Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:56, 5 December 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 (2006—2008) Archive 2 (January 2009) Archive 3 (Feb—September 2009) Archive 4 (Sept—October 2009) Archive 5 (Oct—early November 2009)

WP:RS, WP:V

First off, Brian P Murphy is not a member of Aubane, however some of his books are published by them books such as Michael Collins, (Aubane 2004) ISBN: 1 903497 19 1, A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1, The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 0 85034 108 6, and The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland, 1920, (Aubane 2006), ISBN: 1 903497 24 8 in addition to Troubled History.

He also has books such as Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal, ISBN 9780907606772 which is published by James Duffy, (1991), and John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995). Is it the suggestion that only his book that are published by Aubane are not considered WP:RS. What about books were Brian P Murphy is cited by authors, but the books cited are published by Aubane?

Some examples of this would include Enemies of empire: new perspectives on imperialism, literature and historiography, ISBN 9781846820021 by Eóin Flannery and Angus Mitchell and published by Four Courts Press, (2007), Religion and rebellion: papers read before the 22nd Irish Conference of Historians, held at University College Dublin, 18-22 May 1995, ISBN 9781900621038, by Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning published by University College Dublin Press, (1997), and Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, ISBN 9781859183861, by David Fitzpatrick which is published by Cork University Press, (2004).

Are editors honestly suggesting that while Brian P Murphy a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can be only be used depending on which publisher he uses? No, I don't think so.

As another example, what about Media Ryan, who is as far as I'm aware a member of the Aubane Historical Society, but her books are not published by them. Books such as The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN-13: 9781853710414, published by Dufour Editions (1990), Biddy Early,(2000), ISBN-13: 9781856353168, and Michael Collins and the Women who spied for Ireland (2006) ISBN 13: 9781856355131, Real Chief : The Story of Liam Lynch, ISBN-13: 9780853427643, (2005), Tom Barry: Ira Freedom Fighter, ISBN-13: 9781856354257, (2003) all published by Mercier Pr Ltd, Michael Collins and the Women in His Life, ISBN-13: 9781856351669, published by Irish Books & Media (1998), The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN: 1853710415, published by Poolbeg, (1989).

Are editors honestly suggesting that while Media Ryan a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can not be used because she is a member of the Aubane Historical Society? No, I don't think so.

So to make it as simple as possible for everyone, the Aubane Historical Society is not the source being cited, its the author. We don't cite publishers. All publishers are subject to the same laws on liable. So editors who are concerned about WP:BLP need not be, so they can and should now consider some other policy to use. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Meda Ryan and Brian Murphy are both cited extensively in the text. What is your point? Jdorney (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need. The consensus here is pretty clearly against you. The provisions of BLP are evident in the policy itself and have already been explained to you several times. There's no point in discussing either matter further here. --John (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so John what I see there are the following statements

• ...the author is more important than the publisher in cases like this.
• If it is clear that the author of a self-published book pass the bar... then it does not matter whether the publisher is a vanity press...
• If the authors have been published elsewhere, we can consider them "acknowledged experts" and cite their self-published books.
• ...when a source is published by Aubane, use caution. Look a bit deeper... see who the author is and what else the author has published.
• Our policies do not "ban" self-published sources... but they do limit them. So you need to determine if the specific source and author pass those limitations

So my reading is that Aubane are not automatically discarded but we must look deeper and which is what Domer is saying. BigDunc 15:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is with a view to do what in the article? Jdorney (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Domer will let us know. BigDunc 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dunc. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So, Domer, with a view to doing what in the article? Jdorney (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, Dunc makes a fair point. I think we need to get away from literalism and use our judgment. Aubane is clearly an organisation that promotes an ethno-political agenda. It should not considered a neutral, reliable source, then, in certain situations - but not all. Likewise, the Irish Political Review is published by the same organisation and the same issues hold. That said, some of the people that publish there are acknowledged experts in some aspects of historical analysis. Therefore it appears reasonable to consider the Aubane and IPR an acceptable source for the supporting Murphy, Ryan et al's historical analysis. I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that we remove all use of all these publications, just limit them to the scope of their reliability. But BLP is clear: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. So what might be an acceptable - essentially self-published - source for Ryan et al's own historical analysis becomes questionable when it is used for criticism of other people and their analysis. The editorial oversight, and thus neutrality, of a reliable source is lacking at Aubane and IPR, because the whole point of the journals are to promote one POV over another. In short, Aubane and IPR is fine for what the writer concludes, it is not fine for what they say some else concludes. This is how I have been using these sources and no-one has expressed any issues with that (yet).

I'm repeating here what I posted over at Peter Hart: I would strongly suggest we stop adding contentious material about a BLP to articles without a strong consensus for inclusion. If this continues henceforth, here and/or any other article where similar questionable material has been added, I will put a case to AE that a page ban be put in place for whoever does so, across all these articles. Rockpocket 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since WP:RS and WP:V are addressed, WP:BLP is not an issue. At no time will Aubane be cited, however authors who have published their works through Aubane publishing will. Adding negative or positive material is not a violation of WP:BLP. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If Ryan, Murphy or anyone writing for Aubane, or whoever are used to source verifiable facts, that's fine. If they are used, as previously here, to argue one side of a partisan dispute against another, that is not acceptable. Jdorney (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding negative or positive material is not a violation of WP:BLP, and general criticisms are preferred to specific criticisms. However removing negative or positive material in a slective or partisan way is against WP:NPOV. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why have you been trying to add specific criticisms, rather than accept the mention of general criticisms that are already there? And why would you think adding negative criticism in a partisan way as any less an issues of POV? You say one thing, Domer, by you do the exact opposite. The issues with you edits have been explained to you many, many times, by multiple people. At this stage there appears two opinions: either you move forward with your unique understanding of BLP and we take it to an admin noticeboard to ask whether you be permitted to continue to edit BLPs, or else you consider why your view is not shared by pretty much everyone else who has commented on this issue and, hopefully, reassess your understanding to community norms. Rockpocket 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see loads of options, you however only see two! Now since you appear to have a very limited scope I'll make it simple. Your unsupported opinions of me and my edits count for nothing! Now stop going on about ANI and just do it! I have not violated WP:BLP! Since your attitude and opinions are simply uncivil and nothing more than unsupported personal attacks I'll simply ignore them, as responding only encourages you to respond. Please read the talk page guidlines and stop using article talk pages for your petty little campaign. Now I strongly suggest that you confine yourself to issues which improve the article and comment on content, not on the contributor. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe at this point in the interest of sanity we just ignore Mr Alphabet Soup and the rest of us get on with improving the article. There's discussion and there's disruption. Domer, if you seriously don't understand where you're going wrong here, you should ask someone else. We are tired of explaining it to you. Sorry. --John (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there is little point of continuing to discuss this, everything that can be said has been said. I simply want to make it clear the next course of action I will take, should we have a repeat of the antics of the last few days. Its entirely up to you, Domer, how you chose to proceed. But you will not be able to claim you were not warned this time. Rockpocket 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Could everyone please just count to 10 and lets try to sort this out without threats or name calling, as all that is happening is that you are talking at each other and not to each other. Is it possible to find a centralised place to discuss this issue as it appears to be taking place on numerous pages. Maybe if everyone stepped back for the night and came back tomorrow calmer we could get some compromise. I know there is bad blood so to speak between the main protagonists but from what I have seen you are all intelligent and possibly some of you stubborn so lets talk to each other and not at each other. So having said that any suggestions for a possible neutral venue for this discussion? BigDunc 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Dunc. I take issue with this representation. From my perspective, there is no bad blood and no emotional investment. I, for one, could care less about these issues. I have stated previously that I take no opinion on whether Hart is right or wrong, or whether Ryan's et al are right or wrong. Therefore I have no horse in this race whatsoever. I bear Domer no will ill and I have said multiple times, I would much prefer he work together with the other editors on this issue, rather then go down the route of restrictions. So this isn't a partisan, ideological disagreement between two opposing protagonists. The bottom line: There is one editor (check the history and see how many others have added this material) attempting to add extensive criticism across multiple articles that a number of editors and admins, each of whom were entirely uninvolved when their attention was drawn to the issue from various noticeboards, have explained to him is simply not acceptable. Where is there to go when there is an absolute refusal to accept any opinion but one's own? I'm simply not sure what else there is to say.

Unfortunately Domer has now been put under probationary measures which rather makes all of this moot, so hopefully that will be the end of this particular matter. However, what still could be resolved is some sort of agreement on the informer/suspected informer issue, which was being discussed quite constructively until we got sidetracked by this. Would anyone like to offer an opinion on how best to deal with this distinction, or are we happy with the lead as is? Rockpocket 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of "informer"

I made the point several weeks ago that "suspected informer" is appropriate, given that there was no judicial process to determine whether or not those killed were informers. As I understand it, we are relying on a latter-day historian's hearsay account of an interview with an old republican. Mooretwin (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with any use of the word 'informer' is that it is pejorative and used as an heinous insult in Irish republican circles. Informers are thus bad people, but usually people who are in some way treasonable. This makes the word's use completely inappropriate in relation to the Dunmanway massacre as none of those killed had any loyalty to the IRA. They may well have been close to the security forces (RIC or army) and helped them but this is what they were brought up to do.

A neutral (NPOV) phrasing might be that they would probably have assisted the RIC and army or been informants. Their killings however had much more to do with vengeance (for the O'Neill shooting) than a coherent attack on 'informers' as republicans would have seen them. --Fynire (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Informer" is the best and most accurate word. Though I'd certainly support Mooretwins "suspected informer" as it is very clear that not all, or even most, Protestants were informers. But common usage in Ireland describes (then and now), local inhabitants who give information to the British as "informers". While personally I'd fully support both the description and it's implications the reasons why it must be included are not political. It is the most consistent with WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an issue here alright. First of all the term "informer" is certainly used pejoratively in Irish republican circles - having a similar connotation to "traitors". While the IRA would have seen people in Cork co-operating with the RIC as traitors to the Republic, local loyalists would not have seen it that way.

Secondly, while it does seem as if many of those killed had been "helpful" to Crown forces, we don't know that's why they were targeted. As suggested above, it is much more widely suggested in the sources that they were killed in revenge for Michael O'Neill's death. I wouldn't delete the info altogether, but it does perhaps need to be modified. Jdorney (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If most Protestants were not 'informers' that would probably be because they had no information to pass on. However I think Sarah unwittingly and superbly illustrates the reason why using the word 'informer' in this article is utterly inappropriate and far from neutral.

She says "common usage in Ireland describes (then and now), local inhabitants who give information to the British."

But Ireland then and now also includes the Protestant north whose Protestant inhabitants see themselves as British and would no more think of not 'informing' than would an American who spotted an Al Quaeda operative setting up an ambush in Chicago. And they would not be pleased to have the epithet 'informer' thrown at them.

Irish Protestants in the south then, or the north now would never use the word 'informer' in this context and their view should not be disregarded in Misplaced Pages. Sarah may assume they do not exist or are irrelevant but their continued existence is the reason she is editing this article in the first place. Neutrality requires another phrasing. --Fynire (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be presuming a bit too much Fynire. Were all Protestants loyalists in county Cork in 1922? (the term did not have extremist connotations in the 1920s btw). I'm not sure they were. But your point stands up. They would have seen themselves as helping the legitimate forces of the state.

Informant/suspected informer/infomer, doesn't make that much difference to me. What's more important is where in the text is placed. Right now it clearly implies they were killed because they had been informers. In fact we don't know this for sure either way. Jdorney (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What they saw themselves as is irrelevant. What they are commonly called is what we should reflect here. Any inhabitant of Ireland who assisted with information given to the British was an informer. If they gave information on activity to the forces of British "law" they were informers per common parlance. Regarding the specif text I think it clear that they were killed because they were suspected of being informers. Perhaps some rebels believed (incorrectly) that all Protestants were informers. But that was the reason they were targeted. Protestants who openly supported the Republic were never killed. So it wasn't a sectarian matter. Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You know - it really is a good thing that Wiki has me around to keep the obfuscation at bay here. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue as I see it, is whether the reliable sources tell us they were informers, or tell us the IRA considered them informers. My understanding of Hart is quite clear: his interpretation of the primary data favors the latter interpretation. Ryan, I'm less clear about. She appear to consider them to be informers himself (citing the list/diary), but according to O Fenian (who is more familiar than I with Ryan's work) she sources that conclusion to a former IRA man, which would imply that it is the IRA's opinion that she is taking as fact. Nevertheless, our job is not to question how Ryan interprets her sources, so we are left with a difference in analysis about whether they were informers or suspected informers. The question, then, is how we address this in the lead in a succinct and neutral manner. Any suggestions? Rockpocket 23:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Where there is uncertainty on issues like this it behooves us to be conservative and thus we should call them "suspected informers", would be my opinion. --John (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In agreement, let's go with 'suspected informers'. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For compromise 'suspected informers' is good.Cathar11 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "informer" is regarded as a heinous insult in Irish Republican circles (although ironically the present-day Republican Movement has suspected informers highly placed in its leadership). But it is a heinous insult in most conspiratorial criminal organizations, like the Mafia. And the people termed "informers" are often in fact courageous citizens who take considerable personal risks in order to bring the bad guys to justice. In this case, it is pretty clear that these people were targeted because they were Protestants and as such were regarded as likely to be loyalists. So I would prefer to use the term "loyalist" or "likely loyalist" in place of "informer". I agree with the comment above that "loyalist" did not have the connotation then that it has today. After all, if these people were indeed passing information to the authorities then they were doing nothing more than their simple duty as loyal subjects of the Crown. Irvine22 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources people. Sources. Our opinions are not releveant. Jdorney (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You (Irvine) and Sarah are are like a pair, with your bad guys and knowingly provocative labels. How long before you work out all those sorts of aside achieve is to make others completely ignore the, sometimes valid, points within? Either way, the issue among all the reliable sources were about whether they were "informers" not "loyalists", so I don't see how that is really appropriate. Rockpocket 00:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There you go again Rock. I used "bad guys" as a common colloquialism. And I can't be held responsible for folk being provoked by the truth. Though I do suspect our friend Irvine is trolling here with his "helping the police with their inquiries" line! Sarah777 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither "informer" or "suspected informer" is sufficiently NPOV in my view, given the pejorative connotation of the word "informer" in the context of Ireland. Also, the word "suspected" implies that the thing a person is "suspected" of is a crime or otherwise wrongful conduct. Instead of "informer" I would propose "cooperating witness", and instead of "suspected" I propose "supposed". Irvine22 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Irvine, as you consider informers who were setting up their neighbours in the sights of British guns to be "loyal citizens" I'm not surpised you'd prefer to write this article in Newspeak! Sarah777 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends what the neighbours were getting up to, I suppose. You should see my neighbours. I mean, really, the very thought of it. Irvine22 (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That, in my view, is taking NPOV too far. In such disagreements we go with what the sources say. If you can find a good source that uses these terms, let's all have a look at it. Until then, if the sources say "informer" or "suspected informer", that's what we say too. I maintain the latter is better. --John (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd still go with "suspected informers" rather than "informers" unless there is hard evidence from "reliable sources" that all the victims were in fact believed to be informers. I don't think the facts are as clear as that. Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hard evidence"..."reliable sources"...sure sounds like Newspeak to me! Irvine22 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If it were not for that fact that calling another editor a troll is probably a breach of WP:NPA I'd maybe call you one! Sarah777 (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

First Newspeak, now Weasel words. Why don't you try an encylopaedic tone for a change? Irvine22 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sarah - "suspected informer" is the best we can do here. Names being on a list proves what? Probably that they were suspected of being informers. Bastun 18:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More likely just a list of Protestants who were available and easy targets.Irvine22 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source which says that? I presume not or you would have said so. Apart from changes necessary to make things clearer for the reader, the article should stick to the terms the sources use. If there's a real chance of confusion (suspected by whom?) you can always phrase it differently, something like "suspected by the IRA of being an informer". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously the whole thrust of Hart's account is that the victims were in the main randomly-targeted Protestants, killed by the IRA in what was essentially a sectarian retailiation for the death of an IRA member. A bit like the LVF's "measured military response" to the assassination of Billy Wright, I suppose. Irvine22 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think there is a general consensus for "suspected informers". I have another question, in the conflicting conclusions section, do we think there is balanced coverage, with appropriate due weight, for the various perspectives? I'm a little concerned it is bit "Hart heavy", perhaps a little more details of Ryan's conclusions would be nice? Thoughts? Rockpocket 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept anything, if it'll balance the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the victims were accused of being informers before they were murdered? Or is it all just post facto rationalization? Irvine22 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine. Please stop generalizing, such as changing every mention of "informer" to "suspected informer". Not only did some of them make no sense whatsoever, we have to respect the individual sources. If you are unable to edit with nuance on such delicate issues, then please leave it to someone else who can. Rockpocket 20:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If they made no sense, then they were of a piece with much of the rest of the article. Irvine22 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That isn't helpful. Maybe we are done here, for now. --John (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So nobody seems to be able to say whether the victims were ever accused of being informers before they were killed? Ok, that's what I thought - the whole "informer" thing looks like a tendentious post facto rationalization to which we should give no credence whatsoever. But I know you will... Irvine22 (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Use or indeed overuse of the words 'informer' or 'suspected informer' alone remains pejorative and inappropriate here. Angus's suggestion of "suspected by the IRA of being an informer' is not unreasonable as it indicates that it is a concept or crime particular to that side of the dispute.

Sarah argues, "What they are commonly called is what we should reflect here. Any inhabitant of Ireland who assisted with information given to the British was an informer." She avoids my earlier point. 'Commonly' has to include, in Ireland, Protestants and Unionists (who were themselves British) and therefore the concept is not common currency unless you regard Protestants as people of no consequence at all in the matter. Can you inform yourself? And was it in 'common' use in Ireland that you would call someone who had reported a rape or a stray cow an informer? Sarah's other point that "Protestants who openly supported the Republic were never killed. So it wasn't a sectarian matter" is risible. As if you execute those who come across to your side? Anyway most Protestant Republicans became Catholics. The number of Protestants in Cork who were home rulers would have been tiny and the percentage who supported the separatists minute and can pretty well all be named like Miss Dorothy Stopford or Sam Maguire.

I will go for Angus's phrasing in my next edit. --Fynire (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this - I think Fynire has conflated Dorothy Macardle and Alice Stopford Green as one person (Miss Dorothy Stopford). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree "informer" is pejorative and inappropriate. Not least because it is playing into a post facto rationalization for sectarian murder. Irvine22 (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we call Israelis "Zionists" because some sub-section of a sub-section of the population uses that term? "Informer" was, and as importantly still is, the common description of people who engage in the suspected activity. It is to change that modern usage by using the power of Wiki which is your agenda , I suspect. Sarah777 (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Above is confused nonsense Sarah and you know it. Any suggestion that Republicans like Eamon Broy were informers would and will be resisted, fiercely. Angus's phrasing deals with the problem. --Fynire (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of the informer called Eamonn Broy. Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even the modern Gardai/police themselves today commonly us the word "informant" to describe people who drop a dime on their associates and acquaintances! Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well check the Broy article informer is used Fynire. BigDunc 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with you Sarah is only Catholics get massacred while Protestants only get killed. Lets compromise on both getting murdered. --86.164.244.198 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Broy was a Republican hero who informed on his (British) work colleagues. So could he be an informer if he was a Republican? Of course not. You get the point now? --Fynire (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary

This seems an easier issue than most such issues to resolve: (1) There is evidence and statements that some people in or connected to the IRA regarded them as informers based on what they thought was evidence. (2) This evidence would not hold up in a modern court of law as it appears to be based on a list no longer available. (3) To jump from that and assert the there was no list or evidence at all, and that the victims were merely randomly selected is speculation or WP:OR. (4) So, "suspected informers" is the closest fit to the limited evidence we have available. Nobody can be sure of what the exact truth was - or at least I cannot see how anyone could be sure. Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very nicely put, Sarah. Rockpocket 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely right. --John (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And that's three things Sarah and I agree on! Wonders will never cease! Bastun 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Afirmative. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Excellent. So maybe we could appoint Rock to lighten the Hart influence a wee bit as he suggested and write a version based on the facts we seem to be agreed on. (Pretty similar to the existing version I'd imagine). Then maybe we can take this off the list of "disputes" and insist on very good sources for any future re-interpretations? Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that I don't have access to Ryan's book, so I'm struggling to give better coverage to her conclusions. Almost all the stuff cited to her previously was criticisms of Hart's conclusions culled from various pamphlets (which is not what we want) instead of her own conclusions (which we do want). If anyone else could come up with some sourced material that illustrates how Ryan interpreted the event, it would be most helpful. O Fenian appears to be familiar with her writing, but he has gone awol recently. Rockpocket 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Domer not familiar with that material? Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Any input he has on this matter would be welcome, of course, though we could do without revisiting the Hart is discredited arguments again. Rockpocket 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was resolved? The text covers his revisionism/alleged revisionism fairly I think. No need to reopen that issue. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the summary Sarah. Credit where it's due. Re Ryan she doesn't have an awful lot in the way of conclusions on the actual incident in Tom Barry, IRA Freedom Fighter. The whole chapter is more or less devoted to rebutting Hart. The closest I can find to a conclusion on the events is (158-159),

"Peter Hart concludes the motives were 'sectarian' rather than disloyalty to the Republican cause by informing on their fight for freedom activities. According to Peter Hart, when the men of the Cork IRA used the term 'informer' it simply meant 'enemy'...Yet all of the surnames (in the Dunmanway/Ballineen/Enniskeane district) of those shot in the closing days of April 1922, were listed as 'helpful citiizens' in the Dunmanway 'find'. But the names of two of those fatally shot are not on the list - only last names are there. In one case a son was shot when his father was not at home. An elderly man was shot instead of his brother, who ahd been wanted by the IRA and he had been, 'one of the men' who 'fingered' IRA men resulting in their arrest torture and deaths. Those who saw the document knew the anems of he 'helpful citizens' - some of whom escaped. (Only one loyalist was listed in the diary. The others were in separate dossiers)." Jdorney (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems nobody is claiming the son and the elderly man shot, either in error or deliberately, were actually themselves informers. Thus describing all 10 simply as informers would be inaccurate. As per facts we are all agreed on? Sarah777 (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Collateral casualties aside, you won't address the point above. Informer or suspected informer are both pejorative terms as those done to death were at the time proper law-abiding citizens whose duty it was to tell the aurhorities of activities that would otherwise lead to people being killed.--Fynire (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fynire, with respect you seem to be ploughing a lonely furrow here. People on all sides seem to feel that "suspected informers" is neutral and not pejorative. Nobody is suggesting that the dead were traitors, and nobody but you seems to be drawing that inference, Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that lonely I suspect Scolaire.

Traitor is a better epithet than informer which is usually an epithet for low lifes. How would you like to be murdered and have it written into the historical record that you were a 'suspected rapist' or some such when the thought had never crossed your mind nor the concept imagined? This is victor's language not neutral (NPOV). And 'suspected' implies possible innocence to boot, yet few using the term have the slightest doubt you deserved your fate, suspected or otherwise. If your father or brother's name was on the bullet it is all the same in their eyes. Listen to the tone. --Fynire (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Traitor" is better than "informer"?!! Not on this planet! Sarah777 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Treason never prospers for if it does none dare call it treason but 'informers' don't become 'agents' so easily. --Fynire (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nottatall! By your own reckoning a traitor could now be regarded as a "decent law-abiding citizen" if the outcome had favoured the occupiers! Imagine had the fight for independence failed what they'd be calling the "rebels" today?! (Given that history is written by the winners). Sarah777 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling them men rather than Protestants is absurd. It is also accurate and germane so don't revert it again Sarah. Given that you changed the name of the article without discussion I don't think you can use lack of discussion as a reason. The matter has been discussed at length anyway. --Fynire (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fynire, for the record, Peter Hart also suggests that they were singled out because they were men. The killers deliberately would not shoot women ("we don't want you" they told one) but asked for the men by name. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but their sex was clearly a significant factor in their targeting. Jdorney (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be so but hardly significant unless we are writing some sort of gender-related article. I would be happy to change it to ten male Protestants, and will. --Fynire (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately as the root cause is disputed, that information is best left to later in the lead where it is currently. O Fenian (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian - you reverted the sentence that said Meda Ryan's references were unavailable writing "removed commentary on Ryan, there is no equivalent for Hart saying "however his source is anonymous and probably fake"" This is tendentious. The remark about Ryan's sources is a quote from her. Your remark about Hart is incomparable and silly. Readers have a right to know her information is not checkable especially as it is used constantly in the article. Leave it be. Nobody else objects so you are on your own. --Fynire (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is your commentary/observation on Ryan which is not being applied equally to all sources used. Hart relies on anonymous interviews that are completely uncheckable, at least one of which was not an interview with a Kilmichael veteran. The source for Hart interviewing anonymous people is Hart himself, what is the difference? Hart's sources are uncheckable, since Hart won't tell anyone who his sources are! O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Still needs work

This article still needs substantial work. Most of the more glaring POV problems have been dealt with, but there are still a few remaining.

• The most glaring is in what should be the main section of the article - "Killings in Dunmanway, Balneen, Ennsikeane and Clonakilty". This section needs to be re-written. First of all, after each of the dead mentioned is a kind of character assassination -"this one was an informer", that one was "preying on the children's innocence". Taken straight from Meda Ryan. It's ok to have this interpretation in the article, but giving right after the killings is giving it undue weight and ascribing a motive for the killings which is disputed.

• Secondly, aside from the POV angle, the article is too long and clumsy. The problem here is that competing editors have, in the absence of discussion, been adding more and more referenced facts. This is a bit out of control now - so that article is lopsided. Basically the content in the background section is ok, but the presentation is not. It needs to be condensed right down so it's a clear and concise intro to someone who doesn't know anything about the subject.

Thoughts please. Jdorney (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they were informers should be mentioned regardless whether is before or after each name is mentioned. Giving undue weight and ascribing a motive for the killings other than they were informers should not be given undue weight because of the lack of supporting evidence. I see nothing wrong with adding more referenced facts as long as its informative and relevant. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK - should we give explicit reference where the facts indicate that the person shot was not an informer? Like: "Though the old man was not the informer they came looking for they shot him anyway" type of thing? Sarah777 (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be; "They were shot." Next paragraph. "This one was alleged to have been an informer. This may have been the reason he was shot". Jdorney (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a verifiable claim that all 10 were alleged informers? Sarah777 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Dunmanway killings be renamed and moved to Dunmanway murders. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Those contributing to this requested move discussion are respectfully reminded that it is a discussion, not a vote. Evidence and considered arguments outweigh unsupported assertions. Good reasons to move the article would include things like "so-and-so said whatever-it-was at the time" and "so-and-so says whatever-it-is here in this book". Good reasons not to move would be similar. Sniping at other editors helps not at all. And if it should be the case that other pages are badly named it will be better to rename them rather than this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway killings → Dunmanway murders

• Dunmanway killings - the name of this article was originally The Dunmanway Massacre. The name was changed by a cabal of pro-republican editors without any authorization as far as I can tell. (Did they request making the move here as I was advised to do?) I am willing to compromise as far as The Dunmanway murders, which is justified in the text of the article itself by none other than Arthur Griffith himself. There is also a serious double standard, which can only be cured by a disinterested administrator, as the other "killings" at the same historical time are referred to as McMahon Murders and the Arnon Street Massacre, for instance. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Discussion is needed at Talk:Dunmanway killings. Grsz 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• the name of this article was originally The Dunmanway Massacre. The name was changed by a cabal of pro-republican editors without any authorization as far as I can tell. (Did they request making the move here as I was advised to do?) I am willing to compromise as far as The Dunmanway murders, which is justified in the text of the article itself by none other than Arthur Griffith himself. There is also a serious double standard, which can only be cured by a disinterested administrator, as the other "killings" at the same historical time are referred to as McMahon Murders and the Arnon Street Massacre, for instance. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Either name is fine with me. Jdorney (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence that any name of the article is the correct one? I see abuse and attempts to own the article, but no reasoning. A quote from a politican is little compared to how sources name the event. O Fenian (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OpposeI oppose this move from the present NPOV nameCathar11 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why, Cathar11, don't you oppose such POV articles as McMahon Murders and the Arnon Street Massacre? I am going to submit them for name moves as well, just to let you know. There is supposed to be parity of esteem!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Stop commenting on contributors. Throwing stones is not a good enough guideline for content. Either discuss the sources and meanings of wikt:killing, wikt:murder, and wikt:massacre or finish discussing. In my view, massacre is usually used to describe killing in number in a single event esp. of those for who there is no "excuse". Use of murder is often frowned upon again when matters of "excuse" are alleged. Look Rms, they managed to pick off the commanding officer on the approach. That's pretty resourceful! The world you are poking your head into was a nightmare. The one you live in, do you have scented shampoo? The one you live in is a bed of roses as is the one I live in. Comment on content and not contributors. Throw stones in a pond. Base input on reliable sources and solid definitions, not your new stone throwing manual which you made up one day. If you hadn't noticed, the stones have all but stopped being thrown. That's righet! Stone throwing is not a sufficient reason to move this article request denied ~ R.T.G 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. "Look Rms, they managed to pick off the commanding officer on the approach. That's pretty resourceful!". Who did? The three men who disappeared or the eleven (ten fatally) who were shot over a period of two days. Also, "request denied": are you an administrator closing this debate or are you just expressing an opinion. I suspect the latter in which case you are no one to be saying request denied in an effort to stifle commentary.

"The world you are poking your head into was a nightmare." - I agree, presuming you are referring to the plight of Protestants and Unionists in most of the 26 counties; I guess that's why the 12% to 16% of the population they once constituted stands at 2% or so, not including failed refugee seekers and recent British transplants. Does that status of near extinction apply to nationalists in Northern Ireland?

I have no idea who you are and your userpage is empty, so I am sure that you are not an administrator and not in any position to be denying requests. You clearly make no effort at objectivity, so neither have I. Just because you accuse me, ad nauseum, of "throwing stones", doesn't mean that this unauthorized, sneaky move on October 28 by User:Sarah777 should be allowed to stand. I have no intention of debating the meaning of words in a dictionary. Words can be meant to mean more than one thing by whomever is talking and listening. For example, were the various Bloody Sundays massacres, ambushes, killings, murders, collateral damage? Or were they all of those things at the same time? An encyclopaedia is supposed to be objective and should not refer to incidents of bloodshed by differing standards (killing, murder, massacre(!)), based on subjective, visceral feelings and folklore. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, obviously. The name "massacre" was blatant WP:OR and breach of WP:NPOV. The use of "murders" is not only possibly inaccurate but again a breach of WP:NPOV. Policy ( and WP:COMMONNAME) makes clear that we use neutral terms unless there is a well verified name in near universal use. I suggest you look at the criteria for inclusion of an articles in "List of events named massacres". Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And the proposer of this move to restore the article to a POV title might note that I moved it, alone. And he might also note that I am a single individual, not a "republican cabal". Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah - a) if the use of "murders" "is not only possibly inaccurate but again a breach of WP:NPOV", then why is it OK with McMahon Murders?

b) The List of events named massacres is necessarily subjective and finite. Certain agenda-driven groups on Misplaced Pages, such as the pro-IRA cabal, have proved very adept at forcing their will and their agenda. One of Misplaced Pages's sad weaknesses. Whoever screams loudest and longest wins out, all too often. And as far as your having "moved it, alone", let me tell you that if I had been onwiki and spotted it I would have instantaneously reverted your unauthorized, sneaky, sleazy action. Now, because of others' lack of vigilance, I have to deal with it as a fait accompli. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• (1) I have no idea whether McMahon Murders is correct or not - it depends on whether it meets the naming criteria I referred you to.
• (2) The criteria at List of events named massacres are not the least bit subjective. They are terrible, but they follow a clear set of rules.
• (3) You would not have "instantaneously reverted" my action, because unless you are an Administrator you would have been unable to do so.
• (4)The attempted "Fait accompli" was the original naming of the article using such a contra-policy title.
• (5) That move didn't require authorization as policy overwhelmingly supports the move I made.
• (6) My action was neither sneaky nor sleazy. If you continue commenting on me in this vein I may form a negative opinion of you.
• Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond any further on this page, Sarah, although I have a response I very much want to post. With my luck I'll get blocked, something you are quite familiar with yourself, so, I am sure you understand. Suffice to say I have reviewed the record of transactions on October 28, 2009 regarding this page Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

JD's move was a "copy & paste" move - this is not the procedure for moving articles on Wiki. Whether I'd sympathize with you for the blocks would rather depend on whether the blocks were merited. In my case none of them were. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record talk on October move Jdorney (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Although I criticized Sarah's move at the time on procedural grounds, I agree with the actual move. --John (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and also per NPOV. BigDunc 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Mooretwin (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Dunmanway Massacre has been the name for a number of years and accepted until Sarah777 chose unilaterally to change it because she was checked for describing isolated murders of Catholics in Belfast as massacres. It is meaningful for a number of key reasons: the number of dead was unusually high and they were picked out; they were all southern Protestants again unusual especially in a war we were told was non-sectarian; and there are other more minor 'massacres' on Misplaced Pages. --Fynire (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fynire is correct that the article was created in 2006 as The Dunmanway Massacre and not changed until Sarah's unilateral action three years later. Quite amazing that given the extreme attention paid to articles in this field/category. I would point out that the following external sources refer to the Dunmanway "killings" as "The Dunmanway Massacre" (, , , , ), however my main point is that the editors on this page are, for the most part, divided viscerally, not rationally. Some refuse to accept that even authorized actions by the Provisional IRA against "informers" are still murders, since there is nothing approaching Geneva Convention-like regulations in guerrilla warfare. As O Fenian -- whatever happened to the proscription against provocative usernames on Misplaced Pages, by the way; maybe I should change my name to Nazibullah or Binladen -- points out "Where is the evidence that any name of the article is the correct one?" If that is the case then there should be no problem finding a compromise, except that those who are ideologues (on either side of the fence) do not compromise, by nature. And it is the responsibility of disinterested admins to ensure that articles are properly named by encyclopaedic standards, not Irish republican folklore which declares, for example, that Greysteel was a massacre but not Enniskillen. To enshrine ideological folkloric naming conventions and honorifics on Misplaced Pages diminishes Misplaced Pages as an encyclopaedia and that is what upsets me. I have been advised by an admin. of long-standing that I have been calling people names or been insulting to them. Aside from referring to Sarah as part of the pro-republican "cabal", I am unaware of having done so, but I apologize so that those who are open-minded and want the best for Misplaced Pages will not discount the possibility of having cordial relations with me. There are those for whom that was discounted long ago, but that needn't include everyone who disagrees with me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rms125a. I am an admin who is completely neutral on the ethnic divide thing, although I am very well informed and experienced in the whole thing in real life and here. I too hate the sectarian bickering on both "sides"; I believe nationalisms on Wiki to be really damaging, divisive and dangerous to the project. We've certainly had our troubles (pun fully intended) in this area. However, since the Arbcom case there's a been a better level of admin support and we are now on the verge of real progress. A lot of this is down to the selfless work of User:Elonka. We must all be especially careful to rely on reliable sources on these contentious issues, avoid wiki-lawyering, grandstanding, ethnic or imperialist needling, forum-shopping, and cleave to our neutral point of view. Thanks for starting the ball rolling with some sources. --John (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, John, we all are against "sectarian" and "nationalist" bickering I'm sure. The point you seem to keep missing is that your "neutrality" is someone else's "nationalism". Thus we get the editor above saying " Some refuse to accept that even authorized actions by the Provisional IRA against "informers" are still murders" - as if calling them "murders" is a simple statement of fact. When it is a matter of opinion. The only facts we have is that they were killed and the UK legal system regards them as "murder". Which is an artificial concept. It is equally a fact that the British Army in NI are/were "occupation forces" but we wouldn't be allowed describe them as 'occupiers' in Wiki articles. Though I could find dozens of references for that. And I might add that we should revert any attempts to use political branding of articles (as per Dunmanway "Massacre") where the title isn't the common and well-known term for the incident. Without any "procedure" except adherence to policy. (And if you check the archives you'll find I questioned this title years ago - it was when I realised part of the agenda here was to create a political handle by WP:OR that change became necessary. Sarah777 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Rms is self-depicting (and John apparently agreeing) that he is in some way "above" the sectarian/nationalist 'bickering'. Apart from his remarks about the nature of murder above the fact that he'd consider "Nazibullah" a provocative name is a bit of a giveaway. Those of us more in touch with the fundamentals of WP:NPOV (as written, not as enforced) might think "GW Bush" or Netanyahu might be much better examples of provocative handles that OFenian or Nazibullah. But as we are all claiming to be the true neutrals here, may I add my claim. I can understand, whereas John apparently cannot, that what we have here isn't bickering between two sides in a sectarian dispute (the classical imperialist claim, from Ireland to Iraq!); but rather those upholding WP:NPOV against the onslaught of systemic Anglo-bias. Sarah777 (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And finally, might I record my respectful but strong disagreement with John's depiction of the efforts of Elonka in relation to "troubles related" issues. Sarah777 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

External support?

Anyway, to get to the meat of this issue. Rms cites 5 "external sources" which refer to the killings as "massacres":

I would point out that the following external sources refer to the Dunmanway "killings" as "The Dunmanway Massacre" (, , , , )

• The first is Loyalist newspaper which refers to the "treachery" of the "inhabitants" (aka the Irish).
• The second is a copy of the Wiki article.
• The third is a dead link.
• The fourth is another copy of the Wiki article (see what I mean by creationism through WP:OR!)
• The fifth link appears to have been removed.

• So, we are left with the equivalent of a single headline in An Phoblacht to support the political title.
• Sarah777 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• 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
• Requested moves