explanation. The reason I was confused is that I just looked at the diff instead of comparing the tables. The diff only showed Boland's presidency ending in September 1920 and Collins's beginning in November 1920, and I thought, "Wow, that's very specific!" If I'd looked at the table itself I would have seen that Moylett was already there with dates of September–November 1920. That table is very old, and I suspect that the editors who added the various names and dates are all retired now. I think there's little chance of getting it sourced. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]