Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:50, 8 November 2009

Ireland C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added.

Military history B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1 (Nov 2006—July 2008) Archive 2 (January 2009) Archive 3 (Feb—September 2009) Archive 4 (Sept—early October 2009)

Civilians

So now we are disputing that they were civilians? Why? Jdorney (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources do. Civilians implies non-combatant, as some were at least alleged to be members of the Loyalist Action Group (and thus combatants) civilian is inappropriate. That is before taking into account whether informers should be described as civilians or not. O Fenian (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Informers - this means someone who gave information to the British forces. Is this not a civilian? Would the same logic justify, for example, the Auxiliary's shooting of Cork civilians who gave information to the IRA (which they did)? Were they combatants too? I wouldn't argue this and I'm sure you wouldn't either. Re the Loyalist Action group. First of all, Ryan says that all of those named were "associated with the Murrgah Loyalist Action Group". Were they members? Was the Loyalist Action Group a combatant organisation in the first place? Jdorney (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Hart, "The West Cork guerrillas were convinced that 'the loyalists had a group called the Protestant Action Group', a counter-revolutionary underground, and that this organization had assassinated a number of Volunteers in 1920 and 1921, most notably the Coffey brothers of Enniskeane", and prior to that he says the Hornibrooks were believed to be involved in the loyalist conspiracy by veterans of the Bandon and Dunmanway IRA. Ryan says that is an alternate name for the Loyalist Action Group, and also links it to the Coffey shootings. O Fenian (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your other point, there is a grey area between combatant and non-combatant, they are not black and white. For more information see Combatant#Unprivileged combatants. O Fenian (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On the first point. Hart also says, "There is no evidence whatsoever that such a conspiracy existed...In fact the murders of the Coffeys and others in 1921, for which local loyalist were blamed, appear to have been the work of an RIC 'special squad' who worked undercover, 'all dressed like old farmers'" (p285) Interestingly enough, Tom Barry agrees. (Guerrilla Days in Ireland, p 98), "The third and fourth deaths of that dark twelve day period were brothers, Patrick and James Coffey of Breaghna Enniskeane, who were murdered in their beds by Auxiliaries and Black and Tans on February 14". So linking that killing with Dunmanway is highly speculative. On top of that two of the killed were 16 years old, one was 59, two more were in their 60s, one was 70 and the other 89 (Hart p284). That leaves a maximum of three of military age. And re "unprivileged combatants", they are accused of passing information to Crown forces, during a conflict that was over since July of the previous year. That makes them civilians. Jdorney (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How am I linking anything with Dunmanway? You asked for evidence that the LAG was a combatant organisation, there are sources that say yes they were. And if Hart says there is no evidence it is true is it, despite the sources cited by Ryan that say the exact opposite? It is well documented how if evidence does not fit his pre-conceived theory he left it out, such as the sentence beginning "An exception to this rule was in the Bandon area.." from the "Record of the Rebellion in Ireland" and a similar claim by Hart of "no evidence" despite the Sir Jeudwide Papers saying there was. It seems to me that when Peter Hart says there is "no evidence" of anything that is really a euphemism for "I have ignored the evidence". And since violence related to the War of Independence was still ongoing in April 1922, your other argument is specious. I do not advocate describing them as anything other than "men", since that is indisputably the most neutral description. Almost every reader would assume since it does not say "Protestant soldier" that "Protestant men" refers to (so-called) civilians, so I do not see the point of this discussion, unless you are intent on pushing your bias into this article. O Fenian (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So you can cite Hart when you like what he says but the rest of the time he's a liar? And what about Tom Barry? Was he in on it too? The link made to Dunmanway is clear, the argument was that they were not civilians because they were linked with the loyalist action group. But linking this group with any killings is highly speculative and lnking those killed with those killing is more speculative again, especially given their ages. Re the other argument, not specious considring the British were in the process of evacuating the area at the time. Jdorney (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Hart is your preferred source and Ryan is seemingly some untrustworthy person who makes up evidence, I decided to cite a source you could not question. I am not suggesting linking this group with any killings, but my point remains that with (bare minimum) accusations of membership of a combatant group, they should not be described as civilians. You failed to address my point that any reader seeing the phrase "Protestant men" would not think of anything else but civlians surely? O Fenian (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You cited Hart to say the opposite of what he actually said. On the other point, because there were "accusations" that means they were guilty of something? Stretching it a bit. Finally, "men" is ok, but why not include civilians if that's what they were? Why leave the reader to make the connection? Jdorney (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Because combatants and informers are not civlians? O Fenian (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. But to clarify, those killed were not combatants (outlined above) and informers are not combatants.Jdorney (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're going round in circles because you don't listen. Members of the loyalist group were not civlians, you are ignoring the evidence that some of them were. Informers are not civilians either, try reading will you? Also please do not add duplicate information to the lead. O Fenian (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am listening. The loyalist group was not a combatant group (evidence above). Disagreeing is not the same as not reading. Informers are not combatants. Not to mention that assertion that they were informers being highly disputed. And, as pointed out above, two were 16 and five were old men. Are re the info in the lede which you keep removing, what I'm trying to do is get all the victims in there, which includes IRA comdt O'Neill and three British soldiers. 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says that informers are "combatants"? Seems an odd thing to say. If they are "informing" (which means passing on information either to the military or civilian authorities) then, by definition, surely they cannot be combatants. If they were, in fact, a "combatant" they would just be intelligence-gathering and passing the information either from one branch of the military to another, or from the military to the civilian authorities with which the military is connected. That is not "informing". If a member of the IRA passed information about someone to another member of the IRA or to a branch of the Dáil, would he have been "informing"? On the other hand, a civilian who passed information to the IRA about, say, the whereabouts of a policeman, he would be informing. Just some thoughts. Mooretwin (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, informers are a form of spy. And spies are treated as people without any rights in military law. Sarah777 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Mooretwin (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither Hart nor Coogan calls them civilians, at least not that I can see. It is not a neutral term for informers and/or members of the LAG. O Fenian (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, but unfortunately doesn't answer the question. Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You assume I was answering your question, I was not. O Fenian (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

order of intro

I re-arranged the intro ] after it had been previously changed.

• First, the intro was repeating itself. It said the killings took place in Cork in April 1922, then in and around Dunmanway on Paril 26-28. So I put all this info into line.
• Also the phrase "the killings took place" was repeated twice. So I deleted one mention.
• I put the context ,ie in the truce period before the informer info. It's significant that this did not happen during the war of independence but after it. And that this was not an IRA operation against informers. In fact it was condemned by them and guards were posted to prevent a repeat. Jdorney (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the lede I have to say I think it has generally improved significantly over where it was when I came in to help out; you guys have done a very good job making it both more informative and more neutral. I'm very encouraged by what I see here and I think that, if possible, it might be good to keep it generally stable as it is currently. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By suggesting that because this did not happen during the war of independence but after it that this was therefore not an IRA operation against informers is simple WP:OR. Please provide a source which offers this view. Again in the lead, without any supporting sources it says that the killings took place in an area controlled by the Anti-Treaty IRA. Which author has noted this information in relation to the killings? Editors who take two unrelated sources of information to offer a conclusion are only offering the reader with their WP:SYN of the information. The lead is trying to offer conlusions which are not attempted in the article, or supported by the article content. I've removed the WP:SYN, and will address other issues lated. I have provided correctly sourced information with the correct page numbers in the last sentence. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the reference to the killings taking place in a period of truce. This is significant and is covered in the article. It is a simple statement of fact and stating this does not in any way imply anything about whether or not the killings were an IRA operation against informers. The last sentence of the lede is shockingly drafted in terms of the grammar, and I'm not sure that consensus was sought for its inclusion, but I haven't touched it at this stage. Mooretwin (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Offer suggestions on changes with the grammer to the last sentence if you wish. The replacement of the text which is attempting to lead the reader to a conclusion which even the article does not attempt to do and is not supported by the article text however must be removed. The editor who introduced the text outlined above their rational for adding it stating "It's significant that this did not happen during the war of independence but after it. And that this was not an IRA operation against informers." It is the editor above who has suggested how significant this information is in the lead, and that their rational for adding it is prompted by their POV, that those killed were not killed because they were informers. The editor had and offered a clear intension for the text. If however, this view is supported by a reference it would offer us the oppertunity to discuss it here, but since it is only significant in the lead because an editor states that it supports their personal opinion, it can not stay. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that the fact that these acts of violence took place during a period of cessation of hostilities is significant. Stating this does not lead the reader to any conclusions about the motivation for the killings. Mooretwin (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please address the points I raised above. The editor who added the text clearly stated above what the conclusions to be drawn from the texts inclusion are, and those conclusions are not supported by the article or a supporting reference. Now provide a rational other than the above editors attempt to insert their unsupported WP:OR, and please provide a reference which supports the context in which the text is being used or the text gets removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no OR in the lede, nor any unsupported views. The editor is entitled to express his or her views on the Talk page. My concern is the article, not any editor's personal views. Mooretwin (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per my previous request above. The editor took their personal view from the talk page and placed it in the lead. Now address the issues I've raised above, or the text is removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the lead is an expression of Jdorney's personal view? Mooretwin (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer you do not have final say on what goes into the article. This is done by consenus. per request, sources: Re the killings taking place in the Truce, no pov here, simple fact. The British had evacuated the area in early 1922. See Ryan p156, Hart, p112. Re the Anti-Treaty IRA being in control of the area, see Hart p277, Ryan p153-155, Coogan p 358-359. Re being an IRA operation again, no OR. Plain fact is that it was not ordered by any of the 3rd Cork Brigade leaders, who returned to Cork to stop further killings. See Ryan p160-161, Coogan p359. May have involved IRA members (probably did), but was not an ordered IRA operation. Jdorney (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to provide quotes to support your edits. I have the books and have been unable to find the text to support your conclusions or the context in which it is presented. With your record of edit warring to add completly misleading information to articles , and claiming that your edits are "clearly factual" I consider my request reasonable under the circumstances. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been clearly provided. Jdorney (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the sources, they do not support your use of the text, and considering your use of wild accusations (noted above) and misleading and incorrect edit summaries (latest example) you were asked to provide quoted references, which you have still not done. Now either you have the page numbers wrong, are citing a different edition or you are trying to use WP:SYN to put forward your personal POV. As you have clearly stated above that it is you who has put forward "the context" to support your view that "this was not an IRA operation against informers" you have been asked to support this with more than just your own opinion. I'll once again allow you the oppertunity to address the issue before I once again remove what is currently WP:OR. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re page no's. My editions are are as follows, Ryan, Tom Bary, IRA Freedom Fighter. Mercier 2003 (hardback edition). Coogan, Michael Collins, Arrow 1991, (paperback). Hart, IRA and its Enemies, Clarendon 1999 (paperback).

Use of extensive quotes is not appropriate in the lede. But; re the anti Treaty IRA being in control of the area. Ryan p154, "Since the handing over of Dublin Castle to the Provisional Government in Dublin, local IRA units around the country had been taking over British evacuated positions" p156, "In west Cork the British military had evacuated all premises held during the war". Hart, p112,"Most police and Army detachments were withdrawn towards the end of 1922, their barracks grudgingly handed over to local IRA units". futher down, "The staffs of the First southern Division and all five Cork Brigades unanimously declared theri rejection of the deal ", p113, "Although most Cork guerrillas opposed the settlement, they were its immediate benificiaries. For the first seven months of 1922 they constituted the only real authority in the county". p277, The Provisional Government and the Dail condemned the killings and promised to 'bring the culprits to justice', but did nothing. At the time, with only a small nascent army in Dublin and the dissident IRA in control of nearly the whole of Cork, there was little they could do". Coogan, p359, Tom Hales of O'Neills Brigade (3rd Cork) ordered all arms brought under cotrol" "Hales, who was engaged at the time in armed oppossition to Griffith's government".

The other line you are deleting is, However there is no consensus on why the ten killed and three disappeared were targeted. A summary of the evidence cited in the lede. In the following two sentences it is demonstrated that there are two competing interpretations.Jdorney (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Without even having to check the sources your own quotes above illustrate your very obvious Synthesis. "It is not clear who ordered the attacks or carried them out" that is supported and referenced but your addition is not. Your addition to the text is to offer the reader an inference which is not supported by the sources or the article. I've already addressed your WP:OR about it not being an IRA operation against informers and you have offered no supporting reference. You really must stop this disruptive editing. Now again, being reasonable, I'll again allow you the oppertunity to address both your WP:SYN and WP:OR. You provide sources which clearly support the inferences you wish to push, or you remove the text. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No synthesis. Only referenced material has been provided. No more comment necessary here. Jdorney (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for Domer48 to explain how a statement that the killings took place after the truce was in place is OR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and removed the editors WP:SYN and WP:OR from the Lead. The use of obfuscation, vacillation and complete inability to support what can now only be described as disruptive POV editing despite repeated efforts provided to them to allow them the opportunity to address the issues have been ignored. Should they wish to return to the issue, it would be hoped their attitude will be one which is more conducive to constructive discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not demonstrated your concerns, nor have you reached any consensus. Sources including extensive quotes have clearly been provided. Jdorney (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Doesn't seem like OR to me either. --John (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer is correct. JD, you appear to be unaware of the Arbcom ruling against WP:OR and synthesis regardless of how blindingly obvious the conclusions might be. And in this case your conclusions are far from obvious and more a product of political perspective than objective evaluation of the evidence. Sarah777 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sarah it is an obvious case of both WP:SYN and WP:OR and obvious also is the Admin's and editors who come along to support it. Now, why does the Admin and editors who support the use of WP:SYN and WP:OR bring the issue to the OR notice board? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree there is definite synthesis here in the article. BigDunc 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, where exactly is the alleged synthesis and OR? Sources and quotes were asked for and were provided. Dispute now listed at Third opinion. Jdorney (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, BigDunc and Sarah, what is supposed to be OR about this? Are you disputing the sources? --John (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if those alleging OR and synthesis (are these not the same thing, anyway?) could be less vague and state clearly which parts of the lede they are referring to, and why they think they are OR. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Original research would include "I know this is true because an old guy in Dunmanway told me there was ethnic cleansing in 1921". Synthesis would be to describe the events, even if referenced, as "ethnic cleansing" unless a reliable source, at the time , had used that exact phrase. Daft of course, but that's Arbcom for ya. Sarah777 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And all that is in the article where? Jdorney (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. I was helping Mooretwin to understand the nuances of Wiki-policies. For the good of the project. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've outlined the issue above! I'm not going to go through it again so read this discussion! --Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you haven't explained even once where the OR and SYN is. Jdorney (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see it either. Where do you believe the material is which contravenes policy, please? --John (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I know it is tedious, but could you do a bullet point summary of the issues here for those who appear unable to understand them? Sarah777 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That I have raised the issues above and pointed out how the issues were being ignored and still being ignored. Sarah. I'll provide you with a bullet point summary of the issues, but it is not that the editors are unable to understand them, they simply don't want to.

• “in a period of truce after the end of the Irish War of Independence and before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War in June.”

The editor above states that because the killings took place during a period of truce, therefore the killings could not have been because they were informers. This is their attempt to add information to support their POV and is not supported by any referenced source. No author has offered this view of the killings and it is therefore based on the editors own WP:OR. That they try to use two unrelated facts to support this is WP:SYN.

• “but they took place in an area controlled by the Anti-Treaty IRA”

As with the points made above, we have the exact same use of WP:SYN to support the editors own POV and WP:OR. That “It is not clear who ordered the attacks or carried them out” is referenced to add the above information, (which is not supported by the references) is to present information in an attempt to promote a view that only the editor is making. No source has linked these two pieces of information together or attempted to make the inference being suggested. It is plain old WP:OR using WP:SYN.

• “The motivation behind the killings has generated differences of opinion among historians. It is generally agreed that they were "sparked" by the fatal shooting of IRA commandant Michael O'Neill by a local loyalist on April 26 whose house was being raided. There is no consensus, however, on why the ten killed and three disappeared were targeted.”

This is offering contradictory information, and it is not “generally agreed” this again is just the editors opinion. Yet again, the references do not support the information and is another attempt at WP:SYN. There is no source offered which challenges the fact that those killed were informers. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re. “in a period of truce after the end of the Irish War of Independence and before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War in June.” This is a statement of fact. There is no OR involved. I have therefore restored it. The article does not say, or imply, as claimed by Domer that "therefore the killings could not have been because they were informers". (On the contrary, the article actually says that they were informers!) Mooretwin (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above Sarah, despite the fact that I pointed out how the editor who added the text stated that "I put the context ,ie in the truce period before the informer info. It's significant that this did not happen during the war of independence but after it. And that this was not an IRA operation against informers" and that this was pure WP:OR based on WP:SYN you'll still get an edit warrior who will ignore this and add it back regardless . --Domer48_'fenian' 13:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, what matters is what the article says: not what an editor states on the Talk page. Please refrain from name-calling against other editors. Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, thanks for your analysis. I do not agree with it, and I think most editors here would not. --John (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, thats all well and good, now provide a rational because most editors agree that it is both WP:OR and WP:SYN. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Domer's excellent exposure of WP:OR at work - so I'm a bit puzzled at the conclusion that "most" editors don't. Unless John is operating on the basis of the known bias of the Anglo wiki community. But most of those are not represented here, so I'm not sure we should be making assumptions about them. Sarah777 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the problem here is the inference that might be taken. First, "generally agreed". Not my opinion. Listed (and clearly referenced) in each and every source about the incident. So please stop removing it. Re the other two, it took place in the truce (fact and referenced) and it took place in an area area cotnrolled by the anti- Treaty IRA (again referenced). No other inference is made in the article. The other pieces quoted are from the talk page. So in the article there is no OR and no SYN. So can you plase stop removing referenced material? Thanks. Fuinally which editros agree it is OR or SYN? Domer, Sarah and BIgDunc. Not a majority Jdorney (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of order?

Is the WoI template out of place? Should it be across the bottom? It is visually challenged where it is, to say the least. I see, btw, that former Stickie, tabloid journalist and now Fianna Failer Eoghan Harris is trolling here under some handle. What's the betting wherever there is truth on IrlWiki he is seeking to revise it? (He being a huge and self-confessed fan of political censorship). Sarah777 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh he is around alright Sarah, even mentioning editors in his bigoted rants in the rag he spouts bile for. BigDunc 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

move

There was no consensus, actually no discussion at all, of a move. So it's been moved back from Dunmanway Killings to Dunmanway Massacre. People can discuss a possible move but the article can't just be shifted on a whim. Jdorney (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the move should have been discussed first, although I've no preference for either title. I'll support whichever is the most common name for the event. Mooretwin (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have no preference, but procedurally Sarah knows perfectly well that moves need to be discussed beforehand. I don't know what she was playing at. --John (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The move was correct per WP:COMMONNAME. End of, so leave it as is.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was correct if it's established that "killings" is the common name. If it is then no problem, but no one has established this. Jdorney (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support it being kept at killings, less emotive, i'm sure Sarah will give her reasoning too. BigDunc 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, less emotive. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We would do better to focus on what term our reliable sources use, not what editors here assert is a common name or less emotive (though clearly it is that). What do the sources call it? --John (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on the edit warriors to show that "massacre" is the common name; not a Wiki-creation. Under policy, until then it must be moved to the WP:NPOV title of killings. I most certainly will not hesitate to move this to a title consistent with WP:NPOV pending a full discussion on the legitimacy of the title. Not after a discussion. Before a discussion. Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I would also ask John to consider recusing himself from using his tools on Ireland related articles as he is clearly now a party to numerous disputes in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooops - that was JD not John. Apologies. And I note that JD has over a long period removed many references I have made to "massacres" of nationalists/natives in various articles on the grounds that though they may indeed be massacres they are not commonly called that. Same applies in this case. Though I was long aware of the incidents in and near Dunmanway the first time I ever heard the killings described as the "Dunmanway massacre" was when this article was created by JD. Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering why you made "many references" to "massacres" in other articles if you accept here that it is not an NPOV description? Mooretwin (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit POINTy to me. Please try to bring some NPOV to this. --John (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So has anyone established which is the common name? Jdorney (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency across related articles is an intrinsic part of NPOV. You might as well declare that changing references to the 26 counties as "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland" is "pointy"; or that enforcing the MOS is "pointy". Clearly the credibility and NPOVness of Wiki is being brought into question when a conflict spanning centuries of colonialism and physical and cultural genocide produces numerous articles about "massacres" by the victims but hardly any by the settlers and their heirs. I don't really want to drag this article into a greater debate about the nature and NPOVness of "reliable" sources or Anglo bias; but one will not shirk that important debate if needs be. Wiki needs folk who can think holistically and place events in perspective and context. I hereby offer my services. Sarah777 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact given the acknowledged problem of systematic Anglo-American bias on En:Wiki the bar should be set much higher for claims of "massacre" of people identified with the Anglo establishment in it's various manifestations through history. NPOV would be better served by referring only to killings by the Anglo side of the dispute in pejorative terms. Though, as a generous compromise, I'll accept a spurious neutrality between the victim and the coloniser. Sarah777 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So have you established the common name or not? I notice no such controversey over McMahon Murders or Arnon Street Massacre. Jdorney (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Common name is Dunmanway killings. I must visit the articles you refer to and check for breaches of WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Checked. I think the naming of these articles is consistent with the principles I outlined above. I'm happy enough with them. Sarah777 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to show us evidence of this? Jdorney (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No. It's original research. And I'm trying to wean you off that. Sarah777 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I also know something more important: the common name is not "massacre". Sarah777 (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. You have some mysterious evidence that says the massacre is not the common name but you can't show us it because that would be OR? The mind boggles. Jdorney (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting conclusions

The entire conflicting conclusions section is needs a overhaul. Much like the Peter Hart article used to be, this section is little more than a coat-rack to attack and undermine Hart's work. Different academics have different interpretations of historical events. It happens. The right way to address these in articles is to state the cogent findings that are shared and in conflict, in a neutral manner without implying preference or validity. Here we have writing in the following format:

Peter Hart claims X, Y, Z. However, according to Ryan he got this wrong. Meehan points out he ignored this. Fr. Brian Murphy OSB (yet notice no "Prof. Peter Hart, Ph.D"?), notes that he says X in one book and Y in another book, therefore, according to Murphy, Hart must be wrong....

Surely it is obvious that this is not a nuanced, balanced way of addressing historical conclusions? It is fundamentally lacking neutrality to set up a position and then to attack it, irrespective if the attacks are hidden behind "according to...". Is it not highly likely that Hart (or others) has similar criticisms of the other historians work, yet nowhere are their interpretations pulled apart in that manner? I'm left with the strong impression that this section is all about furthering a position, rather than documenting the notable opinions.

I'm happy to tackle this in the same way I rewrote the Hart article (compare how it is now to how it was before and I hope it should be obvious I'm not out to defend Hart, simply treat him fairly.) However, I would prefer some consensus on the need for a rewrite first, as I have little stomach for another tedious line-by-line edit war over it. Rockpocket 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really surprised, RP? Happy for you to attempt a rewrite. Mooretwin (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after reading through the article in greater detail, there appears a bigger problem. Meda Ryan's interpretations on the motive for the killings are reported as fact throughout the text, e.g.

Also that night, David Gray (a chemist) and James Buttimer (a retired draper) were shot in the doorways of their homes in Dunmanway. It was "firmly established" later that they had been informers, and that their information had done a great deal of damage to the IRA. (cited:Meda Ryan Pg.213))

Its not written as "Meda Ryan claims..." or "Meda Ryan writes...". It appears we only question Hart's work in the article. Why? Rockpocket 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We only question Hart's work in the article because his work is questioned, Ryan's is not. Harts work has been comprehensively challenged and proved to be deliberately misleading with conclusions dependant on omissions and distortions. In addition, no source has said that those killed were not informers. Based on referenced sources it was "firmly established" that they had been informers, and no sources has questioned this. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock makes a valid point. Writers who have a very strong POV on this matter need to respect our absolute requirement for NPOV. Domer, weren't you just talking about WP:SYN and WP:OR in another thread? Do you see how incongruous that is when you say what you just said above? --John (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, Domer. If Hart's comes to fundamentally different conclusions that Ryan, then by definition they are challenging each other's findings. Hart is questioning Ryan's findings as much as Ryan is questioning Hart's. The difference, of course, might be that Hart keeps his findings focused on the actual history, while Ryan et al appear to focus their criticisms on the person and his writings. But this isn't an article about Hart or his works, its an article about the killings. Unless there is an academic consensus that Hart's work is wrong, then we simply cannot choose sides, as you appear content to do. Here we should be reporting, with due weight, the published interpretations and leave the reader to make up their own minds. Don't get me wrong, I think its clear that Hart's work is not widely accepted and there is strong disagreement from some of his peers (but not all, as reviews of his books by other historians show), and that should also be reflected when giving due weight to his interpretations. But we should not be picking apart one academic's findings using the arguments of another. That is simply not neutral writing. Rockpocket 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When one of you provides a source to challange the information then there will be something to talk about. No sourece = no discussion, not intrested in your opinions or analysis. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the fact that they were informers was "firmly established" rather than merely "established"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not about sourcing the material, its about representing the sources accurately and fairly, giving due weight to the notable opinions, and avoiding using sources selectively to promote an editorial position. This needs to be addressed by someone who has no horse in the race, not discussed by those that clearly do (and I say that based on your unambiguous statement of disregard for Hart's analysis). Rockpocket 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally. If we can get past this we might eventually get to an npov article. This is going to need a lot of admin work however. Jdorney (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When sources are provided to support editors opinions or analysis there will be something to talk about. Unless Rockpocket provides diff's to support their baseless accusations, they will be ignored. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources have already been provided. Jdorney (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Per above. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to tackle the rest of the article this weekend, on the same basis as I did the lead (below). It may take a few days and I may add a "undergoing a major edit" template to the article while I'm working. I'm prefer editors let me finish before the inevitable criticisms begin, as it may take a while to ensure the requisite balance. Rockpocket 02:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead

I'll simply note that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The lead is currently written a hell of a let more neutrally than it was before (with thanks for help from Jdorney). Here is why:

• By describing the dead as "Protestant males" in the opening sentence we were directly implying their religion is relevant to their killing. This has not been established, and thus such leading language is not appropriate. We get around it by simply describing them as "men" and stating their religion independently later.
• Likewise, previously we noted anti-treaty side "controlled the area the killings took place" in isolation, a clear implication of responsibility. We now describe the geo-political relevance of both sides, which justifies why both are mentioned and why both were keen to distance themselves from the killings.
• Before we set up one historian's claim and then undermined it with the suggestion it is "unsupported by the evidence". Its not our place to decide which historians analysis is correct and which is not. So now we state historians disagree on motive. Then state what they agree on and what the disagree on. Note that "Some historians have claimed that there were sectarian motives; others claim that those killed were targeted only for their role as informers during the War of Independence." Clear, factual, neutral and without editorial endorsement.
• Finally, because of due weight consideration and because we have already noted the fact that all who were killed were Protestant, its fair to provide some documented justification for why it is thought they were killed only as informers, hence: "They argue that the dead were associated with the Murragh 'Loyalist Action Group' and that their names all appeared in captured British intelligence files which listed them as "helpful citizens" in the 1919-1921 conflict".

It should be clear that neutrality is not about ensuring an equal amount of bias for either perspective, its about removing all editorial bias and reflecting all notable POVs fairly and with balance. It could still be improved further, though (for example, the fact that all those killed were Protestant may be better noted alongside the belief that the killings had a sectarian motive, since this provides better context. I'm also not happy with the position of the This happened in a period of truce... sentence. I think it would better better positioned immediately prior to the Sinn Féin and IRA representatives condemnation of the killings. This would give some context of the political state of Ireland at the time).

Now we should continue and re-write the whole article in the same way. The involvement of many people as possible would be good, but if editors instead choose ignorance, there is little the rest of us can do about that. Rockpocket 20:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Rock. More of the same please! --John (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the first two points. However as to the rest, it needs to be addressed.

• Please cite the sources that Hart/Coogan have used to support there conclusions “that there were sectarian motives.” The sources cited who say that their conclusions are "unsupported by the evidence" can and have provided sources to support their conclusions. The authors who say they were targeted because they were informers provide ample evidence for this. So suggesting that their conclusions are just “claims” is misleading.
• The above also addresses the final point you make on due weight considerations. The religion of those killed is circumstantial, and yet is being given undue weight. The preponderance of citable sources to support this makes the claims of Hart/Coogan almost fringe.

Based on the citable sources available the article should reflect that those killed were targeted because they were informers, and that it has been claimed that there were sectarian motives but this is unsupported by the evidence. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Rock. Much improved. As for Domer's point, I've no difficulty if the informers theory is mentioned first before the sectarian theory. (I note Domer appears no longer to be objecting to the inclusion of the fact that the killings took place during a truce, despite launching personal attacks on me previously for restoring said fact to the lead.) Mooretwin (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS.

• We don't need to cite the sources that that Hart/Coogan used. Misplaced Pages articles are not scholarly treatises, where the primary sources are debated and dissected. Our job is to report the what the notable treatises find. Hart certainly (I'm not familiar with Coogan) is a respected, published academic who has written a notable treatise. Our job is to note that, and also note that other notable historians disagreed with his findings and have a different interpretation of the primary sources. The reader can draw their own conclusion about who is right and who is wrong based by reading those treatises.
• You say that the "religion of those killed is circumstantial" and it is "unsupported by the evidence". Who says? You say that (which is neither here not there). Ryan, Meehan et al also say that. That is fine, because we have noted their dissenting opinion and noted how their interpret the data.

So again, it is not our job to show editorial favor for one set of historical analysis over the other. All we do is report their conclusions.

Now. I have a question for you. Do you not think it odd that you are perfectly fine to accept only the modifications to address one POV (the one you disagree with), but not willing to accept modifications that remove the other (which you do agree with)? The fact that you have personally expressed your dismissal of Hart's work rather puts you in a conflict of interest with regards to reporting his work fairly. Given you believe his work is "deliberately misleading with conclusions dependant on omissions and distortions". Do your really think you are the right person to be judging whether our coverage of him is fair? Rockpocket 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to cite the sources Hart uses which support their conclusions “that there were sectarian motives.” The reason I asked is because as I pointed out above, the authors who say there were no sectarian motives provide quite a number of sources to support this. There is no question that they simply have a different interpretation of the primary sources because as far as I know, Hart does not use any of the sources they do? I have not personally expressed my dismissal of Hart's work I simply point to the fact that his work has been comprehensively challenged and proved to be deliberately misleading with conclusions dependant on omissions and distortions. Now if Hart like Coogan is simply expressing an opinion which is not based on any source documents that's fine, but it should not be given the same weight as the conclusions of authors which are based on detailed research supported by cited sources. The fact that their research has not been challenged, unlike Hart would also support the view I have suggested.

As to your insinuations and accusations as to my views and motivation, they can just be ignored as irrelevant. Now Mooretwin can provide a reference which supports the sentence “This happened in a period of truce after the end of the Irish War of Independence (in July 1921) and before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War in June 1922.” Or simply tell us which author has noted this information in relation to the killings otherwise it is an editor, taking two unrelated facts to the killings and leading the reader to make conclusions which are based on the editors WP:SYN and WP:OR. That the editor who originally added it readily admits that this was their intension prompts the need for sources. Rock can also provide a source which supports the view that “It is generally agreed that they were "sparked" by the fatal shooting of IRA commandant Michael O'Neill.” I my have missed it from reading the sources provided, but I can’t see it stated anywhere that it is generally agreed that the killing of O’Neill "sparked” the killing. Rock could you do likewise with “There is no consensus, however, on why the ten killed and three disappeared were targeted.” I ask in light of my comments above. Could you also provide a source that says it was only during “the 1919-1921 conflict” that they acted as informers? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rock is not going to provide sources for O'Neill, because Rock did not add that to the article. Regarding the lack of a consensus on why they were targeted, I didn't add that either, but it appears to me to be appropriate, summary style, coverage of the the different historians' analysis. If you wish to challenge that content, you know the process. I'll happily cite any of Hart's analysis to his published works. That is what we call a reliable source. Rockpocket 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to your point that "I have not personally expressed my dismissal of Hart's work I simply point to the fact that his work has been comprehensively challenged and proved to be deliberately misleading". Has it, really? You neglect to point out this "proof" is based on the work of other, competing historians who hold radically different views, and who are largely focused on discrediting Hart. Well, let me quote to you an independent historian (John Regan at the University of Dundee) in a published review of Hart's work:

His exploration of the plight of Protestants in the Free State illuminates the sectarian underbelly of the revolution that a nationalist historiography prefers to ignore. In escalating violence in Cork, Tipperary, or Dublin could Michael Collins, Harry Boland, or Ernie O’Malley be held accountable for raising sectarian tensions in Antrim, Down or Belfast? Was the cost of a southern state the institutionalisation of ethno-religious tensions in a compressed and reactionary northern state? Could revolutionary violence in 1922 and 1968 conceivably be part of one grotesque, protracted process? To accept this argument would, however, be to shatter nationalist icons important to a southern nationalist identity still rooted in its own glorious revolution. That open sectarian conflict was intrinsic to any war of ‘national liberation’ will remain a matter of embarrassment to those who conceive of the Irish Revolution as having wholly positive outcomes. In placing sectarianism at the centre of the Revolution, Hart does an incalculable service, retrieving his subject from the preserve of professional nationalists.

Now this provides a slightly different perspective than you would have us believe. An expert historian says he "illuminates the sectarian underbelly of the revolution that a nationalist historiography prefers to ignore" and retrieves the "subject from the preserve of professional nationalists." That is hardly consistent with "proved to be deliberately misleading" is it?

So, is Regan's analysis correct or are you correct, presumably referring to the allegations of Ryan et al? Who knows. But we don't need to know because we are not in the business of picking sides in academic disagreements. We documents what the reliable sources say, and let the reader decide who is right and who is wrong. Rockpocket 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Are you now saying that you are not going to support the changes which you made! Now, since there is no "coverage of the the different historians' analysis" how could it possibly be an appropriate, summary style. I asked for the information above which could have supported this, but you have refused to provide it. Now I have asked for additional information on some other points, on the information you added, will that be forth coming or was that a blanket refusal above. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the history before lecturing others. Rockpocket 22:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rock I'm not lecturing anyone! Your the one with the attitude not me. Could you please explain to us what you mean by "An expert historian"? Who are these "professional nationalists" that John Regan talks about and what is a "professional nationalists." To answer your question, yes Harts work has been comprehensively challenged and proved to be deliberately misleading! So please take responcibility for your edits here and here and having offered your support in this tread for the edits to the Lead, your being asked to back it up. Now you said above you'll "happily cite any of Hart's analysis" and that is all I've asked you to do. Please cite the sources that Hart used to support his analysis? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

For the first diff: Peter Hart, 1999, Taking it out on the Protestants in "The I.R.A. and its enemies: violence and community in Cork, 1916-1923", pp 273-93. The chapter title alone, should provide you with the thrust of his findings, but if you want more try, "Behind the killings lay a jumble of individual histories and possible motives. In the end, however, the fact of the victims religion is inescapable. These men were shot because there were Protestant... The sectarian antagonism that drove this massacre was interwoven with political hysteria and local vendettas, but it was sectarian none the less. 'Our fellas took it out on the Protestants' (quoting Denis Lordan in O'Broin, Protestant Nationalists 177)". This should be sufficient for supporting the claim of sectarianism. I take it you don't need a source for the claims of Ryan et al, which you've recounted on this page. Rockpocket 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

For the second diff. What do you want exactly, a source that a "male" is a "man" or would you like a source for the merging of two sentences? Rockpocket 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so Hart bases his whole analysis on one comment by one person 'Our fellas took it out on the Protestants' (quoting Denis Lordan in O'Broin, Protestant Nationalists 177)". So if a number of authors provide a number of citable sources to contradict this analysis, then more weight must be given to them. Was Denis Lordan talking about the incidents in the article? Now having supported the edits made to the Lead, are you going to address the issues I have raised, or are you, as you seem to be suggesting only be responding to edits you make despite your defence of the edits above. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Denis Lordan talking about the incidents in the article? A reliable source appears to say so. If you are skeptical, why don't you do some research and find out for yourself? Rockpocket 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer's critique of the inadequacies of Peter Hart is fascinating, but not really relevant to this article. The purpose of the article is not to critique Hart or any other historian, but to record what he and other historians say about the killings. If other historians have criticised Hart, then that goes into the article, too. Mooretwin (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant to this article when balance and weight is being considered. Now provide the references you were asked for a number of times now. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the critique of an anonymous Misplaced Pages editor is never going to be relevant. Only reliable sources are relevant. And you want "references" to support a statement that the killings took place during the truce? Why? Mooretwin (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! That is why I'm looking to have editors WP:OR and WP:SYN removed. Now I have outlined the issues above a number of times now, and have had nothing but stonewalling, so the best thing for me to do is re-write the Lead and reference it to the point of overkill to stop the nonsence after all only reliable sources are relevant. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Domer. Hart provides plenty of other sources that support the same conclusion. But that isn't relevant because we are sourcing Hart's conclusion based on his scholarly analyses, we are not critiquing his analysis. Other historians also provide sources that lead them to a different conclusion; we mention and source their conclusions too, we do not critique their analysis either. You seem to be of the opinion that Ryan and Meehan's analyses go unchallenged while Hart's has been "proved" wrong. Not so, Hart has critiqued their use of sources and the conclusions they draw, just as much as they have his. So why do you think one historian is correct and the other isn't? And, even if you have a reason to endorse one over the other, why should your person opinion be reflected in a Misplaced Pages article?

The back and forth between Hart and Ryan et al can be expanded in further detail in the body of the text (again, without editorial endorsement of either position), but within the constraints of the lead, the two contrasting conclusions are what is important. Those have been sourced perfectly well. So lets move on from this and tackle the rest of the article. Rockpocket 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hart provides plenty of other sources that support the same conclusion." That is exactly what you were asked to provide, and which you said said above you'll "happily cite" yet you only provide one, and even that is without any context at all. This is not about critiquing their analysis, it as you yourself said "balance" and "weight" and that can only be known by reviewing the sources. Now I'm asking reasonable questions and all I'm getting is stonewalling, so I'll be re-writing the Lead and referencing it up to the gills. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you "review the sources" you'll find some sources say informers and others say sectarian. The article should reflect this. Mooretwin (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I need to write this: We are not critiquing Hart, therefore we don't need to investigate his sources for that statement. He is a notable academic who has published a number of books on the subject, therefore he is a reliable source for his own conclusions. As for re-writing the lead. I would suggest you get consensus for that, because at the moment you appear to be the exception among editors on this issue. Rockpocket 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I know you are a good guy, but you need urgently to listen to Rock and the rest of us. Why not help improve the article rather than trying to point it in a particular direction? This article is not a place to be making points about which historian rubbished which other historian. We report the reliable sources and we summarize them. That's all an encyclopedia is. Rock has made good edits and explained them here. --John (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Get off Domers back John, I agree with his stance. Rockpockets lead is inaccurate and misleading.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will be surprised that Vintagekits agrees with fellow nationalist Domer. In what way does Vintagekits think that the lead is inaccurate and misleading? (This should be interesting.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vin no worries re: John, I'll simply ignore their drive by remarks, likewise Mooretwin's attempt to turn this talk page into another battlefield. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There would be no "battlefield" if you chose to collaborate with editors rather than attempting to ignore them in an apparently relentless pursuit of POV. Your remarks about John are quite revealing as they indicate (a) a disregard for the views of other editors, and (b) a confidence that he and other editors will soon become bored of arguing with the Tribal Patrol, eventually leaving the article alone for you and your colleagues to edit as you choose, and (c) a realisation that your success in controlling an article is largely dependent on restricting the number of editors involved (because the wider the discussion, the more likely the article is to achieve NPOV). Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please cop onto yourself, that nonsense will not change the fact, that you have refused to address the issues I've raised. Now, I'm working on a Lead which is based on WP:RS and is WP:V. It will be free of the WP:OR and WP:SYN that is currently there, so pandering to the above nonsense is only encouraging the like of you. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no issues to address. The fact that the killings took place during the truce is sourced in the main article. I suggest to you that a collaborative approach is more likely to improve the article than a hostile one. Remember that the aim is to provide a good summary of the article, and that the article itself should adhere to NPOV. That means that interpretations other than those of nationalist historians also need to be reflected and given due weight. Try to take an objective look at things. Mooretwin (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to read some of the writings of those historian's who dispute Hart's findings. Of particular interest to this page is an article by Niall Meehan in the Irish Political Review Vol 23, No.3, 2008. The general thrust of the article is to forensically question Hart's analysis, which drew him to the conclusion that there was sectarian motive's behind much of the War of Independence. However, what is interesting about Meehan's writing is the following section:

The April killings were exceptional. This was recognised by those assumed at the time to be the intended targets, Irish Protestants. A highly significant Irish Protestant Convention was held on May 11 1922 in Dublin’s Mansion House. It resolved, ‘apart from this incident, hostility to Protestants by reason of their religion, has been almost, if not wholly unknown, in the 26 counties in which they are a minority’ (The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, May 12 1922; also, see The Irish Independent May 3 1922).

Now to be fair Meehan still refutes a sectarian motive for the killings:

The killings in late April 1922 in West Cork were not motivated by either land agitation or by sectarian considerations.

My point is simply that there are other historians cite primary evidence that supports the opinion there was a sectarian motive (apart from this incident, hostility to Protestants by reason of their religion, has been almost, if not wholly unknown) and clearly - given the fact Meehan cites it - this is not disputed by those who routinely question Hart's sources. I'm struggling to see how Meehan can consider these killings both "exceptional" in their sectarian nature (and cite support for it) and yet he still conclude they were "not motivated by... sectarian considerations", but that doesn't really matter. Rockpocket 20:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No Republic?

JD, I have reverted your last edit. It implies the Republic ceased to exist before the Dail vote on the Treaty. You can only "re-establish" something that has already been "dis-established". Sarah777 (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Dail vote was on January 7. Treaty accepted, Provisional Government established. Republic dis-established. Troop withdrawals in question were February to April, after the Dail vote. Jdorney (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Never was good at dates. Perhaps if you explained your reverts in future we'd not confuse them with your edit warring? Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't change facts you're not so familiar with? Jdorney (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is up to the reverter to furnish the explanation. Sarah777 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would not agree that the Republic was "dis-established" in January 1922. A vote is only a vote, not an act. It is well known that after January two governments existed in Ireland with almost, but not quite, total overlap. Until their respective deaths Griffith was head of the Dáil Government, Collins head of the Provisional Government; it was Cosgrave who effectively unified the two. The Republic was not officially "dis-established" until 6 December 1922 (and according to modern republicans was never dis-established at all). Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it was a murky business, but in reality, the authority being established was that of the Provisional Government. Certainly the British were insistent that a 'Republic' would be counter to the terms of the Treaty and that is the point being made in the relevant sentence. Jdorney (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Title of article

On October 28 the title of this article was unilaterally changed, without consensus let alone discussion, from 'Dunmanway Massacre' to 'Dunmanway Killings'. This was a spiteful gaming tactic by Sarah777 who had been denied use of the word Massacre in a different context. The article under its previous name is referenced all over the web for some three years and should not be changed without due cause, else confusion results. According to Misplaced Pages a massacre is "the intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people." This is appropriate here and is usually the case if killings are in double figures e.g. Bloody Sunday when 13 people also died. I shall change it back shortly now that I know how. --Fynire (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove the personal attacks. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'personalattacks' and why rewmoce from Talk? You've never been averse to same.--Fynire (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fynire (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one week, for the above and other comments. Anyone else who's thinking about making negative comments towards other editors: Cut it out. Instead, keep this talkpage for one purpose and one purpose only, discussion of the article. That's the best and most productive way to proceed. --Elonka 00:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Elonka, rather than speculate on the motive of those involved in changing the title, could we have some representations about why one or the other should be the preferred title (ideally with references to sources and policies)? Rockpocket 02:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Dunmanway massacre" should be the name if and only if that is how it is widely known. Now, I don't know one way or the other, so I looked at Google Books. Dunmanway IRA returns plenty of books dealing with the incident, none of which seem to call it the "Dunmanway massacre". "Dunmanway massacre" returns only two books: one by Mary Kenny, whose POV is obvious from the quote on the search results page; the other by Kingsmill Moore. I offer you these results without further comment. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't wish to get anyone blocked but to address the points made by Fynire: The fact that the Wiki article is the main source of the name is itself an illustration of why the WP:OR policy is taken so seriously. (To an extreme degree as I have discovered in a row over description of the Great Famine). We are not supposed to make up names here and when I did a simple google for "Dunmanway massacre" I realised this article was the main source. Per our policy that is actually a very good reason to move to a more neutral name. I am not disputing (or claiming) that the events described here would today be described as a massacre. Sarah777 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading today doesn't find any significant usage of massacre. The most common descriptions seems to be "the killings at Dunmanway" or "the killings in Co Cork." In that basis I would suggest "Dunmanway killings" would probably be the most appropriate title. Rockpocket 20:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact an interesting issue may well arise here: it is clear that this article is being watched (or even edited) by one or more prominent Irish journalists (term used loosely). If one or more of them decide to use the term "Dunmanway massacre" in their rags do they then become reliable sources? Could I then get my pal in the Irish Times to slip in a reference to the Great Famine as genocide somewhere and then use that??? Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the "journalist" whose piece on the RTÉ programme is linked to from this article, I certainly would not regard him as a reliable source :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I know he isn't! But per Wiki guidelines would he not constitute a "reliable source" - being a well-paid hack of the MSM? Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Article rework

I have started to rework the article into what I hope will be a more neutral description of what the sources tell us, with less editorial endorsement. I've hidden two sentences that I don't understand the relevance of. If someone wants to retain them, could they explain why there are relevant? Rockpocket 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be contemporaneous claims that the killings were anti-British rather than sectarian. What is the problem with that? Sarah777 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The hidden material is:

The IRA's Third Cork Brigade had killed 15 informers during the 1919-1921 conflict according to Tom Barry, "for those who are bigots" he said, nine were Catholics and six Protestants.

Before this incident, on 13 April, Michael Collins had voiced concern about newspaper reports alleging attacks on Protestants in Ireland (particularly those of the Morning Post) to Desmond Fitzgerald. He said that while some of its coverage was "fair newspaper comment," the "strain of certain parts is very objectionable".

One is about killings during the war, the other is about some other attacks. How does either claim "the killings were anti-British rather than sectarian"? Rockpocket 01:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverting these edits per WP:BOLD and WP:NPOV. Information was removed which added context and clarity. Put forward suggestions here, and discuss the changes first. The alternative is reverting or re-writing the re-write followed by reverting, this should be avoided. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

Should the stuff on Cork in the War of Independence not be moved into the subsection "in Cork" and out of the "political context section"? It would make things a lot clearer. Aside from that, very good work so far Rocket. Jdorney (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Meda Ryan Pg.219
2. Tim Pat Coogan, Pg.360

• C-Class Ireland articles
• Low-importance Ireland articles
• C-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Ireland
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• B-Class military history articles