Talk:Charles Haughey

Family Background

Someone edited it to take out the part about Haughey's family home being burnt. I doubt that also, because the buildings were very primative and would not have been worth burning. Also, the Haughey's didn't have a home as Haughey's father was raised by his grandmother, who was a Kane, maiden name Heaney. She was a younger sister of my great-grandfather. My great-grandfather was found dead in a ditch around the same time, 1923. He was an American citizen but came back at the end. He was also related to the poet. Some articles have described Haughey's family as being from a slum but they were from the same area as Heaney, which he has often described. (I assume Haughey and Heaney are related but in that area probably lots of people are.)

I believe Heaney has described bodies being found in the area at the time. It's difficult to know how many because many because many just fled and there wasn't much communication at the time. Heaney wrote a poem Whatever you say Say Nothing, which is sort of typical of the area. Heaney has himself avoided talking about it much. The British government had lots of power so there wasn't much chance to say much until after WW2 and by then there weren't many who remembered. My grandmother was the youngest and lived the longest but I asked her one time and she said she didn't know anything about it. I believe Charles Haughey called her around the time his father died and she must have known something about him. She called him Johnny. They were about the same age although she was actually a generation ahead.

My grandmother left shortly before her father died and there was no one else left on the farm. Her sister came to the US with Haughey's uncle James Haughey and another cousin, Barney O'Kane, who died falling off a building fighting a fire for the NYFD on Christmas in 1927. They barely made it to the US as they beat the Titanic by one day. Probably they didn't take it cause they couldn't afford it. They had less than $15 each. The records are all in the Elis Island site. C.J. Haughey's grandmother lived in New York.

When I was kid we throught of Irish people as being poor, and that was when Haughey was first in power. I don't know if he was a nice guy, but it seems he was trying to change the image of the country by showing lots of class. This might be sort of American. He believed in it when other people were bailing out. Literally most of his money problems were related to real estate debt that eventually made him rich. So then they say he was poor and he got rich. Well, that's what happens when you borrow money to buy real estate that jumps in value. Of course, Irish people like to begrudge.

Not commenting on any of the above apart from "Well, that's what happens when you borrow money to buy real estate that jumps in value." Yes, but it certainly helps it to jump in value when a county council just randomly happens to decide your land will just happen to get public sewerage pipes and water mains put in. Purely coincidence, of course, that the owner is a powerful politician... Bastun 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tribunals?

It's incredible that there's nothing here at all about his appearances (and non-appearances) at the various tribunals, and, indeed, his overall corruption. Details on the 'gifts' he received are very scant - Ben Dunne, etc., the Charvet shirts, et al. Bastun 11:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Could a separate article be the way forward. The article is currently very long and I am not sure that furture material could easily be integrated? Djegan 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is it possible for anyone find a picture of Haughey and add it to the information table?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/840000/images/_844907_haughey_150.jpg

Chartered Accountant

To say that Charles J. Haughey qualified as an accountant while at University is inaccurate. In fact, he trained, successfully passed the examinations of and became a member (subsequently a Fellow) of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. This would have necessitated a training/work study period of 3 years in the firm of an established Chartered Accountant, subsequent to graduation. The relationship of Chartered Accountant and Trainee was then known by the somewhat Dickensian terms of "Principal" and "Articled Clerk."

Similarly, to write that he worked for the firm of Haughey Boland is understating the case. As the name would suggest, he and his partner, Boland, founded and managed the firm within the legal structures of The Partnership Act. In fact, one of the reasons that Charles Haughey has given for his enormous wealth is that he was a successful Chartered Accountant. However, he would have needed to be the most successfull Chartered Accountant in Irish history to have amassed such wealth from his practice.

"Irish mourn colorful ex-PM Haughey"

Why on earth do media in the UK and USA refer to our Taoiseach's as Prime Ministers? It may be seen as a small thing, I know, but it really annoys me. Why can't they give them their proper mode of address? Fergananim 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Taoiseach is an Irish word and they're speaking/writing in English? When you're speaking about, say, Angela Merkel, do you call her Chancellor? Or by her correct title in German: Kanzler? Bastun 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

doh ! incredible to think people cannot figure out that we're speaking English here.

Of course, no foreign words are used in English. And certainly not those savage Irish words. You're correct in the undertones you're identifying, Fearganainm, and it is as simple as that. 193.1.172.163 13:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So you talk about Dominique de Villepin being the Premier Ministre de la France, then, rather than being the French Prime Minister; or Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri Romano Prodi instead of Italian Prime Minister? Bastun 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Execpt of course Taoiseach doen't mean prime minister - it means leader, chief or cheiftain as far as I'm aware. Therefore, refering to an Irish Taoiseach as a prime minister is incorrect (although the modern irish office of cheiftain does its true corresponed to that of prime minister)!;) Paddy

The difference is that Taoiseach is now an accepted word in English and used by among others the President of the United States, the Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and many others. Kanzler and Premier Ministre de la France in contrast have never moved from the native language to English. If taoiseach was only a word used in Irish then the argument would have some validity. But as it is one of those crossover words (like craic, Dáil, Seanad, Éire) that is now used in both Irish and English the argument falls flat. BTW when the office was first created the Irish media all called the office-holder "prime minister". It was only in the 1940s that "taoiseach" caught on, in contrast to "uachtarain" which never did in English and is still ghettoised in Irish. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. President, Prince of Wales, et al, will of course use the term 'Taoiseach' because a) it is the correct term; and b) they have protocol people whose job it is to inform them of the correct title. By contrast, the media will use the term most understandable to their audience. Correct? Probably not. A slur or insult? Nope. Certainly not intentionally, anyway. Bastun 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me - the media outside Ireland aren't assuming that their audience know everything. Autarch 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the term Prime Minister or Priomh Aire in Irish was actually a post in the 1918 Dáil that eventually became the Presidency. The title Prime Minister actually refers to a previous post so to refer to the Taoiseach as Prime Minister is like calling the German Chancellor the Fuhrer.

Whilst not attempting to encourage the use of prime minister, particularily that hideous "Irish Prime Minister", none-th-less article 28.5 of the constitiution makes it clear the Taoiseach is the Prime Minister:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach.

Djegan 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, Descriptively he was the "Prime Minister" but should be described as "Taoiseach", I.e. Prime Minister being the Adjective, Taoiseach being the Noun.

Stabilo boss 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever else it is, "Prime Minister" is most certainly not an adjective. This discussion has become curiously circular: the term Taoiseach should be used more often in English, because of its existing usage in English? And contains en route some pretty sweeping assumptions: the American media is being xenophobic in not using "Taoiseach", but isn't in not using "Kanzler"? (My impression is the UK and Irish media more often use "the German Chancellor", which surely gets partial credit as opposed to "PM".)

Insofar as this has relevance to this and related articles; one could certainly make the argument that "taoiseach" is indeed much the more common term in Hiberno-English (or more to the point, formal English as used in Ireland), and articles pertaining specifically to Ireland should use that as their metric of "most common term in English", but clarity would really argue in favour of also including the prevalant usage outside of Ireland (if only parenthetically). It's against the spirit of WP usage guidelines to argue that the BBC, Guardian, and NYT will say "prime minister", but such usage must be completely expunged here, on the basis of inaccurate arguments about "incorrectness", or more to the point because it offends people's sensibilities. (I notice that the intro of Taoiseach article avoids introducing the term "Prime Minister" as explanation or synonym, but tangentially mentions "the Tánaiste (the title of the deputy prime minister)", though I'm much more inclined to believe this is usual wikipedia cockup than systematic doublethink.) If this is just generalised complaints about the foibles of assorted media organisations, then sympathies, but don't get me started on "RTEisms". Alai 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just general complaints about the media, I think. Noone is suggesting changing the article. Bastun 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

whatever else

It makes me sick to hear all the politicians, media reporters, lamenting the passing of CJH .

Like many TDs and councilors today he was as bent as they come. Don’t forget, only for his “ill” health he narrowly missed getting a jail term.

Sure I am sad for his family. But..... There will be no TEARS shed from my family for CJH.

It is somewhat ironical that he will be laid to rest close by the grave sides of the un-identified victims of the "Stardust Fire".

Haughey had set up the Tribunal of Enquiry into the Stardust Disaster, and WHAT "Unidentified" victims, All 48 victims were identified at the time, most are buried in Balgriffin Not Sutton. Haughey can hardly be held responsible for the findings of Justice Keane. He was flawed everyone accepts it, but he was a carismatic and determined leader who got things done. Despite the Corruption. Stabilo boss 12:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

75 edits in 10 hours

Is that really worth including, and, doesn't that violate NOR? 68.39.174.238 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This article is also severly lacking in sources or references for the majority of the article, apart from the three obituarys, there is little else included to verify the information added. Granted, these give a good summary, and can verify some of the information, but as these were only created a few days ago, the question is, what were the sources for the information added prior to then? Regards, MartinRe 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In relation to this point there is one statement in particular which needs to be challenged. On the alleged statement by de Valera that Haughey would destroy Fianna Fáil, made allegedly in 1966, no reference is provided. This sentence also appears on the de Valera piece, again unreferenced. I have read a lot of books concerning Fianna Fáil, the party's history and bios about the founding fathers and have never come across this anywhere. Could the author in question clarify the issue? Elememnts in the media have had a long history of writing stuff about alleged dislike of Haughey be members in the party much of which is frankly too ludicrous to merit any challenge but thatr alone should not make it become accepted fact. ---- Concerned Irish reader.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.194 (talk • contribs) 07:39 June 17 (UTC)

The sentence on Devs opinion of Haughey was written in November 2002 on the very first version of the page, by an anonymous IP who has made no contributions since that date. Since we cannot contact the author to source the remark I am removing it.--Rye1967 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated it. We may not know who wrote it but the details are well known. The minister in question was Desmond O'Malley. The President told him that while appointing him Minister for Justice in 1970, after the alcoholic Micheal Ó Moráin had been sacked by Lynch for incompetence. O'Malley has repeated the claim on RTÉ numerous and it has been widely published and no-one disputes it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the logic of that approach. For example, Conor Cruise-O'Brien writing last year said that Seán Lemass had not approved of the marriage between Maureen Lemass and CJH. Both CJH and Maureen did not challenge him, did this make it accepted fact? If you read the coverage over the weekend in Magill they mentioned that to clarify the issue that Lemass far from disapproved of the marriage would have seemed thay viewed Cruise-O'Brin's position with some degree of seriousness. Just because O'Malley hasn't been challenged does not mean that the statement is accurate, indeed its quite a ludicruous proposition to take it as an unbiasesd source given his background. Its interesting that in Coogan's biography, which I disapprove of to a large degree but which is at least thorough, makes no reference to this statement from O'Malley. Take for example the widely accepted belief, certainly in FF circles, that O'Malley shafted his aunt, Donogh O'Malley's widow, at the Limerick East by-election selection convention after Donogh's death to win the nomination. Having researched the issue its inaccurate yet that doesn't mean it does not have a degree of support in either the media or the general public.TheGeneral1 09:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Arms Trial

The article is totally incorrect with respect to its characterisation of this event. If one recalls a recent RTÉ investigation using released official documents and army files, it is clear that the activity was legally sanctioned and in particular the military records imply Jack Lynch was aware of the activity. On the particular program in question members of the Arms Trial Jury were interview and stated that it was because the action was sanctioned that they acquitted Haughey etc. It is also note worthy that recently the name of one of the military personnel involved was restored by comments given in the dáil. Justin Keating who was involved - if memory serves - in the dáil's investigation into the financial element of the affair indicated when shown the new evidence that indeed he would conclude that the "arms affair" was sanctioned by the minister with appropriate authority.

cf. http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=Jim_Gibbons which deals with the history of the minister in charge.

Disputed

The description of the arms crisis is both superficial and wrong.

• Haughey was not seen as a hawk. He was seen either as in the middle or a dove. (Most people presumed that, given his fierce anti-IRA stance as Minister for Justice.) There was general shock when he was seen associated with Blaney and Boland.

• The description of who went to trial where is wrong. One of the cases collapsed at a lower court. I haven't the time to do the research but if no-one else does it, when I get a chance I'll correct it.

Overall, this article is rather weak and superficial. It relies far too much on media reports and not enough on more credible book sources. Knowing Wikipedia, it will evolve in time into a good article, but right now it is littered with superficial judgments and presumptions that are more myth than reality. (Saying that Haughey was seen as a hawk in the 1960s is a serious misunderstanding of reality.) I'd suggest readers look as Ryle Dwyer's books on CJH, and of course on Joyce and Murtagh's The Boss. I'll do what I can to help tweak this article. I've rewritten parts and sourced statements, as well as adding in a booklist. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)