Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 24 October 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

This article is currently subject to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

Archives

Archive 1

Number killed

I changed the number back to ten, per the sourse. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"nope, 3 in Hornibrook's home and 11 next day" and yet the article says "Meda Ryan has concluded that this was 'exaggerated' and that, 'definite records are not available to confirm their deaths'." So were is the new sourse for this information? The source says 10, and that missing does not equal dead, so unless its supported with a reference I'll change it back to the referenced version? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, lets acknowledge that Ryan is not exactly a neutral source. And anyway she was referring to the size of the IRA party, not what happened to the Hornibrooks. But leaving that aside, I was simply counting the nuber of dead reported in the article. 3 in Hornibrook's home and 11 next day. I think it is a little disingenuos to say that the 3 in Hornibrooks house were not killed. They were abducted by armed men and never seen again. The fact that they were disappeared in this way is a pretty good indication that they were killed. I could live with a a figure of 10-14 however, if this is noted in the article.

For the record, this source says 13 http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/April%201922%20-%2026-28%20-%20dunmanway_massacre.htm. The extra one seeds to be Robert Nagle, who was shot but not confired killedJdorney (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney your right, lets stick to what we know. Tim Pat Coogan says 10. I've added the additional reference plus text and updated the Meda Ryan References. I removed some unsoursed text, and if I find a reference will add it back. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and we know, the 3 in Hornibrook's home went missing presumed killed, never to be seen again and the text should acknowledge that.Jdorney (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney the text does acknowledge that; "Some days later Capt Woods, Thomas Hornibrook and his son Samuel went missing, and in time were presumed killed. The Morning Post newspaper reported that, 'about 100' IRA men surrounded the house and smashed in the door', but historian Meda Ryan has concluded that this was 'exaggerated' and that, 'definite records are not available to confirm their deaths'. Hornibrooke's house was burned some time after the incident." Now I placed a tag beside the names, because we need to know who the ten are according to Ryan and Coogan. 3 were killed in Dunmanway and 7 outside the area according to Ryan. I'll have a go later at referencing this. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Domer, first of all, there's no reason at all to label the DCU source dubious.

Secondly, while ten others were shot in around Dunmanway, don't you think its reasonable to assume that the two Hornibrookes and Woods were abducted and killed?

There are in fact several sources which report that their house and besieged and they were shot and then "disappeared". In the DCU chronology page which gives as sources Peter Hart, (The IRA and its Enemies) and Dorothy Macardle (The Irish Republic (book), this version is reported. For this reason I can't see the objection to stating that some sources report 13 as opposed to ten killed.

All that Meda Ryan (in what is a self confessedly pro-republican book) says is that she couldn't find documents to absolutely confirm that this had happened. Have you read this book? If not, find it and read the relevant passage.While this book (Tom Barry - IRA Freedom Fighter) has good detail, it is not necessarily to be preferred to the rest of the sources. Jdorney (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney are you serious? Please support your view of Meda Ryan ("in what is a self confessedly pro-republican book")citing someone other than yourself. The reason I ask is as far as sources go, you can't get much more discredited than Peter Hart and if you wish I can support that view. Yes I've read the book, and as far as Meda Ryan's gose, at the very lest her sources can be trusted unlike Hart. The {dubious} tag is correct and the source you have used falls well short of the mark in my opinion. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm serious! Are you saying, having read Ryan's book, that it does not have a republican slant? I'm sure Meda Ryan herself would agree that it does. And this is not a criticism by the way, all historians have their biases. Re Hart, yes there are some problems surrounding his reliability on some points (the Kilmichael ambush in particular), but that doesn't mean that everything he has written can be dismissed here on wp. I don't know why you think the DCU compiled chronology (which is carefully sourced) is dubious, can you explain?

Regardless, all I'm asking for in the article is that it says that it includes the presumed deaths of the Hornibrooks and Woods. That's it. Ryan does not say this didn't happen, just that she can't confirm it. Others have reported otherwise. What is the objection to the article reflecting this? Jdorney (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you can read Hart's version here (albeit missing some pages). Make up your own mind. And while I'm at it, a republican publication's review which acknowledge Ryan's nationalist/republican sympathies Jdorney (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney can we agree to stick to what we know, and not lend spin into this discussion. "I don't know why you think the DCU compiled chronology (which is carefully sourced) is dubious, can you explain?" Let me explain why I consider the source dubious. First it is not a DCU compiled chronology, it is complied by Seamus Fox. Seamus Fox isn't a recognised authority in Irish history, it seems it is his hobby. As such it's a self published source. Secondly, your comment on the chronology "(which is carefully sourced)" according to you, is based on two authors, Dorothy Macardle’s, The Irish Republic and Peter Hart’s, The IRA and its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923. Knowing as you do, there is a major problem with Hart, and this particular publication how can you suggest that it is carefully sourced. I would use Meda Ryan’s book which you mention above to support this, were she details the problems with Hart’s novel uses of sources. In addition to this I would suggest you read Troubled History, by Brian P Murphy osb and Niall Meehan published on the 10th anniversary of Hart’s book offering a very detailed critique. I hope that explains my reasons for questioning the source and suggesting that it is dubious.

In the book by Hart, cited in the references you use, we now know a number of things. On his references; he interviewed dead people, that is, the people he said he interviewed were already dead at the time the interviews were said to have occurred. He omitted well publicised southern Protestant sources because they undermined his argument. He partially quoted some sources because to quote the full text would have undermined his argument. Now while Hart claims that the British military records are the most trustworthy, even here he had to omit sections of their reports, particularly their attitudes to the people and the number of informers they had and were they were based (Bandon).

Now we know from the “The Dunmanway Find of Informers Dossier” that those shot were informers. We know one son was shot instead of his father and one man was shot instead of his brother, and this could have been mistaken identity. Should this information not also be included, because in my opinion “Protestant civilians” in the Lead could be misleading? In addition, should we not also be including some of the statements from the southern Protestants who commented on the killings? I would also suggest we replace the Seamus Fox reference? Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The issues with the dead interviewees are pretty serious, agreed, but they are about he Kilmichael ambush. Admittedly if Hart did falsify sources this throws his general reliabiliy into question. In any case what about Dorothy Macardle? She can hardly be accused of pro-British biases? Seamus Fox compiled a chronology which is, as I said, carefully sourced. He lists the sources for each incident he logs, so I don't see why it should be removed.

Basically I'm happy with what the article says now. Ten dead, three disappeared. Re the final point, I don't accept that the civilians reference should be removed. First of all, if they were giving information to the British, they were still civilians and not combatants. Secondly, this incident occurred nine moths after the truce and three months after the Auxiliaries evacuation of their bases in Cork. So by April 1922 they were not informers but ex-informers. Jdorney (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seamus Fox used Hart as his source, accepting none of the numerous challenges to his credibility. If he had, this would be reflected in a carefully sourced chronology and Seamus Fox chronology is still a self published source. Now it is not a case of if they were giving information, they were and it should be noted. I’ve added some references and additional text. On the references, I’ve changed the format and included a book list. I’ve removed superfluous external links which had little or nothing to do with the article, focused mainly on criticism of Hart’s book. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The last edit has taken Ryan's analysis at face value and omitted other criticism, therefore tag added. Dorney, your opinion here would be valued Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kernel Saunters please tell me were I have omitted other criticism, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't live with that edit I'm afraid. First, it seems to justify the killing of the ten. They were informers and they damaged the IRA, therefore they were legitimate targets. First of all, we don't know this is why they were targeted, Ryan found evidence that they were informers, Hart disagrees. In either case, it seems the Hornibrooke affair sparked the incident.

Now I realise there are problems with Hart, but are not in the business here on wp of taking sides in historographical disputes. Hart, I have to stress, is taken seriously by other historians and is widely quoted in the modern literature of the period 9See Michael Hopkinson's Irish War of Independence for instance). We can't just dismiss his work. The other point, I repeat, is that they were ex-informers ( ie the war was over), so they were not, by the IRA's owen standards, legitimate targets. This, one way or the other, was a revenge attack.

Secondly, The info about the robberies the same day has been removed. The reason this is relevant because Arthur Griffith mentions it in his quote. If we're going to have the quote, then we have to have the explanation. Secondly it contextualises the incidient, ie elements of the IRA were doing what they wanted in the absence of central control.

I don't want to edit war, but I ahve to revert that edit pendinga consensus Jdorney (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney with all due respect, "I can't live with that edit I'm afraid" is just not good enough. Which edit can you not live with? My work on the references? My removal of the external links? Could it be the additional text I added, which is of course referenced? In your opinion, "it seems to justify the killing of the ten"! I afraid that is not a reason to remove the text. Did I present the information out of context? Is the information not supported by the source? If Hart disagrees, then add that, he disagrees and add the reference? Were on the article have I dismiss his work?

"they were ex-informers ( ie the war was over), so they were not, by the IRA's owen standards, legitimate targets. This, one way or the other, was a revenge attack." Do you want to support that with a reference, or is it just your opinion? What did the robberies have to do with the killings? In addition "Taken together with the killings at Dunmamway, this indicates the degree to which IRA units on the ground were out of the control of civilian authorities in the months leading up to the outbreak of civil war" sounds a lot like WP:OR to me. So, based on the above your revert was based on your opinion and nothing more? Now you don't need consensus for the edits I made, but you can use the talk page? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Y'know Domer, I explained my reasons on each of those points in pretty good detail. Have a read then we'll talk. And drop the sarcastic tone. Cheers.Jdorney (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney I'd have to disagree. "First, it seems to justify the killing of the ten. They were informers and they damaged the IRA, therefore they were legitimate targets." That is just your opinion, and your are adding your synthesis of the information to draw a conclusion.

"First of all, we don't know this is why they were targeted, Ryan found evidence that they were informers, Hart disagrees." Again, your synthesis of the information, because no one has said thats why they were targeted. Ryan found evidence that they were informers, yes that is a fact supported by the “The Dunmanway Find of Informers Dossier” and no Hart dose not disagree.

"Now I realise there are problems with Hart, but are not in the business here on wp of taking sides in historographical disputes." I agree, yet you remove all reference to the facts that they were informers? "We can't just dismiss his work. " Were has his work been dismissed? You in fact dismiss Meda Ryan's work.

"Secondly, The info about the robberies the same day has been removed. The reason this is relevant because Arthur Griffith mentions it in his quote. If we're going to have the quote, then we have to have the explanation. Secondly it contextualises the incidient, ie elements of the IRA were doing what they wanted in the absence of central control." What has the robberies got to do with the killings? Arthur Griffith condems the killings, thats why its used. The final point is the real kicker, you say it contextualises the incidient and yet remove the fact they were all known informers.

None of Meda Ryan's information has been challanged. None of Hart's information has been removed. Ryan's information is supported by facts, and Hart's is and has been discredited. Should Hart's information be in the article, yes, if it has been challanged that should also be included. "I explained my reasons on each of those points in pretty good detail." I disagree, and have illustrated how your objections are based on your own opinions. If the information of Ryan's has been challanged then include it. Now cite Hart as a source, and not Seamus Fox because that source is not up to the mark. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article content, the robberies etc

I don't agree Domer (what a surprise Eh?). The informer info is in the next para already. If you want to expand on it there I have no objection.

Here's the problem I have. We have the Hornibrooke incident then we have the details of the shootings. With the added info that those shot were informers. In the current version we don't even have a sentence to connect the two events. The reader would be left with the impression that this was an IRA sanctioned operation against informers. It wasn't. (A) The entire IRA leadership in the area came out against the attacks. (B) The war with the British was over by almost a year. The informers, if that's what they were, were no threat. So it seems fair to point that the attacks were a revenge attack for the killing of Michael O'Neill, otherwise what else sparked them?

Re the robberies, I don't particularly care if they're listed or not. Included the details because Arthur Griffith connected the two in his statement in the Dail, which otherwise the reader is not going to understand.

Events, such as the terrible murders at Dunmanway and the seizure of Customs and Excise at Clonmel, require the exercise of the utmost strength and authority of Dáil Éireann. Dáil Éireann, so far as its powers extend, will uphold, to the fullest extent, the protection of life and property of all classes and sections of the community. It does not know and cannot know, as a National Government, any distinction of class or creed. In its name, I express the horror of the Irish nation at the Dunmanway murders and the reprobation of the unlawful attempt to seize the Customs and Excise of the Irish nation".

It's not my opinion I'm giving, but Griffith's - that the two were the product of out of control IRA units. If we lose the details of the robberies and edit the quote, I don't mind.

Thanks Jdorney for you detailed responce. On the section titled "The killings" I would make the following suggestions; Would you agree that Capt Woods, Thomas Hornibrook and his son Samuel were not shot because they were Protestants? Would you also agree that all three were loyalists? If yes, then I would suggest that reference to Hornibrook's religion is removed and reference to their political views is inserted. This you will agree is easy enough to do because we have the references. All three were connected with the Murragh Loyalist Action Group, and as far as background goes this is important. This explains why Hornibrook refused to give them the car? Can we agree that this information is important for background and context?

On the robberies, I disagree with your opinion that the two events were the product of out of control IRA units. I don't see Griffith's quote supporting this opinion. If you can provide additional referenced information to support this view then please place it up here and we can work it into the text. I also disagree with your suggestion that "the war with the British was over by almost a year." On the 5 April 1922 the British Cabinet decided they would not tolerate the establishment of a republican government, and began to draw up plans to counter this accepting Churchill's "best military line" plan of re-occupation. For references to this read Michael Farrell's Arming the Protestants pages 118-119. To suggest that the British stopped using informers, and that there were no threat is not supportable. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the fact that they were Protestants had something to do with them being loyalists in the first place. You don't have to accept the thesis that the war of independence was a sectarian vendetta to recognise that sectarian conflict is part of the story. Mostly in the north but also in places like Cork which had a sizable protestant minority. Basically some Protestants saw it as their duty to be loyal to the union. To republicans this made them the enemy. It's true that the IRA was not intrinsically sectarian because Protestant IRA men did exist, but its also true that it was an overwhelmingly Catholic organisation. And its also true that they tended to subscribe to a view of history in which catholics were the native Irish people and Protestants invaders. For example, Barry tells in Guerrilla Days how his column siezed a {Protestant landlord's house and re-distributed his lands on the grounds that they had been taken from their rightful (Catholic)owners in the Plantations of Ireland.

And regardless, the religion of those killed was widely reported at the time. Jdorney (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hart v Ryan

Finally re Ryan v Hart. Ryan's informer info comes froma single article in the Southern Star in 1971 by Flor Crowley. She dismisses the contemproary Morning Post report, but doesn't say why except that it's an exagerration. The Morning Post report said that there was a shootout at the Hornibrooke house until the 3 inside ran out of ammunition. they then surrendered, were taken away and shot. In her references (329), Ryan also gives a statement from Matilda Wood, given in 1927, that her husband was drawn and quartered and that the Hornibrookes were made to dig their own graves before being shot. Ryan says that as Matilda Woods was not in Ireland at the time, this has to be disregarded.

Harts' version goes like this, The local IRA beleived that the Hornibrookes were leaders of a loyalist group called the Protestant Action Group and suspected them of the killing of the Coffey brothers of Enniskeane in February 1921. Hart says that, "there is absolutely no evidence that such a conspiracy existed" and that the Protestant community had been, 'notably reticent during the war'. The Hornibrookes were 'outspoken loyalists' which made them enemies ofthe republic, in the eyes of IRA men. O'Neill was seizing their car on this basis. Hart says that, "it was undoubtedley O'Neill's death that sparked the three nights of raids and murders". But he concedes that this has sometimes been denied. The killers were identified by eyewitnesses as local IRA men. He concludes that there up to five seperate groups did the killing, due to their geographic dispersal. He says that they were "acting on their own initiative", but that the IRA garrison in Dunmanway failed to stop them. He concludes, "these men were shot becuae they were Protestants. No Catholic Free Staters landlords or spies were shot or even shot at.(IRA and its Enemies p279-288).

Ryan, in contradiction, quotes Barry's own "Guerrilla days in Ireland", which states that durign the 1919-21 war, the west Cork IRA shot dead 15 informers, 9 Catholics and 6 Protestants (Ryan, Tom Barry, p164).

It seems clear to me that both authors have massaged the facts to bolster thier own arguments. Ryan by dismissing any evidence for the killings being carried out by the IRA or having sectarian motives. Hart by ignoring the existance of protestant republicans and the efforts made to protect civilians in the wake of the massacre.

Jdorney (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney could I just point to the obvious first and then address the points you make. The simple fact is, Hart is not being used at the moment in this article! There is not one reference attributed to Hart as yet, however we have a reference to Seamus Fox's web cite, and which I don't think can be considered a WP:RS. Could I suggest that you replace the Fox reference with Hart and we take it from there? I will address the points above later today, RL demands some of my time at the minute. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 10:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that the Fox source should be removed and replaced with a better one, he is not a historian and has never been published as one, he lectures in the area of E-Learning and his web site says as much. BigDunc 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I brought the Fox source to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and they agreed that it was not a WP:RS. As per my suggestion above, the sources he cites are or could be considered WP:RS but Fox's site is not. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits in mid-January 2009

On balance I prefer Jdorney's edits to Domer48, but nobody is god in these matters. All sources should be included, and contributors should again read Misplaced Pages:IDONTLIKEIT. Justification for horrible events long after the fact is a reality of history, but can be described as justification, and sometimes it comes close to propaganda. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sympathetic or explanatory works by Messrs Ryan and Borgonovo (generally opposed to Hart) that I have read were not so thorough as to name the killers, raising the question: why not? They are professional historians; it would be informative to have explored their families' memories of the events.

Reality also has to intrude. Amazing as it may seem to some, being a member of the Orange order has not been a crime from the creation of the Irish Republic onwards, much less a capital offence. If you are a spy in a war, without being noticed, you cannot be shot on sight without legal process for spying after the war has ended. Joining a "Loyalist Action Group" was irrelevant after the 1921 truce if it caused no violence. Serious violence had broken out again in Belfast in May 1922, but as we all know Dunmanway is about 300 miles away and the massacre was in April. Emphasising these aspects decades later was/is a classic example of justification after the fact. The massacre was to do with revenge and obviously was a local irrational unauthorised red mist series of events. It was instantly condemned in the Dáil by all members, both pro- and anti-treaty.

Nobody was ever prosecuted, which said a lot to some protestants about the protection they could expect in the soon-to-be Free State, and many left. It is telling (to me anyway) that nobody tried to justify it until many years later, and only then in a carefully selective way.Red Hurley (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Red Hurley thank you for you explanatory views and opinions. There is currently a discussion above you might want to join? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New evidence

Gentlemen/women, I've just read some very interesting new evidence that might help to clear up some of the disuputes we've been having.

I picked up a newly published book today, 'British Spies and Irish Rebels - British Intelligence and Ireland 1916-1945' by Paul McMahon ISBN 978-1-84383-376-5, (Boydell 2008).

On page 66, McMahon tells us that in April 1922, the British government authorised £2,000 to re-establish intelligence in southern Ireland, especially in Cork. In pursuit of this aim, on April 26, the same day as the raid on Hornibrooke's house, three British intelligence officers (Lts Hendy, Drove and Henderson) drove to Macroom and entered an inn. There they were apparently drugged and taken prisoner by IRA men, then taken to Macroom Castle where they were held for four days and then shot and dumped in a 'lonely bog'.

Is this the incident that really sparked the Dunmanway killings? Now McMahon does not connect the two events, but lets look at it. The IRA knew since February that there were many ex-informers in the Dunmanway area -they also, according to Hart, believed that there was a loyalist vigilante organisation at work. They then arrested three British intelligence officers in Macroom. That night came the raid on the Hornibrookes house in which Michael O'Neill was killed. This would have appeared to confirm that there were loyalist paramilitaries at work. The following three days saw the series of killings of ex-informers and their relatives.

This answers the question of why the people killed were specifically targetted on the 26th, 27th and 28th of April. I also want to make one more point however. Hart says that the men killed were targetted because they were Protestants. While this was clearly not the only factor, he may have a point. During the 1919-21 war there were, as Tom Barry pointed out, more Catholic informers than Protestants. Doubtless there were many Catholic names in the Auxiliaries' files discovered in Macroom. But only Protestants were targetted in the massacre.

Thoughts everyone?Jdorney (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Jdorney, very intresting. Is this the incident that really sparked the Dunmanway killings? We would need a source that does connect the two events, but it could be added to give more background and context. In the absence of a source connecting the events its up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. As I mentioned above, unless we actually use Hart as a source discussing his opinions is pointless, besides, I have more than enough sources to challange Hart and his abuse and misuse of sources. If you want to develope the view that only Protestants were targetted in the massacre I'd be very intrested in it. We could start with the term massacre and discover how it arose? Why is it limited to three days, and not four? Why not a week, or just one day? What do they all have in common? Religion? Spying? Were they the only ones targeted in the Auxiliaries' files, or the only ones in that two-three day period?

I'll definitly add the McMahon book to my to get list as it will go along side my Brian P. Murphy's The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland 1920, John Borgonovo's Spies, Informers and the Anti-Sinn Féin Society: The Intelligence War in Cork City 1920-1921, and Ian Kenneally's The Paper Wall: Newspapers and Propaganda in Ireland 1919-1921. Taken together it may address some of the questions I've raised above. Nice work on finding a new source. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Some minor fixes

• Several requests for citations removed.

No historian of the period has ever been able to uncover who ordered or carried out the attack. We don't need a citation for this. The absence of such information can't be proven.

Hart doesn't identify who the IRA men were, so asking for who is pointless.

Finally, most of Munster was in the hands of th anti-Treaty IRA, do we really need a source for this? Will provide one if necessary but its pretty common knowledge for anyone with any knowledge of the period.

• removed 'according to', a couple of times.

Matilda Woods didn't testify in 1927 according to Meda Ryan, she did, Ryan lists her statement as being in the British public record office. Likewise, the families didn't flle the area according to Niall Harringo, they did flee the area, as documented in a several sources. Cite more if necessary. In the same way, the New York Times was not the only paper which speculated that the killings were in retaliation for the northern 'pogroms' of Catholics, this was the general theory at the time. Again, will cite more sources if necessary. And again, the British didn't try to re-activate their intelligence services according to Paul McMahon, it was according to the state papers which McMahon cited in his book.Jdorney (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing in the article concerning the veracity of the Auxiliary docs? Hart questions these does he not? Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we he even mentions them. He seems to think that the whole idea of a loyalist informer ring was a paranoid conspiracy theory. But I'll have to havea look at IRA and its Enemies. And Ryan mentions the Diary, apart from her, I'd look at Borgovan and Murphy.Jdorney (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for sorting the typo’s a case of the wood for the trees I’m afraid. On removing the attributions to Ryan, Harrington and the New York Times I consider to be very unwise. This has been made out to be a controversial issue with suggestions of sectarianism etc, therefore attribution is important. Now alternative words we could use instead of “according to” would include “suggested by” “notes or noted by” “records” or “writes.”

Now an example; “In the aftermath of the attacks, over 100 Protestant families fled West Cork in fear of further sectarian attacks." Why should this be attributed? Were Protestant families leaving West Cork before the attacks and in what numbers? The reason I ask is, in reading this months issue of History Ireland, it is said that Southern Protestants were disproportionately represented in the officer class during the war and high mortality rates among junior officer’s accounts in part for the decline in numbers between 1911 and 1926. Others left, possibly because of their own sectarianism, rather than live under any form of “Rome Rule.” We also have the numerous reports, letters and comments of Protestant people living in the area who said that sectarianism was alien to the area, in addition to the active Protestant members of the IRA. What sources dose Harrington use? Dose he mention any of the points I raise above?

Now on the fact tags, who are Harts eyewitnesses, dose he list them? Hart says it must have been a number of groups who done the killings, based on what information or sources? The sources that Hart used have been challenged, and proved to contradict his assertions. You’ll agree that when your own sources contradict you there is a problem.

What may be “common knowledge for anyone with any knowledge of the period” may not be common knowledge to someone coming to this subject for the first time. Please bear that in mind. If you have additional sources please add them, and consider the nature of the information and the need for attribution. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing references is a good thing, but let's remember the point of the article - to present the information we have in a concise, readable and clear way. Referencing every single fact does not do this. For example, do you dispute that Munster was held in early 1922 by anti-Treaty IRA units? If not then why do we need a reference?

Furthermore, endlessly attributing sources within the text will only confuse the reader. That's what the footnotes are for. Besides, I repeat, Matilda Woods didn't testify because Meda Ryan says she did, she did and her statement and Public Record Office number is listed in Ryan's sources. We should list that if you feel it's absolutely necessary. Likewise Harrington (whose source if I recall was the Irish Independent, but I'll tighten this up), likewise McMahon, whose source is the recently released British state papers. Again, we can specify in the footnotes.

Finally, your revert also removed several "linking" and explanatory sentences. For example linking the Hornibrooke case with the subsequent deaths and the British intelligence initiative with the attacks of the 27-29 April. These should go back in, otherwise the reader will wonder what the connection between any of these events was.

I would like to revert to this version, but in the interests of consensus, I'd like to get some third opinions first. This shouldn't be a thing of you versus me Domer. Jdorney (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple more points on content issues. First, re 'fleeing the area' - we're not talking about gradual population decline here. We're talking about people packing up their possessions and getting on trains in the days after the incident. I'll get this sourced in the next few days.

Also, I don't understand why you've deleted references to some of he Protestant population being loyalists. Is this not, 1. true, and 2. the crux of the issue? And lastly, re the numbers executed by the IRA for informing, which area does this refer to and for what period? 1919-21? post truce? 1922?Jdorney (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spying

The text states that "the IRA executed at least twenty-six local civilians for spying". I inserted the word "alleged" on the assumption that we do not know whether or not those executed were spying or not, but we do know that the IRA claimed that they were spying. This edit has been reverted on the basis that: "They were not alleged proven in recovered records". Could someone please explain what this proof amounts to, and what these records were? Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is covered in this book by John Borgonove, Spies, Informers and the 'Anti-Sinn Féin Society,' Irish Academic Press (2007), ISBN 0 7165 2833 9. BigDunc 13:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not in possession of that book. Could you be a bit more helpful and explain what that book says in answer to my questions? Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of Borgonove's argument can be found in the Peter Hart article Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The arguments quoted at that article actually support my edit:

• "My upcoming book Spies, Informers, and the "Anti-Sinn Féin Society" studies the executions of suspected informers in Cork city during 1920-1921. Of the IRA's 30 civilian killings, five victims were Protestant and 19 were ex-servicemen.
• "Among Cork's executed "spies", clear evidence linked some of them to the crown forces, while others were shot without any explanation. Today it is impossible to establish guilt in many cases. British records about informants are fragmented, incomplete, and often unreliable. IRA records were destroyed during the conflict for security reasons. However, surviving documentation indicates the Cork city IRA only targeted civilians it believed were passing information to the crown forces.

I shall make the edit again, but insert "suspected" rather than "alleged". Mooretwin (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Kernel Saunters, and just to point out that John Borgonove goes through each of the killings and the background to each. They were spying. I'll attribute it to John Borgonove. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with that edit. Mooretwin (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mooretwin, for that. If in doubt use attribution, and always use it if it is disputed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Over use of attribution has given this article the feel of an undergraduate essay. As Dorney has pointed out above footnotes are the correct way to demonstrate attribution. Where a writer has given an opinion then this style is useful, but again we are not writing an essay we are developing an encylopedia. Also, over attribution is an easy way of introducing POV as fact and as primary sourced material and theorising are now not distinguished. Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

However, when we use a source as dubious as Hart attribution becomes very necessary. If you review my recent edits, you will notice I’ve added a number of salient facts. Why they were omitted is not relevant and would call for speculation, I therefore added them without comment. A lot of Hart’s methods, sources and conclusions have been comprehensively challenged by a number of authors. I have yet to read a review which supports Hart’s omissions, distortions and clairvoyant interviews. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My god wat a mess. Domer, are even pretending to be npov about tis? All you are doing is arguing Ryans case. You are dismissing hart but you admit you havent even read his book. On top of that the artilce is now all but unreadable due to the excessive and biased citations. Nor have you even tried to get a consensus after totally re-structuring the article. If people are happy with this then ok, I will was my hands of it. Its not worth the time and energy arguing with certain people. Jdorney (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I must once again ask that you assume good faith and explain what your objections are? I'm not argueing Ryan's case only presenting an alternative view to Hart. Are you suggesting I'm only argueing the other authors view also? I have not admited not reading Hart's book, please provide a diff were I say that? Biased citations you say, which ones? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, I tried very hard to get consensus but you havnt shown good faith here Domer. You are piling up citations to support one argument and ruining the article. For instance, you were asking for citations on people fleeing the area but you quoted the sae page of coogans book whih details this but ignored the relevant info. Anyone can see you are pursuing only one pov. Biased, which ones? basially all of them, they are all arguing the case that, basically those killed deserved it beause they were informers. You havent read Harts book but you are claing hes discredited. how can you tell? Jdorney (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that tonights edits should be reverted pending discussion to build consensus as clearly the article has substantially re-written with no attempt to discuss or build consensus Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney reduced again to personal attacks I see. If you review my additions, I added information which you failed to mention, a number of very salient facts. For example Alice Hodder ""When will the British Government realise that they are really dealing with savages and not ordinary normal human beings?" The letter was forwarded to Lionel Curtis, Secretary of the Cabinet's Irish Committee, on which he appended the comment "this is rather obsolete." You have the book and failed to mention this, and got her name wrong, but did I accuse you of pursuing only one pov. No I did not. For the third time, provide a diff were I said I did not read Hart's book? Unless to change your tone and discuss things in a civil manner your comments are not welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kernel Saunters on what basis should my edits be reverted? Show me one bad edit? Show me one edit which is not related to the subject or is not correctly referenced? Please explain? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney on reviewing you comments above, I must say I find them very offensive. I suggest you support your scurrilous accusations or strike your comments. Review some of your edits, this one for example , neither source says 2 a.m, Coogan got the date wrong, neither says anything about “a dispute in the hall of the Hornibrook's home.” As mentioned above you got Alice Hodder’s name wrong and left out important information. I said above “Why they were omitted is not relevant and would call for speculation, I therefore added them without comment." I then because of your personal attack responded with an example, and now call on you to do the same, to prevaricate on this will allow editors to draw their own conclusions. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in what you find offensive Domer. I got Hodder's name wrong when repreating it, a typo. Re the other stuff, I don't think they are very salient facts. First, the 'savages' comment, certainly shows her as biased, but this could have been presumed anyway. Secondly, the obsolete comment -obsolete means 'out of date', which means that by the time the British cabinet saw it they thought it was no longer relevant. It doesn't mean not credible. Furthermore, if you thought Coogan was an unreliable source, why did you include him in the first place? Re Hart, ok then simple question, have you read his book or not?

revert

Re reverting, I wholeheartedly agree to a revert to this version or earlier, on the following grounds

• No attempt made to find consensus per .
• Readability, the reader will now struggle to find any relveant facts amid all the pov.
• Bias, the sources arguing one thing, that the attack was sectarian in some way are actually attacked, whereas those arguing otherwise are presented unchallenged per .Sourcing a load of opinions to back up yourt pov is not npov.
• Length

Can we get some arbitration here? I'm not interested in either an edit war or endless warnagles on the talk page.

Jdorney (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney you may not be interested in what I find offensive but the community is, and civility costs nothing.

I pointed to a number of things you got wrong, not just the name. So you suggest that Hodder being biased is not are very salient fact, and someone reading the article will naturally presumed this anyway? That she invents how they died is also telling, and that she put it down to the Irish Transport Union, which you omitted also, questions the veracity of her comments. You also omitted the comments of Lionel Curtis, on Hodder’s letter, and suggest that “by the time the British cabinet saw it they thought it was no longer relevant.” However the source dose not say weather the cabinet, you just throw it into the discussion. This is all well a good on the talk page, but as my link illustrates, you placed text into the article which was not in the sources also.

Coogan got the number of deaths right, but that’s about it, and I noted that he got the date wrong; he also says the deaths occurred in the space of a week instead of the three day period. However Coogan dose mention concerns about the reporting of the Morning Post, another salient fact, you neglected to mention. So on Coogan, I used him to support the number of deaths, and draw the readers attention to the fact he got the date wrong. I did not use him to support my opinion, but as a secondary source to support the Ryan book. You on the other hand used Coogan to support on thing, and omitted sections which contradicted others. On the Morning Post, do you expect readers to also ‘‘presumed’’ that it to was biased? So were I presented the reader with very salient facts, you omitted them and ‘‘presumed’’ the reader would know?

Having accused me three times of having said I did not read Harts book, you now ask my have I read it. Like I said, readers can now draw their own conclusion on your personal attacks.

Editors do not need consensus to add relevant text to an article which is verifiable and supported by multiple reliable sources. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. You might want to remember that when you quote selectively from sources. My comment can not be seen as a personal attack because unlike you, I’ve backed it up.

It was you who added references from Hart, it was you who during the course of these discussions have put forward your opinions on the subject, and you who have suggested to me what my opinions are. I have not expressed any opinions on the subject, I have however put forward the opinions of various authors. You placed the references to Hart into the article, I placed referenced sources which challenge his conclusions. That’s called neutral point of view and is representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Now instead of casting aspersions about me please using diff’s or quotes from the article illustrate what your problem is. Without this there is nothing to arbitrate except your conduct.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On the content, 1, So when Coogan write hwat you want, he gts it right and when not, he doesn't. Right.

2. Collins is, a, talking about another incident and b, he's hardly impartial, being an active participant and c, he doesn't say its articles are not true, he just says they're a bit harsh.

3, the point of including both Hodder and Woods' testimony is that you were not allowing references to the fact that Hornibrookes and Woods were killed, except that Meda Ryan says she doesn't know. My point was that thier deaths, while unconfirmed were widely reported locally. If I'd also written that she was biased politically, which I would have, you based on past experience would have deleted it as being unreferenced.

4, This is the talk page and honest users will honestly state their opinions. You won't even say whether you've read Hart's book or not. Why not?

5, Articles are about presenting facts. And only then opinions. you've changed the article into a list of argumentative quotations.

6, Consensus is always required, or at the very least an attempt at it.

7,She doesn't say the killings were on behalf of teh transport union, she says that Protestants were being 'turned out of their houses' by IRA men on behalf of the Trnsport Union because they had brought down the value of wages.

As I've said, I wash my hands of it. I've asked for a third opinion and they can decide one or the other re bias, readability or otherwise. As for personal attacks, I'll also leave that judgment up to moderators. Jdorney (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

When Coogan is wrong, you point it out and I did. Collins is talking about the Morning Post and how it covers the news. All you have is he is hardly impartial? Is that it, is that all you have? So Hart is impartial but everyone else is biased, please. Like your misrepresenting of what I say, you do the same now with Ryan. Were dose she say she doesn't know they were killed. You say "thier deaths, while unconfirmed were widely reported locally." Now thats not true, so provide a source to back up yet more of your opinions. Could you also stop telling me what I would and wounld not do and what my opinions are, because unlike you I don't give opinions and unlike you I don't put my opinions in articles.

On the article I included authors who challange Hart's views which is as I mentioned above is WP:NPOV. Now please show me were the policy is that says we need consensus to edit articles. I have not problem with WP:3 as it never hurts. I do note however that your comments here, here and here are very misleading. I have not been uncivil to you at all, and have asked you to support your opinion with a diff and have yet again failed to do. This is not about WP:NPOV or consensus, but your opinions. I also see you are reduced to canvassing support again, but that is not the first time, as can be seen here and here. Having listed this at Third Opinion, why did you feel the need to go after individule editors here and here? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not to sure what Jdorney your major concern is here, you say edits were made without consensus but consensus is built as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing. Could you also explian what POV you feel that the article is full with. It seems to me to be sourced with verifiable sources, and on your 3rd bullet point I am not really sure what you mean if there is conflicting views then both should be in the article, are they not? The first reason in the motivation section deals with the claims of it being sectarian. Also this is turning in to a bit of tit for tat so could all editors take it easy and show some good faith no one here is trying to do damage to the article. BigDunc 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A good question Dunc, what POV? Not one example of it given. While "honest users will honestly state their opinions" they also back them up with Diff's. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have been requested to provide a Third Opinion on some of the mattters in dispute on the Talk Page of this article. Having now read the article in question and as well as the relevant section on the Talk Page, I propose to keep my comments brief and to refrain from editing the article myself.

My comments are as follows:

1. Domer48_'fenian' and Jdorney (talk), I appreciate that the subject matter appears to have inflamed historic positions which you both hold on a variety of local issues but the article does indeed read like a piece of secondary school homework. The so-called debate which has been occupying this talk page does credit to neither of you.
2. The article could be trimmed down in many places. The sentence "All three were "committed loyalist" and "extremely anti-Republican," who were in regular contact with the Bandon Essex, supplying information on the local IRA according to Meda Ryan" is rather ugly and strikes me as POV sourced from POV masquerading vainly as objective analysis. It and others like it should go.
3. The numerous references in this article to both Meda Ryan and Peter Hart have transformed this from an article about the Dunmanway Massacre to an article about what your pet-historians would like history to believe happened in the Dunmanway Massacre. As a lay person on this topic, I did not find the article to be illuminating and would never myself be inclined to cite it as a source were I called upon to research the topic.
4. I appreciate that you are both serious editors making a genuine good faith attempt to improve this article, but I think you need to tackle the problem from a diferent angle. Without knowing anything of their status as historians, the accusations and counter-accusations which the two of you have made about Ryan, Hart and others make them all appear to me like partisan narrators. Would the article survive if you re-wrote it to exclude these sources from the primary body of the text and then to include two sub sections within the article, one setting forth the Repbulican re-examination of events, and the other, the non-Republican view (where you can cite broader sources including your own favourites)? If so, and you decide to proceed on that basis, I would be inclined to keep both sections as small as possible.

Kind regards--Calabraxthis 15:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks User:Calabraxthis for sharing your views, opinions and taking the time to have a look. I respond to them in the order that they apprear above.

1. I don't have a position on the subject matter, and therefore my position is neither "inflamed" nor "historic." The issue is one of WP:NPOV, which requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. I don't know what you mean by "a variety of local issues" so I can't comment on that. You view of the article is intresting but subjective. Maybe you could link us to an article were there are multiple or conflicting perspectives and we can see how it is addressed. As to the quality of the discussion, I'd have to agree to some extent. Were editors support their views with sources and diff's a quality disscusion is possible, but were one party only uses their opinions it can be difficult. Incivility and personal attacks should never be condoned or ignored.
2. As a lay person on this topic I can understand why you may not understand why the sentence is important, but can't understand why you think it is POV. I don't know what you mean by "is rather ugly" possibly you mean the grammer, but if it is in relation to POV well again I can't understand why? Without knowing anything of their status as historians may account for you view on their POV.
3. The reason why there are "numerous references in this article to both Meda Ryan and Peter Hart" is because they have written more than most on the subject, its that simple really. With a lack of additional sources, that is what we are left with, and since its down to differing opinions between the two, additional supporting sources are needed. That they mostly disagree with Hart says a lot in itself. I will not comment on your "what your pet-historians would like history to believe happened" because like I said I have no position. That you did not find "illuminating" is regretable, however as I'm intrested in the subject I don't share your view. As someone who dose do research, if I presented an article from wiki as part of my research it would be frowned upon.
4. Your use of the terms "the accusations and counter-accusations" concerns me, and this is why. Where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. They are not presented as accusations and counter-accusations but are presented as conflicting perspectives, and no the article could not "survive if you re-wrote it to exclude these sources from the primary body of the text" which is obvious if you read the article. As each source is presented, conflicting perspectives should be presented fairly.

I hope I have addressed each of the points you make in as clear a manner as possible, should you wish me to expand on any please let me know, thanks again --Domer48_'fenian' 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything tht Calibaxis has said. Our problem here is the blurring of the difference between presenting facts and presenting pov. We are bound to present the facts, but the current version is presenting interpretations. Could we agree to present the facts (as far as we can establish them without bias) and then have a small section on differing interpretations? I add without comment that this revision was considerably more like this. Jdorney (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have edited in line with our policy of WP:NPOV, and presented the facts. The only POV in the article is Hart's! He has no supporting evidence, just conlusions reached having distorted and omitted the facts. This has be proven and illustrated by a number of authors. As such, Harts is a minority view, I'd go as far as to say fringe view and should be treated as such. Now unless you start to provide examples to support your opinion we are not going to get very far in a hurry. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivation for the attack

In opening this section it states that "At the time the Press including Belfast Newsletter, (1 May 1922) Irish Times (29 April 1922) and New York Times speculated that the killings at Dunmanway were in reprisal for the ongoing killings of Catholics in Belfast " and one is cited to Peter Hart. However, at the end the section titled "Killings in the Dunmanway, Ballineen and Murragh" Meda cites Hart as saying the motive was sectarian? Reprisals don't mean sectarian do they? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Hart reports that this was speculated at the time and cites two newpapers. he says this wasnt the case. he says that the motivation was local. Read the book. And reprisals could of course be sectarian -eg killing protestants in revenge for killing of cat/olics. Jdorney (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Again provide a diff were I say I have not read the book? Please answer the questions I raised above? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You repeatedly asked what Hart had said. And you actually called for his material to be added to the article, which I did. As above you were not aware of what he did say and presumed it was something else. So why not be striaghforward, have you read this book or not? Jdorney (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Having on three occasions accused me of saying I had not read the book, your now asking me. Readers can draw their own conclusions now on your conduct. Now you say that I “repeatedly asked what Hart had said.” Please, provide a reference for this, because it’s not true. On Hart I said that there was no point discussing him until he was actually used as a source. You also suggest now that I’m not aware of Hart or what he said? Based on my contributions Editors can make up their own mind.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Reprisals" "eg killing protestants in revenge for killing of catHolics." So the policy or "Reprisals" by the Black and Tans like the burning of Cork was simply revenge? The Policy of "Reprisals" by the anti-Sinn Féin Society to burn down the homes of Republicans or target them was simply revenge or designed to strike fear into communities. The "Reprisals" conducted by the B Specials because of attacks on their members were for revenge? The "Reprisals" policy of Tom Barry to burn down five Loyalists mansions for every Republican home burnt was that revenge? Is it that simple? It dose contradict Hart however, because he suggests the motive was simply sectarianism. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. All of those incidents count as reprisals. The sectarian point is regarding who was regarded as culpable. EG, loyalists, the RIC and the USC targetted catholics in Belfast in reepsial for IRA actions. EG the McMahon murders in 1922. This was sectarian. Ten Protestants were killed in west Cork in reprisal for the killing of an IRA man. Hence a a sectarian reprisal. Jdorney (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They were spys and informers, that is the fact you will not accept despite the evidence. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And therin lies the crux of the whole issue Domer. I regard this as neither clear from the evidence nor accepted by historians. You are arguing as if it is fact - hence the npov dispute.

The only evidence for the dead being informers is a newspaper article in 1971 and allegedly, a diary which no one has ever produced. Ryan cites the 1971 Southern Star newspaper article. Moreover, it's implausible that this was the only factor, two of those killed were 16 and one was over 80. One was an Anglican cleric. Thirdly, most mainstream accounts, including, importantly, the accounts at the time which mention the incident think it was sectarian. Jdorney (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So you deny the Auxiliaries ‘K Company’ when they evacuated Dunmanway workhouses were they were based, the IRA found confidential documents and a diary they left behind? And therin lies the crux of the whole issue Jdorney, because this is clear from the evidence and accepted by historians, except Peter Hart. Please cite a source that says the confidential documents and a diary don't exist? Like I said before I'm not arguing as if it is fact, I'm citing sources. Your arguing your own opinion. Please read Ryan's book, because neglecting to mention details which don't suit your view you seem to leave out. Suggesting that "The only evidence for the dead being informers is a newspaper article in 1971" is not very nice, or true. As to the rest, I'm not going to address your comments and opinion, back them up with sources and let me know. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that this is only one theory. Only Ryan, as far as I know has argued this. And she doesn't quote the diary at all. Only the newspaper article. And don't get me wrong by the way, I'm not saying they weren't informers. Maybe they were. But we don't know this for certain AND this is not the whole story. There are also issues of reprisal for O'Neill and possibly fear provoked by an apparent new British intelligence initiative and yes, sectarianism. All of those attacked were Protestants. Two of them were 16 and one over 80. This is what you won't even begin to deal with. Jdorney (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So your denying the existence of the documents and a diary? So what did Flor Crowley analyse? What did Flow quote from? Who has challenged Ryan's sources? Who has challenged the existence of the documents? Are you saying the names of those killed are not on any list? We are dealing with the issue of sectarianism, Hart rules out everything else out. “Fear provoked by an apparent new British intelligence initiative”? So there had a British intelligence initiative? What has the ages of those killed got to do with anything? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying we don't know. We don't know if anyone was named in any diary except that Meda Ryan says so. Did Flor Crowley link the diary with the Dunmanway killings? We don't know. Meda Ryan says so. The problem is that you're treating this as gospel. HArt, for example disagrees. I would actually be wary of Hart, who I find overly opinionated, but you've backed me into a corner here by believing one partisan historian, Ryan, and disregarding another, Hart. Ryan, when you check here facts, is not tremendously reliable either by the way. I'll quote you examples if you like.

Even if they were informers (which is possible), were they the only people named? Were catholics named? Republican activists? But in fact we don't know who did this and we don't know why. We just have reasonable speculation. Re British intelligence, you might remember it was me that added this to the article. Re sectarianism, as the end of the day, it's not Hart who brought this up. Everyone at the time, including the IRA commanders, who reacted to protect Protestants, regarded these as sectarian attacks. You can find the contemporary papers online.

Re age, what is has to do with anything is that they were killed despite being too young or old to be a threat to anyone. Apparently they were killed in the place of relatives.

I'm not debating these points further until we get some neutral mediation. Jdorney (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All I see is you trying to analyse and add your own synthesis of published material to advances a position, namely your own. Example:

My question, “So you deny the Auxiliaries ‘K Company’ when they evacuated Dunmanway workhouses were they were based, the IRA found confidential documents and a diary they left behind?” Your answer, “I'm saying that this is only one theory.” “We don't know if anyone was named in any diary except that Meda Ryan says so.” So Meda Ryan is lying, is that what you’re saying?

My question, “So you’re denying the existence of the documents and a diary?” Your answer, “I'm saying we don't know.” So Meda Ryan made it all up then, is that what you’re saying?

I asked “So what did Flor Crowley analyse?” Your answer “Did Flor Crowley link the diary with the Dunmanway killings?” Now lets bear this answer you gave in mind, “Only Ryan, as far as I know has argued this. And she doesn't quote the diary at all. Only the newspaper article.” So Ryan cites Flor Crowley as well and not just the newspaper. You say she doesn’t quote the diary at all, and yet there are quotes from the diary also.

So what your suggesting is, Meda Ryan, The Southern Star, Flor Crowley are all lying. That all the historians involved in the issue of Hart, and cited above are all complicit in this lie. Now you find some sources to back up your POV, because I’m not entertaining your nonsense. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Facts

Hart’s allegation is that the post-Truce Bandon/Dunmanway killings of loyalists in 1922 were motivated by sectarianism.

1. In the Bandon/Dunmanway killings Peter Hart misrepresented a primary source and states that the Protestants shot as informers by the IRA could not have supplied information because, according to the British Record of the Rebellion, Protestants “had not got it to give”. Hart left out the next sentence which stated: “the exception to this rule was in the Bandon area”, where there was active informing and where the IRA shot the perpetrators. So we have a source said by Hart to be “the most important and trustworthy we have” undermine his central point, so he left it out in order to portray the Dunmanway killings as sectarian.
2. Thomas and Samuel Hornibrook and Herbert Woods all regularly supplied information to British forces and they were on the Dunmanway K Company informers list. Except for two, the names of those shot were all on the Dunmanway K Company list. The exception was the brother of one informer and the son of another.
3. Republicans, including the Belfast Brigade of the IRA and the Sinn Fein dominated Cork County Council, led an immediate protest at these killings. Pro and anti-treaty sides in the Dáil echoed the protests. Tom Barry, who was in Dublin went immediately to Cork and issued orders for the protection of loyalists and posted members of the IRA at their houses to prevent attacks.
4. A Dublin convention of Protestant churches placed on record that apart from the Dunmanway shootings “hostility to Protestants by reason of their religion has been almost, if not wholly, unknown in the 26 Counties in which Protestants are in the minority.”
5. Lionel Curtis, Secretary of the Cabinet's Irish Committee stated in 1921: “Protestants in the south do not complain of persecution on sectarian grounds. If Protestant farmers are murdered, it is not by reason of their religion, but rather because they are under suspicion as Loyalist. The distinction is fine, but a real one.”

I will use this space to add additional "Facts" feel free to add facts above, or respond to them below, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But they are NOT the facts of the incident. They are the points of a debate about the incident. I propose these facts forming the basis of the article (these are chronological, so they might be re-arranged and editors may choose to leave some of the m out for brevity's sake);

• There was an armed conflict in west Cork between the local IRA (Third Cork Brigade) and British forces (British Army, Auxiliaries, RIC) 1919-21.

• The area had a considerable Protestant population, some of whom considered that they owed their loyality to Britain. Loyalist houses were burned in reprisal for the Crown forces burning of republican supporters homes during the conflict. Republicans believed that they had formed a group called the Loyalist or Protestant Action Group and suspected them of giving information to Crown forces and of the killing of two republicans in February 1921.

• From July 1921-July 1922 there was a truce which left the IRA in control of the area. In December 1921, the Anglo Irish Treaty was accepted. In early 1922, the British evacuated their forces in Cork, leaving only two batalions left in Cork city. The IRA took over their barracks.

• The local IRA went predominantly anti-treaty in March/April 1922, when the IRA split. At the time of killings, the local IRA leadership were in Dublin, attending an IRA convention in Dublin.

• In April, the British government authorised some money for the re-establishment of intelligence in Cork. On 26 April, four intelligence officers, who were seeking to gather intelligence were abducted in a hotel in Macroom, west Cork. They were held for days and then killed and secretly buried.

• On the same night, a party of IRA men arrived at the Hornibrooke house and demanded his car. Hornibrooke was a Protestant and loyalist. There was a fight and Woods shot IRA officer Michael O'Neill dead.

• The IRA returned, there was a shootout and the Hornibrookes and Woods were taken prisoner. There are apparently no first hand accounts of their deaths, but they disappreaed. Local Protestants and loyalist repeated gruesome rumours of their deaths.

• The following night, April 27, there was a raid by unidentified men on Dunmanway, in which three men were killed and several others attacked. In a separate attack at Ballinlee, two more men were killed, one of them a Protestant Reverend.
• April 28, two more men were killed in attacks on farmhouses near Dunmanway. Three were killed in Ballineen , another two in Murragh and one in Clonakilty. All of those targeted were Protestants.

• IRA leaders rushed back from Dublin and tried to stop the attacks. Guards were put on the houses of Protestants and loyalists. Tom Hales called in all weapons in the area. Ther were no more killings but there were attempts to evict Protestants from their houses. The IRA tried to prevent such attacks and re-instated Protestants who had been put out.

• Many Protestant loyalists fled the area after the attacks.

• The attacks were condemned by both pro and anti treaty wings of Sinn Fein and the IRA as sectarian murder. The contemproary press speculated that they were reprisals for the Belfast 'pogroms' of Catholics.

• Civil War broke out on June 28 1922. Cork was occupied by pro-treaty forces in August 1922 after sea-bourne landings on the south coast.

• Many years later, in 1971, in an article in the Southern Star, it was claimed that those killed were informers. This was based on a diary found in the Auxiliary barracks in February 1922.

• In 1998, Peter Hart published, 'the IRA and its Enemies', which highlighted the incident and claimed that it was indicative of a general trend in which the IRA saw 'outsiders' generally and Protestants in particular as enemies.

• Hart's argument has subsequently been extensively challenged by people such as Meda Ryan, Brian Murphy and John Borgonovo, who have cliamed that Hart's thesis is flawed and that those killed in Cork in April 1922 were targeted because they informers.Jdorney (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Background

I read your article and would like to make a suggestion on the style of the paragraph Background.

In articles where a "Background" or "History" section is required, its purpose within an encyclopedia article is to bring the new reader up to date with relevant events, to give a context within which the events of the main article take place. To achieve that, can I suggest that the background be written with events taking place in chronological order. At the moment you start with the outbreak of the Irish Civil War in June 1922, then move back to March of the same year when the IRA repudiated the authority of the Dail, and then jump further back to 1919 and the disestablishment of the Irish Republic. Then you come forward in stages to December 1921, February 1922, and finally leap back again to 1919-1921, by which point your reader has no idea which "period" you are referring to in the final sentence, "During this period according to John Borgonove, the IRA executed at least twenty-six local civilians as informers."

Can I suggest the following order: Disestablishment of the Irish Republic, 1919; Many incidents of violent conflict, 1919-1921; Truce comes into force, July 1921; IRA attacks on RIC, Dec 1921 - Feb 1922; IRA repudiates the authority of the Dail, March 1922; 23 RIC men and 8 British soldiers killed, Jan 1922 - Jun 1922; Outbreak of the Irish Civil War, June 1922.

Near the end of your current Background you have a sentence starting, "It contained a strong..." where the only relevant "it" I can think of is West Cork. It might therefore be worth having a separate paragraph at the end of your background to explain relevant factors that are specific to this region. Can I suggest something like:

West Cork, where the massacre took place, was home to a strong IRA Brigade (Third Cork Brigade), but also had a sizable Protestant population - roughly 16% - and had been one of the most violent parts of Ireland during the period leading up to the truce of July 1921.

Then, when you move into the main part of the article, leave your reader in no doubt "when" you are talking about by making the date explicitly clear, including the year, "On Wednesday April 26 1922, a group of IRA men..."

I would leave attribution items out of the Background if it were me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonshirt (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Simple as that. More facts, less interpretations one way or the other. Jdorney (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

War crimes cat

Did any one get convicted as a war criminal or RS sources call the event as as a war crime ? (BTW I followed the ANI link here and I have created a number of such articles in the past)Taprobanus (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Taprobanus there was no one convicted, and it is still open to who was involved. I'm still trying to track down the origins of the title "Dunmanway Massacre" but not having much luck at the minute. I commented on that ANI, to be honest I did not even know it was on it. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 23:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is google hits, try google books. Even better . Taprobanus (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Taprobanus, I'll check them out. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

I agree with the comments made by User:Calabraxthis.
Regrettably, the response to his/her comments has been to be defensive rather than to take his comments on board and look again at the article. In the hope that a different approach might be more sucessful, unlike him I have tried to clean up the article. I've fixed some of the sixth class grammar errors, but most importantly I've moved all the challenges to Hart's competence down to where it belongs: in the footnotes. The article is about the Dumanway area murders, not about Hart's competence as a historian.
Could one of the interested editors check out the {{cite book|}} template and sort out all the sloppy citations. --Red King (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, all Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By placing all the challenges to Hart down to the footnotes breeches that policy. The article is about the Dumanway area killings, Hart's competence as a historian is important. When he interviews dead people, and misrepresents sources this must be noted. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples;

1. "According to Meda Ryan, because the men were all Protestants, and the majority of the IRA were Catholic, an insinuation has been made that the motive was sectarian. Peter Hart, while accepting that those killed "had been marked out as enemies," goes on to conclude that the motive was sectarian rather than "disloyality to the Republican cause by informing on their fight for freedom activities." While we include Hart, we exclude Ryan.
2. "That those killed were informers is disputed by Peter Hart, who claims that the Protestant community had been "notably reticent" about giving information to Crown forces during the War of Independence and says of the Loyalist Action Group that, "there is absolutely no evidence that such a conspiracy existed". He concludes that "these men were shot because they were Protestants. No Catholic Free Staters, landlords or spies were shot or even shot at". Moreover, he suggests, any useful information given by the dead men to the British forces would have been given before the Truce signed in July 1921, seven months earlier. ." Hart's view is excluded. Hart's competence as a historian is questioned because of this conclusion, so removing it is a breech of WP:NPOV.
3. "Brian Murphy OSB, in a review of Hart's book in The Month, a Review of Christian Though and World Affairs, notes that Hart "by maintaining that Protestants did not have sufficent knowledge to act as informers, Hart hightens the suspicion that they were killed for religious motives." In Peter Hart: the Issue of Sources, Murphy notes that Hart cites A Record of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1920-1921 . He says that Hart wrote "the truth was that, as British intelligence officers recognised in the south, the Protestants and those who that supported the Government rarely gave much information because, except by chance, they had not got it to give." However Hart does not give the next two sentences which, according to Murphy, read "an exception to this was in the Bandon area where there were many Protestant farmers who gave information. Although the Intelligence Officer of the area was exceptionally experienced and although the troops were most active it proved almost impossible to protect those brave men, many of whom were murdered while almost all the remainder suffered grave material loss." Murphy concludes that "this British source confirms that the IRA killings in the Bandon area were motivated by political and not sectarian considerations. Possibly, military considerations, rather than political, would have been a more fitting way to describe the reason for the IRA response to those who informed." He observes that, while Hart has described A Record of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1920-1921 as the "the most trustworthy" that we have, nowhere according to Murphy does he give an explanation why the two sentences had been omitted in The IRA and Its Enemies. Irish Political Review Vol 20 No. 7 July 2005 (ISSN 0790-7672 pages 10-11]." By removing Hart's views above, you suggest that we no longer need the challange to his views. Wrong! This supports the challange to Hart's competence as a historian, and is related to the subject of the Article.
4. "According to Niall Meehan, Peter Hart ignores aspects of British Army documents which suggest an active loyalism working with the British army in the area were the killings took place. Meehan suggests that if the killings were carried out for political, military purposes or revenge, it undermines Hart's suggestion of sectarianism. ." Another significant view that has been published by a reliable sources you excluded. This supports the challange to Hart's competence as a historian, and is related to the subject of the Article.
5. "Meda Ryan, in her biography of Tom Barry, reports that he told her that those killed had done, "untold damage to the IRA." She says that they were all connected with the "Murragh Loyalist Action Group", known locally as the "Protestant Action Group". Ryan states that this group was involved in espionage and that local republicans suspected them of involvement in the killing of the two Coffey brothers, republican activists killed in Enniskeane in February 1921. " Hart suggests that no such group existed, yet you remove the challange to this view. That John Borgovono's book which will be added to the article shows without doubt that it did exist, and supports Ryan's work. Another significant view that has been published by a reliable sources you excluded.
6. "Niall Meehan further suggests Peter Hart ignored "significant publicly available" Protestant statements which "emphatically denied" there was an anti-Protestant campaign of violence. They stated that the events in West Cork were "exceptional" and these statements were carried in The Irish Times which was a unionist paper at the time. Meehan also cites a Church of Ireland cleric who writing in The Irish Times in 1994 reported Protestant support for a member Fianna Fail in 1930 because he was a member of the IRA leadership who protected potential loyalist victims in 1922 and took "decisive action to end the killings." " Another significant view that has been published by a reliable sources you excluded. A direct challange to Hart, and you removed it.

I have changed the sections heads which allows the challanging views to be all represented. That these views are just as important as the events is obvious. This informs the reader and presents the views according to our policy of WP:NPOV.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But the article is about the Dunmanway murders, not about Hart. After I edited it, the last item in the conclusion is a strong challenge to Hart's good faith. But the places where Hart has been cited are not contentious and don't affect the quality of the article. Other historians are cited too. But what does NOT belong in the body of thid article is a dispute between historians. (Put it in the Hart article).

The differing views of the killings are just as much a part of the article as the killings themselves. We don't censor differing views we present them to the reader in as balanced way as possible. Hart's views of Dunmanway belong here, not tucked away on the Hart article. Now it should also be pointed out here also, that Hart's is the minority view here, and please provide us with an example of none contentious opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realised last night that the incident is only notable because the historians have made it so. Hence the line I've just added to the intro. --Red King (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Red King I completely agree with you. On your edit the only thing I'd say about it is your use of the word "notable." I've used it myself in the past and it cost me reams of discussion. For example, we could include "revisionist historian" but there would be calls for references, which I'd provide, they would be challanged and so on. All I’d suggest is we drop the “notable” and include “other historians.” Its balanced and uncontentious. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just on Borgonovo, two things. One, his book is about Cork city, Not rural west Cork which is the area in question. Secondly, what he says is that the Anti-Sinn Fein society (not the loyalist action group) may well have existed (in Cork city). But that no incontrovertible evidence exists either way.

Re the Anti Sinn fein society in Cork itself, Borgonovo says that many IRA veterans interviewed by Ernie O'Malley thought it existed. And they were in a position to know. Someone going by this name put up posters around Cork in late 1920 threatening reprisals on (sometimes named) 'Sinn Feiners'. Some people thought a loyalist group had carried out attacks on and assassinations of republicans in 1920 and 1921 but others thought these were the work of plain-clothed RIC/Black and Tan/Auxiliary groups. Not directly linked to Dunmanway either way. Jdorney (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So on the background section, we are trying to provide context. I disagree with your suggesting that mentioning what was happening in Cork city is not relevant?

Could you please quote sources correctly, and try not to be selective. I have pointed this out a number of times now, and given examples on each occasion. So what Borgonovo actually said was; “There is no conclusive evidence that a pro-British civilian intelligence group called the ‘Anti-Sinn Féin Society’ operated in Cork in 1920—1. However IRA veterans consistently claimed that such a group did exist, and that a number of its members …were executed as a result. It is plausible that such a network existed in Cork. The ‘Irish Coast Intelligence Corps’ was organized in a similar fashion. General Strickland appealed to Cork Unionists for this kind of assistance. It is certain that the Crown forces needed such a formation. Local conditions in late 1920 were ripe for a handful of the city’s thousands of Unionists to band together to defend the Crown against incessant Republican attacks. Such a development would be expected in the War of Independence context. Unfortunately, the most compelling evidence of the ‘Anti-Sinn Féin Society’ group comes from former Republican guerrillas…This study has shown that the Crown forces recruited informers in Cork city and received some information about IRA activities, most notably from late 1920 to early 1921.”

Now in response to a review of Borgonovo’s book, Borgonovo described David Leeson as an emerging authority on the Royal Irish Constabulary of 1916-21. Leeson in his critical review concluded according to Borgonovo “What Borgonovo has done in Spies, Informers, and the "Anti-Sinn Féin Society is to demonstrate that Cork City was an exception to Peter Hart's rule.”

In David Leeson’s review in The Institute of Historical Research, he wrote, " After consulting a wide variety of both published and unpublished Irish (and British) sources, and examining each case in some detail, Borgonovo has come to conclusions that are tentative, but still persuasive. At least some of these people, he argues, really were informers: while some others were genuinely under suspicion of informing; either way, in a majority of cases, there is a clear connection between their deaths and the intelligence war in Cork City."

"This is an important point because, as Borgonovo explains, some recent revisionist histories of the War of Independence have suggested that the IRA's accusations of spying often served as a mere pretext for the persecution and murder of ex-soldiers and Protestants. Borgonovo denies this revisionist thesis, and his denial is based in part on a detailed examination of the IRA's intelligence service in Cork. This, he demonstrates, was much more effective than its British counterpart, and fully capable of rooting out spies and informers in its midst. What is more, according to Borgonovo, the IRA's Cork No. 1 Brigade did not shoot first and ask questions later, as many believe: their Brigade Intelligence Officer, Florence (Florrie) O'Donoghue, took his responsibilities very seriously, and insisted on accusations of spying being proved beyond a reasonable doubt before sanctioning an execution."

Jack Lane from the Aubane Historical Society Cork, referencing Borgonovo writes “Research by both Meda Ryan...and by Brian Murphy (2006), using original source material, has questioned Peter Hart's opinions on the Bandon-Dunmanway sectarianism issue. Recently published and forthcoming work by John Borgonovo (published by Irish Academic Press) clarifies the position further with regard to sectarian loyalist activity in Cork during the War of Independence period.”

Based on this information, do you still maintain what was happening in Cork city is not relevant to this articles background. That Borgonovo views and conclusions are important to understanding what was and did happen in Cork and provides a valuable source for context in my opinion is obvious? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in what I wrote and the passages you quoted. So less of the 'please quote correctly'. Borgonovo said that maybe there was a loyalist society in Cork city. That's it. However this is a specific article about a specific event. The charges we have are that those killed were part of a loyalist secret society based in Bandon. Borgnovo doesn't back this up either way. His focus is on another place, Cork city, in 1919-22. He says nothing about the Dunmanway killings either way.

The rest is part of a wider debate on who the IRA targetted and why. I see no value in getting any further into a modern debate about this one way or the other in this article. It is of only tangential relevance to this article, which, editors should remember, is about a series of killings in April 1922. This is not a forum like indymedia for rehearsing various modern arguments about the period in general. First of all. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in what I wrote and the passages you quoted. So less of the 'please quote correctly'. Borgonovo said that maybe there was a loyalist society in Cork city. That's it. However this is a specific article about a specific event. The charges we have are that those killed were part of a loyalist secret society based in Bandon. Borgnovo doesn't back this up either way. His focus is on another place, Cork city, in 1919-22. He says nothing about the Dunmanway killings either way.

The rest is part of a wider debate on who the IRA targetted and why. I see no value in getting any further into a modern debate about this one way or the other in this article. It is of only tangential relevance to this article, which, editors should remember, is about a series of killings in April 1922. This is not a forum like indymedia for rehearsing various modern arguments about the period in general.

Also, what Mr Lane of the Aubane historical society has to say is not relevant, as Borgonovo says nothing about the Dunmanway/ Bandon area, the focus of his study being elsewhere, so Lane was clearly citing him incorrectly. Jdorney (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have illustrated how and when you have been slective when quoting. "I see no value in getting any further into a modern debate about this one way or the other in this article. It is of only tangential relevance to this article" is your opinion. The debate is as much apart of this article as the subject it covers. If it was not for the debate there would be little of note in it. What Mr Lane of the Aubane historical society has to say is more relevant than your opinions. Please start to cite sources for your opinions, and don't accuse me of blank reverting. I no longer have to assume good faith with you or your edits and have provided enough illustrations to support this. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney please provide the exact quote to support this:

--Domer48_'fenian' 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah ah Domer No Personal attacks as you're so fond of saying. Mr Lane's opinion are relevant, why? He is apperently a self published source.

Re Hodder, you already know the exact quote, because YOU REMOVED IT FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Its in Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan, as you know, because you cited the page in th first place. As for good faith, well pot and kettle etc.

And as for blanket reverts, you reverted without saying why, removing all the work that had been done, including removing facts without addressing the issues on the talk page - if that's not a blanket revert I don't know what is.Jdorney (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the Dunmanway Find

We seem finally to be be making a bit of progress, thanks to third parties.

On the Dunmanway 'find' I just want to clear up exactly what the evidence is here. Flor Crowley publicised this list in the Southern Star in 1971. The list had detailed information on IRA suspects. Crowley wrote that, 'the area had more than its quota of informers'. Ryan quotes some details from the 1971 newspaper article. What it shows is that there were plenty of informers in the area and that the British had detailed intelligence on IRA men.

However, Crowley does not seem to have linked the diary to the Dunmanway killings. Ryan has not seen the actual document, in her footnotes she writes, 'there is not exact copies of the lists' (p.329).

Her link to the April 1922 killings is from a 1981 interview with Dan Calahane, an IRA veteran who, 'had the diary and studied it closely'. What he said was that those killed were listed in the diary as 'helpful citizens'. (p 329).

For the existence of the Loyalist Action group, she doesn't cite the 1971 article but an intereview with Hannah Murphy in 1978 and Nelius Ryan in 1973. (p 329).

For evidence that David Grey and Francis Fitzmaurice, two of those killed in Dunmanway were informers, Ryan cites a 2002 interview with Eilleen Lynch, who was ten in 1922, who said, 'we knew he was an informer' and that Fitzmaurice, 'was also known' (p.158).

Editors can draw their own conclsions. It seems to me that this is a little weak to base the article's central premise around.Jdorney (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney please stop being selective when quoting, and please try be consistant. For example;

Is it your opinion now that there is a diary and documents? Because when I asked before; My question, “So you deny the Auxiliaries ‘K Company’ when they evacuated Dunmanway workhouses were they were based, the IRA found confidential documents and a diary they left behind?” Your answer, “I'm saying that this is only one theory.” You now say "Dan Calahane, an IRA veteran who, 'had the diary and studied it closely'. What he said was that those killed were listed in the diary as 'helpful citizens'. So when I asked, “So you’re denying the existence of the documents and a diary?” Your answer, “I'm saying we don't know.” Was not exactly true was it. So now we know Dan Calahane had the diary, Flor Crowley analysed it and reported on it in the Southern Star, and Meda Ryan cited both of them. So can you explain your answers?

1. Now lets quote exactly what Ryan said in her footnotes, "Dan Cahalane, author interview 25/2/1981 He had the diary and documents and studied them carefully. Flor Crowley studied and worked on this ‘find.’ Though, many of the names are in the Tom Barry private papers, in letters, arising out of his investigation, there is not an exact copy of lists." Now you say Ryan did not see the actual document? Yet they appeared in the Southern Star 23 October, 30 October, 6 November, 13 November, 20 November, 1971. I don't know what point your trying to make "Her link to the April 1922 killings is from a 1981 interview with Dan Calahane, an IRA veteran who, 'had the diary and studied it closely'."
2. Now here is another point you write "For the existence of the Loyalist Action group, she doesn't cite the 1971 article but an intereview with Hannah Murphy in 1978 and Nelius Ryan in 1973. (p 329)." Not only have you been citing the wrong pages, but you left out the Percival Papers, IWM (Imperial War Museum London) now why is that?
3. And here is another point, you say "For evidence that David Grey and Francis Fitzmaurice, two of those killed in Dunmanway were informers, Ryan cites a 2002 interview with Eilleen Lynch, who was ten in 1922, who said, 'we knew he was an informer' and that Fitzmaurice, 'was also known' (p.158)." First page number wrong again, and second, we already know they were on the list without this interview, you cited the sources yourself! I'll quote you again "What he said was that those killed were listed in the diary as 'helpful citizens'. (p 329)." So what is your point?

Editors can draw their own conclsions. It seems to me that this is a little weak to base the article's central premise around the opinion of Hart. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Domer, play the ball, not the man. I think my point is perfectly clear, Ryan has not established a clear link between the diary and the killings. Only hear-say from interviews. As I said before, it's clearly just one theory and not the definitive explanation. Other editors, look up your copy of Ryan's book and see if I'm telling the truth. Sin eJdorney (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA I have given examples to support my opinion of this discussion. Ryan is cited as saying they were all on the list! Now provide a source that says they were not. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not my favourite subject, but all sources should be included. If someone thinks a particular source is flawed, then that also should be mentioned (but briefly in the notes). I'm still longing to see that diary located and published some fine day; ask yourselves why it disappeared.

The background facts are that the British still had thousands of troops in "Southern Ireland" until the very end of 1922, most of whom never engaged with the IRA. They wanted the Treaty to work, but if it didn't they faced a new war that nobody wanted. They hadn't started the first round in 1919. There was nothing "wrong" with keeping a non-violent eye on the other side in case fighting resumed. That's what everyone does in a truce. Certainly the IRA did; both parts kept up to date on British forces' whereabouts in 1922.

Part of the problem was that both parts of the IRA publicised that they had won the war, when in fact it was a stalemate. The IFS government later agreed to pay for all damages since January 1919. The pro- and anti-treaty politicians quickly and publicly disavowed the killings at the time, without any reservations, which speaks more to me than any number of books written by the Ryans and Harts out there.Red Hurley (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrections and references.

There are a number of problems with text not being referenced or incorrectly referenced. For example;

• In addition to attacks on RIC and British military targets, the IRA also killed those who gave information to the British forces. According to Tom Barry, the local IRA commander, the Third Cork Brigade killed fifteen informers in 1919-1921, including nine Catholics and six Protestants. (Meda Ryan, p164) This is not correctly referenced, wrong page number. I'll try find the right one.

• In December 1921, the conflict was formally ended with the Dail's acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which would set up the Irish Free State. Under the terms of the Treaty, British forces began to evacuate Ireland in early 1922. This is unreferenced, and incorrect.

• Republicans also suspected the involvement of local loyalists in the killing of two republicans, the Coffey brothers, in Enniskeane in February 1921 (Meda Ryan, p.213) This also, while referenced is incorrect. First we have the wrong page number, it being Pg.211 but also the fact that the killings occurred in January and not February.

• In addition, they responded to the British burning of republican homes by burning those of local loyalists. For example in June 1921, in revenge for the burning of two republicans' homes, Tom Barry wrote, 'The IRA extracted a heavy price in return...we burned to the ground in that district all the homes of British loyalists. (Tom Barry, Guerrilla days in Ireland p. 214)

This suggests that the IRA burned all the homes of British loyalists in revenge for the burning of two republicans homes. However the source says "Some of those burnings were reprisals for the destruction of houses like O’Mahony’s of Belrose, Tom Tom Kelleher’s of Crowhill, and others which the Essex destroyed a few hours after they had captured and released me."

The quote by Barry is also distorted, the exact quote says "The value of those homes would total approximately three thousand pounds, but the I.R.A. exacted a heavy price in return, and destroyed property of active British supporters valued at least one hundred thousand pounds." The heavy price referred to was the financial, and did not say "the homes of British loyalists" but said "active British supporters."

Here is the full quote to illustrate how the source is distorted:

• British intelligence noted that loyalists in Bandon were particularly helpful to them (Irish Political Review Vol 20 No. 7 July 2005 (ISSN 0790-7672 pages 10-11). This is also quoted out of context, and not mentioned in the source at all. This article was in fact a critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, and is noted at the end of the article.

I have re-written this section and correctly referenced it. All additions must be correctly referenced, and if editors are unsure I'm more than willing to help with the referencing. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 12:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Domer, since you insist on questioning good faith. The entire quote from guerrilla days in Ireland (p.214) it's as follows,

'During the last month of hostilities, although we could not draw the enemy out for a major engagement, the number of kidnapping raids, road destructions and attacks on enemy personel reached the high level record for any single month. Some of the burnings were reprisals for the destruction of houses like the O'Mahoneys of Bellrose and Tom Kellehers of Crowhill, and others which the Essex destroyed a few hours after they had captured and released me. The value of those homes would total approximately three thousand pounds but the IRA exacted a heavy price in return, and destroyed property of active British supporters valued at least one hundred thousand pounds. First we burned to the ground in that disctrict all the British loyalists' houses, Colonels Peacock's houses, Stephenson of Cor Castle, Brigadier General Caulfield, Dennehy's and Stenning's All in the Inishannon district.

As there were no other active loyalists in that area, we went further afield to teach the British a lesson, and once and for all end their fire terror. Poole's of Mayfield, Bandon, was burned; Dunboy Castle was gutted, and the Earl of bandon's stately and massive home at castle Bernard blazed for half a day before it crumpled in ruins. To those counter burning the British did not reply; they evidentaly had had enough. In addition to those counter reprisals, the IRA burned out the Allen Institute, a meeting palce for British Loyalist under the guise of a Freemason Hall, in the centre of Bandon. The Skibereen courthouse, a seat of British Law Administration, was also destroyed and Whitley's and Hungerfords of Rosscarbery were added to our list. '

So where exactly is the distortion? I wrote that the IRA burned the home of loyalists in retaliation for the burning of republican homes and this is exactly what the quote says. So why are you questioning my good faith Domer?

On the other point. So what if the source was critique of Peter Hart? This is not Indymedia nor is it an article about the dispute between Hart and whoever else. This is an article about a historical event. That there were loyalist and British informers in Bandon is entirely relevant context to the article and should be in the background section.

Re the Treaty, yes small mistake on my part there, it was signed in December and approved by the Dail in January. Honest mistake. But are you interested in that or in having a point-scoring contest here? I've stated my position below. Jdorney (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney I've illustrated very well how you took two seperate sentences, cut them and then stuck them together. That is a distortion, because you changed the whole meaning of both sentences. That the source was critique of Peter Hart was not the issue, the problem was the quote was taken out of context, and not mentioned in that source at all. Thats what the problem is. So you have got names wrong, months wrong, references wrong, quotes wrong, distorted references, selectively quoted sources and omitted information all of which I've raised and addressed and you suggest that I'm only intrested in point scoring. Please! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You see here's the problem we've been having Domer. People occasionally make mistakes in typing, they get page numbers, dates, slightly wrong etc. But that can easily be fixed. The problem with you is that you confuse your pov with the facts. Which is why you are constantly in edit wars and arbitration. The source quite clearly said that Protestant Farmers in Bandon had been helpful to them and, once again, that's what I wrote. Likewise, Barry's quote clearly says exactly what I said that it says. Your problem is apparently that it says something that you don't like. Why? I'm pretty sure I know but what's the point? Nowhere on wp have you showed any willingness to debate anything with anyone. You just try to 'win the revert war' by manipulating the rules Jdorney (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, accusations without diff's to support them. Poor show! However, that you are reduced to making them illustrates better than I can how hollow your arguement is. Now read WP:NPA and the next time you make one, be ready to back it up. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing and comments

I've raised these issues on this talk page before some examples being here, here and here on omitting facts, getting references wrong, getting basic information like names wrong and adding text which is not in the reference but to no avail. I'm also having the same experience here, and raised some of the same issues. Now I don't mind editors being repeatedly canvassed, like here, here and here but the childish comments , are un-called for please stop.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I give up

Do whatever you like Domer. I think the article is an absolute shambles. Aside from pov issues (of which there are plenty), the context, chronology, cohesion and readability is all over the place. And I think anyone who views it will think the same thing. But I've wasted enough time with edit wars here. I'm going to edit other articles until we can get arbitration on this one. Good luck. Jdorney (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this Domer - tone. Everything you insert is partial or slanted. Most of your quoted sources are entirely of one persuasion. Fine but tell us. As to Protestants in Ireland at this time, the vast majority (certainly 95%) almost by definition are anti-Republican and thus 'informers' or good and brave citizens. Same thing at the time. Informer is a hugely loaded term. Don't use it for Protestants. 86.143.63.147 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats a crock! There were and are plenty of Protestants in Ireland who are Republican. All of those shot were listed as informers! Now don't remove referenced text to suit your POV, and provide a policy based reason for deleting. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Domer: You could probably name all the Protestants who were republican there were so few. Who 'listed' those murdered as informers as you so delightfully put it? Is listing a new form of trial to be followed by automatic execution? Misplaced Pages as you have written requires a neutral POV. Therefore don't call Protestants informers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.63.147 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You have breech the 1RR on this article, self revert or go to AE. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest blind reverts

Line 9

• Removed both the reference and the information. The information is in the article, and form a notable part of it.
• Replaced the term “notable” while ignoring the discussion, and removed the term historian at the same time.

Line 15

• Completely unsupported text cited to Peter Hart, Irish Political Review and Meda Ryan including the wrong month, it was January.
• Completely distorted the quote from Tom Barry, details of which were outlined here, and the discussion ignored.
• Again the Irish Political Review is cited, and was addressed in the above discussion which was ignored.
• In the section titled “The killings at Ballygroman” unreferenced referenced text was again inserted and references removed.
• They also removed referenced text and the references and then placed citation tags in their place.
• Also in this section, they again replaced referenced text with unreferenced “for Last Rites before he died” and again added the incorrect page number.
• Replaced correctly cited text “of their death ‘has to be disregarded’” with incorrectly cited text “read with caution.”
• Changed the correct district heading to an incorrect one
• Removed salient text in the article and again added incorrectly details on both individuals and locations.
• Uses weasel words “Ryan alleges that the” in place of correctly sourced text.
• Removed this book Eoin Neeson, The Civil War 1922-23, Poolbeg Dublin 1989, ISBN 85371 013 which I had used to reference all the information they removed.
• Only today I fixed the incorrect page numbers and added text, only to have it blindly reverted.

You have to stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of following the rules, and this is the last time I'm going to enter into one of these nitpicking contests. *Barry's quote was not distorted. He states quite plainly that he burned loyalist houses in retaliation for the burning of republican ones. Now since the article is about an attack on several groups of loyalists, apparently in retaliation for the death of IRA leader I think this is very relevant to the article. Likewise that British intelligence reported that loyalist informers were being targeted. It clearly provides context for what happened in April 1922. Also the terms of the July 1921 Truce. Pretty Relevant. Removed by you however.

• Re the priest, it's not unreferenced, besides, why else do you take a dying man to see a priest? In any case, minor.
• Re, 'disregarded and read with caution, if you check Ryan's footnotes you will find both of these expressions (page 329).
• Re 'weasel words', Hardly. Ryan is the only person who has made this allegation, linking the 'Dunmanway find' with the April 26-27 killings. No one else. Hence source should be attributed.
• Re Neeson, entirely irrelevant pov discussion of whether the 1922 election was a pro-treaty vote or not. A topic for another article perhaps, but not here.
• Since you refused to build a consensus, or listen to the Third Opinion, or any of the other editors who have commented here on the talk page, I've been reverting your edits. However, I've now stopped doing that now because I think there is a better way of finally resolving this. I've reverted the page to your preferred version, created the version I favour here User:Jdorney/Dunmanway Massacre and I'm going to let neutral parties decide. Jdorney (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney you may be under the impression that by bouncing from one discussion to the next with the same accusations you may fool someone, I assure you that is not the case. So I'll addresses the accusations again here, to illustrate the point.

• On the Barry quote, I've addressed it above. It is well illustrated what you done, so nothing more needs to be said.
• Re the priest, the Last rites are not mentioned at all in the source. Provide a direct quote and prove me wrong, or accept I'm right, your choice.
• disregarded / read with caution. While both are mentioned, they are mentioned in seperate parts of the book and for seperate things. The part cited in the article is "disregarded" by Meda Ryan and quoted correctly, you want to add "read with caution" which is for something different. Read the book again and prove me wrong, better still provide a quote.
• Re 'weasel words', well that simple, it is. Read Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words
• Re Neeson, entirely irrelevant? You admitted above you got the date wrong and I quote "Re the Treaty, yes small mistake on my part there, it was signed in December and approved by the Dail in January. Honest mistake." So Neeson, is entirely irrelevant? I don't think so.

Jdorney I've no problem with build a consensus, or listen to the Third Opinion, or any of the other editors who have commented here on the talk page, but I do have a problem with you incorrectly citing sources, getting names and dates wrong, omitting information and distorting it. I've addressed each and every accusation you've made and I've supported everything with diff's and quotes unlike you. The next accusation without a diff I'll view as a personal attack and report it as such. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Ok, I've archived the talk page with all its disputes. And I've reverted the article temporarily. The choice is between two competing versions of the article. This one which is currently displayed. And this one . Third Parties/moderators please state yours preferences Jdorney (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you've done is removed discussion on your current set of edits, rather than archiving parts no longer in use? That doesn't smack of good faith to be honest. --Blowdart | 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I've reverted the article itself to a version I completely disagree with in the interests of having a clear debate. What I wanted to to avoid the endless series of disputes that we've had here and that are impossible to follow. I could get into rebutting every single one of the points Domer makes every time he has edited the talk page. I've done this before and I'm tired of it. This is not debate. It's point scoring. Why don't we discuss the relevant merits of the the two competing versions.Jdorney (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering you took discussion on the two versions and moved it out of the way how is this acting correctly? --Blowdart | 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree Blowdart that it was wrong to removed discussion on Jdorney's current set of edits, rather than archiving parts no longer in use. That doesn't smack of good faith to be honest when a lot of the points I raised had not been addressed. Jdorney accepts this by saying they "could get into rebutting every single one of the points" I made and which they have not. This here is a good example, were Jdorney ignored the discussion, and then trys to dismiss the Barry quote here. Only now, because Blowdart replaced the discussion you see fit to address it. Thanks again Blowdart, regards, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was unethical then I'm sorry. But if you look at the versions above, all it is is the most pointless and banal point scoring. For instance;

• Domer references Tim Pat Coogan's 'Michael Collins', for something that he wants to say, without mentioning that it calls the attack sectarian, quotes the fleeing of loyalists refugees and provides details of teh deaths of the Hornibrooks, none of which Domer was letting into the article. When this is pointed out, Domer alleges personal attacks.
• He proceeds to ignore the Third Opinion that was provided and then tries to get sanctions used against them for what he claims was a personal attack.
• When it is then pointed out to him that one source he is using, John Borgonovo's book on Cork city does not say what he says it says (ie it is about a different place and does not confirm the existance of the Anti-Sinn Fein Society and does not mention the Dunmanway incident at all), he comes back that I was 'distorting' the evidence because I said Borgonovo found no 'conclusive' evidence when ifact he said no 'incontrovertible' evidence.
• Most recently he removed Tom Barry's quote about the IRAs reprisal burning of loyalist houses and the terms of the July 1921 truce. Again he says it was 'distorted'. Well I've provided the entire quote above, judge for yourself.

So I ask you, is this constructive debate? Is it reasoned? Is it accepting good faith, talking about the issues? Does it help anyone trying to edit the article? Or is it Domer trying to 'win the edit war', as he says on his talk page ? (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Jdorney it was wrong! Who mentioned "unethical"?

• I used Tim Pat Coogan to reference the number who were killed as seen here and here and was part of this discussion here. You disputed the number and I provided two references. So your attempt to distort my use of the source is addressed. But to answer your charge of me omitting information I'd offer these diff's here, here and here to illustrate it was in fact you omitted information from Coogan, and I pulled you up on it.
• On the third opinion, I suggest editors read this here from the Misplaced Pages:Third opinion notice board. Jdorney canvassed opinion, and the opinion offered was rejected.
• On John Borgonovo's book I'd offer this diff here in addition to a quote from Jdorney "Hart's argument has subsequently been extensively challenged by people such as Meda Ryan, Brian Murphy and John Borgonovo, who have cliamed that Hart's thesis is flawed and that those killed in Cork in April 1922 were targeted because they informers.Jdorney (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)." So again I've supported my view with Diff's and quotes and illustrated again your attempts at distorting what I say.
• As to Barry's quote, I've addressed that above, and your attempt to distort the discussion.

Jdorney I suggest you stop with this nonsense, because editors like to see diff's to support accusations and you have offered nothing. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Domer, but it's not nonsense as readers can quite easily read for themselves on the talk page. Can editors please do this as i'm sick and tired of this petty bickering? Jdorney (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is nonsense as readers can quite easily read for themselves. Don't try to reduce this to "petty bickering" in an attempt to divert this discussion away from your conduct on this article. On each and every point you have tried this, and it has not worked. Now try using diff's to support your comments. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If, by, it hasn't worked you mean that you ahve reverted every single thing I have written Domer then no. But I think you'll find that every single other editor with the sole exception of Big Dunc has found my edits more factual, better written and more npov than yours. And no, I'm not going to prepare an idiot proof version of the talk page for you. If a neutral editor asks me then I will.

But just on one factual point, 'Borgonovo argues that they were targeted as informers' where exactly? He doesn't in his book on Cork city.Jdorney (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So your answer to providing diff's to support your accusations is "...no, I'm not going to prepare an idiot proof version of the talk page for you." Providing diff's are an idiot proof way of supporting your arguement, unless your not able that is, which would make you what according to your logic? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Versions, Arbitration please

This one Dunmanway Massacre

And this one User:Jdorney/Dunmanway Massacre

Enough tiresome nit picking and point scoring. Choose please. I'll abide by the result.

Jdorney (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This one User:Jdorney/Dunmanway Massacre contains many of the mistakes outlined in the above discussions. Shuch as dates/months wrong, omissions, distortions, wrong page numbers and wrong references or references which don't support the text. I'd have a major problem with POV on that version. Should editors like me to list these issues, please ask. Though you will see them in the above discussions. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article called the Dunmanway "massacre"? Are their any neutral references to support such a title? Surely the execution of traitors and agents of the enemy in the course of a war pf liberation cannot be deemed a "massacre"? Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course that's not a POV comment there at all is it? *sigh* --Blowdart | 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun Hart's book is in google books. So now either party arguing the toss here should be able to check page numbers and citations. Oh and it liberally uses massacre. --Blowdart | 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Blowdart but it was already cited above in an earlier discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that this article be renamed the "Dunmanway shootings". Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Aside from agenda pushing? --Blowdart | 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dunmanway killings" is another alternative. But if you read the article the killings happened over a number of areas. Also, I don't see the supporting sources to support the current title, or were it came from. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from Hart? --Blowdart | 06:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Again thanks Blowdart. Aside from Hart, who is the minority view on Dunmanway. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word on it; it's not an area of my history I've felt the need to explore. I, personally, don't have a problem with moving it, but I'd suggest waiting till the content spat settles down. --Blowdart | 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But as someone who has served my time on "List of events named massacres" there is no way there is sufficient referenced "reliable sources" to have Wiki call this a massacre in the title. Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to a name change as this happened over a couple of areas and days. BigDunc 09:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone done any assessment of what names are used by reliable sources, or is all of this just original research? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance

The important of an article within a wiki project is set by the members of that wiki project and not by any old random editor. Unless you're an active member of the project please do not change it, especially when you have an agenda limited to the article itself. --Blowdart | 07:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blowdart if I could just offer my opinion on this, which is not strong either way is that the importance of an article within a wiki project is set by it's notability. The problem is then how do we determine that? What makes this article notable, is the dispute that has arised between historians. I hope that helps? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you, but it's up to the project members to decide and they may have different rules altogether - for example there's a project to add co-ordinates to all geographic articles, where they do not concern themselves with notability, but simply existence. In addition the important of an article to a particular project may be in odds to its importance to[REDACTED] as a whole as, by their nature, the projects place a greater importance on a sub-set of articles. My point is the projects themselves set the importance, by their rules and their scale, not a random editor, otherwise we'd get agenda pushing by uninvolved parties. --Blowdart | 09:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blowdart - I am a member of WikiProj Ireland - possibly the currently most active member in relation to articles re the Republic. Who are you? DO NOT REVERT my rating witthout getting some Project consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your rating? Once again, it's a project rating. YOU are not the project. Perhaps you could point to the project consensus you got before changing it from it's original rating? No? Live by your own rules, get consensus and then change it. --Blowdart | 21:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Its original rating"??? What legitimacy has that? The editor who called it the "Dunmanway Massacre" dubbed it "important"? It is up to him to advance that claim with evidence. Till then it stays "low". Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If I rate the R125 as "high" importance (being the original rater) would you reckon that we'd require project consensus before changing it? Sarah777 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes. Once someone rates it on the behalf of the project the rating is now the projects and surely needs project consensus to change it, otherwise what is the point of having project ratings at all. You say that the burden is on an editor to prove something. So why is there no burden on you to prove it's low? As for your attempt to say the person who called it a massacre set the rating this does not appear to be the case.--Blowdart | 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ratings are changed all the time without "consensus". It was a housekeeping issue. Until you started edit warring. Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why is your edit history demanding consensus to change it back? Oi! Pl don't edit war. It is up to the consensus to call this unnotable event "mid" in terms of Irish History - there is no way that it is--Blowdart | 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If I could just chip in with my view and I hope it helps? At the moment there are two scales, the quality scale and the importance scale. If the discussion is based on these criteria we can move the discussion on. Just one example worth considering, here is an article which is rated GA. Even though it is reached GA it still only has a mid importance rating. So is that useful? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be a Featured Article and be "low" on the importance of the Wiki Ireland Project. There isn't any necessary linkage. Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a straw poll of the WikiProject's membership. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My point, G'Day, is that in this instance that isn't necessary. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blowdart, seeing as how you are not a member of the WikiProject Ireland you possibly don't know how assessments are assigned. Any member of the project can assign both classification and importance ratings, except GA and FA which have their own process. Assessments are not done by consensus but by individuals. Besides myself, Sarah777, Snappy and SeoR seem to be the project's most active current assessors. Having assessed possibly thousands of articles, I have no issue with Sarah777 assessing this article as a low based on the criteria developed for the importance ratings. Don't be misled by any distorted notion that a low-importance rating is in some way derogatory or a bad thing. Remember that all wiki articles, by their very existence, are notable topics, so even a low-importance rating is very creditable and anything greater needs to be justified in comparison to articles.

It would be impossible to process the numerous articles that need assessment by consensus. As editors we would get nothing else done if a consensus method employed; hence individual assessments. At any one time since the assessment team became particularly active we have been working hard on assessing the more than 20,000 Irish articles. Get the picture?

If this explanation or the process don't meet with anyone's approval you can always request the article to be assessed directly on the project page, but I should let you know that you that I seem to be the only active assessor there these days, so, as I agree with Sarah777 rating, I would not change her rating. ww2censor (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2. I might add that of the numerous articles I've created I have rated 95% (or more) as "Low" on the importance scale. In fact, offhand, I cannot think of one I have rated any higher. Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over importance

I was asked through a note on my talk page to intervene here as an admin because I was told that an editor "was edit warring" over the article's importance rating.

There certainly was an edit war going on, but it takes more than one editor to have an edit war. As with any other change, either side can stop an edit war by discussing the issue for as long as it takes to reach consensus, rather than reverting.

I was going to look to see whether there were any breaches of WP:3RR, but since I was delayed in getting here and the edit war seems to have stopped, it seems best to leave the issue for now. Blocks might have been justified if the edit war had continued, but blocks are preventative not punitive, so no admin action is needed now.

On the issue of the "importance" rating itself, it seems to me to be mighty silly for anyone to edit war over it. Lemme explain why.

The purpose of the importance rating is not to try to define one article as more important than another, which could lead us into some sterile arguments. Is Johnny Giles more important than John Banville? Is Joseph Blowick more important than Sean South? The answer to either question depends of course on your interests.

The importance rating exists for one purpose only: to try to guide editors towards articles which WP:IE regards it as particularly important to bring to a high standard, if that's how they want to focus their energies. Other projects may make very different assessments, which is fine too: some things which may be very important through one lens may be trivial from another perspective. For example, a top-importance article which is read as stub class is obviously crying out for expansion and improvement, whereas a low-importance article which has already reached good article standard is not one where the project would be selecting an improvement drive.

In other words, the importance rating is simply a tool to assist in identifying priorities. WP:BIOG has quite sensibly clarified this by relabelling the "importance" rating as "priority", and I have been meaning to suggest for a long time that WP:IE should do the same. If that was the label, we might not have avoided this dispute.

However, whether we call it "importance or "priority", it makes little or no practical difference what priority is attached by the project to this article, because it's quite clear that a number of editors have already made it a high priority for their energies. Pity there's not much consensus on where to take it, but there is clearly no need to summon editors to get to work here. If we changed the priority to "mind-bogglingly trivial", the editors working on this article wouldn't abandon it; because it clearly interests them, and editors are quite entitled to set their own priorities (Misplaced Pages has some great articles on rather obscure subjects, qnd because[REDACTED] is not paper, that's a fine situation). On the other hand if we made this article high priority, what would that change? There's plenty of people deeply involved already.

So for an article like this, where there is no shortage of effort, the importance rating has only statistical significance. There are much better things for everyone involved to be doing than arguing over the tag, such as trying to ensure that the article accurately and proportionately reflects all the different accounts of the events concerned. What I see instead is a group of editors who appear to be locked in a dispute around trying to construct a single narrative of events where no wider consensus exists, and to disprove accounts they dislike. That's not how things are supposed to be done here. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I reckon you are missing something here BHG. In the context of calling this article the Dunmanway "massacre" what we have is an article created and defended to push a POV. The fact that my altering of the "importance" tag to be in keeping with normal "rating" or "priority" standards of the WI project (as they are, not as perhaps they should be) led to an editor engaging in an edit war (which stopped only because I did) is a very unusual step by someone not involved in the project and who claims to "know nothing" about the issue!

The naming of the article also has important implications re the potential inclusion of the killings in the "list of events called massacres" fiasco/article.

So, having read you input - and wishing to give fair warning, I intend if nobody had come up with a rationale to defend either name or rating to:

(a) restore the "low" importance rating.

(b) move the article.

Sarah777 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing at a time, Sarah. That way there's some chance of reaching a consensus.

If you want the article renamed, then discuss that under your move proposal above.

As to the importance rating, it's not something intended for readers, it's for editors. What practical difference will it make to editors if this one article is rated one step higher than it should be? I'm not standing over either rating, I'm just seriously questioning the merits of either side of this argument pouring more time into sustaining an argument over something which has so little effect and risking restarting an edit war which could lead everyone back down the cycle of blocks and other sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Category "War Crimes"

I have removed this categorization. It is pure POV. There is no evidence that those executed were not aiding the occupation forces, as charged. In which case the executions were not "war crimes". Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That whole category is suspect. Surely to be defined as a war crime there has to be a prosecution? I'd be tempted to move out of it and kill the category altogether. --Blowdart | 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Temptation was too much. I'm also nominating the category for deletion. --Blowdart | 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. Now please revert your reversion of my rating. Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like an apology for your breach of WP:NPA for suggesting I'm an "old random editor". Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no need to apologise for something that was not a personal attack, if you perceive it as such then you're wrong. Nor am I changing the rating back unless I see some consensus on behalf of the project that a re-rating is in order. --Blowdart | 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I will be changing it back - and if you keep reverting you'll be blocked for edit warring. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And now you're threatening to avoid the fact you have no consensus? That's an abuse of ArbCom right there. --Blowdart | 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, lets cool the jets ok. Now why not discuss the rating based on the criteria outlined on the rating scale. Personally, I don't give a rats ass about importance ratings or cats these days. On Irish related articles the amount of POV cats is never ending. Not so much with the ratings though? I don't think there was consensus for the rating, it was just determined by the editor who added it. So like I said, lets determine what it is together and move on. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually right now I don't care so much about the non-consensus importance rating change, even if Sarah is trying to make others play by rules she doesn't want to abide by herself, I'm way more concerned about using ArbCom as a threat for non-consensual edits. As such I've taken it to Arbcom for clarification. --Blowdart | 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point me to where I "used Arbcom as a threat"? Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

you keep reverting you'll be blocked for edit warring. As you're fully aware the article is under the ArbCom troubles ruling. This is clear from both previous talk discussions and the banner at the top of the page. What is that except a threat, especially when you don't believe it will apply to yourself? --Blowdart | 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to my reporting you to BrownHairedGirl! But since you wish to bring your edit warring to the attention of Arbcom who am I to try and stop you? Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance or priority?

If there was a proposal to change current Wiki Proj Irl practice (well established and until now not the cause of any dispute that I'm aware of) then we could consider this proposal. But as currently set out the rating is actually about importance, not priority - insofar as the concepts differ (not a lot). I would rather enforce the "rules" of the game rather tham throw out the rulebook because of one incident. The book says that the importance is assigned by Irl Project members. Blowdart isn't one. Sarah777 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And while Blowdart is allowed come in and rate the importance/priority of Irl Proj articles there is a danger of triggering a vast array of disputes caused by setting a precedent here. There are many historical articles I think are incorrectly rated, perhaps a notch too high or too low. Is this going to declare open-season on all existing ratings? (Up to now they have been uncontroversially controlled by concensus - I'd reckon the support of Ww is (more) than enough to support the "low" rating. That makes it twice as many Irl Proj regular editors as normally police these matters. Sarah777 (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I do agree with ye. As you are one of the few active members of Wiki Proj Irl I go along with your ratinal on this. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Domer. That's clear consensus! Now re the name change I'll following BHG's advice and examine the verifiability of "massacre" applied to these killings. So far as I can see this is down to a single POV source. But I will allow some time for evidence to the contrary to be presented. Sarah777 (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whats the deal here?

This seems to be a good example of how[REDACTED] often becomes a battleground for the differing political beliefs in existence on this island. Tell me this, how is the 60 odd references consistent with the other articles on[REDACTED] here? The fact is, certain users guard this article and won't allow facts in which contradict them. Frankly, I'm coming round to the idea that large internet encyclopedias run by the common man should be scrapped and written by academics. At least they have less time on their hands to persue their hobby horses. NewIreland2009 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi NewIreland2009 while your opinions are welcome, supporting material is required. Who for example are the editors who guard this article? What information won't they allow into the article? How dose the information they won't allow into the article contradict them and give examples? In the absence of this basic information, your comments are usless in improving the article. If academics have less time on their hands, how would internet encyclopedias ever be written. If you have no time on your hands to address these basic questions, you should re-consider your post. If academics have less time on their hands to persue their hobby horses, (areas of intrest), what are they doing? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Domer. Firstly, my opinions aren't welcome here. Secondly, I'm not prepared to be trapped by yourself into 'naming and shaming' (Undoubtedly leading to you manipulating wiki policy to get me permanently blocked), its pretty self evident to all but the most deceitful who and what I'm referring to. Academics have always written in encyclopedias because encyclopedias are written by experts in their field. In huge editions many hundred may be involved. Even thousands. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for example has over 100 historians writing entries (Thats an estimate, its probably more) So there is no doubt that if academics were recruited like any other scholarly project then an internet encyclopedia would be written quite easily. Fourthly, I have nothing to contribute to this article, other than the fact that encyclopedias do not use footnotes, and if they did, they certainly wouldn't have more than 60 for a relatively minor topic. Fifthly, academics have less time on their hands because they lead busy lives. The sort of people that obsess over[REDACTED] certainly do not. NewIreland2009 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, your contributions to the UDR recently may be an example. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words you've nothing to offer this article or discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

NewIreland, can you point out specificly what content problems you're seeing?--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was just pointing out that the article is guarded by certain users and the use of references is absurd - 60 + references is the crimescene of an internet battlefield, not an encyclopedia article. The resultant nonsense was a result of a user attempting to censor this point. Thanks for having a look. NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words you've nothing to offer this article or discussion. Except accusation and allegation, even Tznkai can't get much else out of you. So just how is this discussion improving the article? Please read WP:TPG because to date this is just a waste of space. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is adherence to the guidelines of citations and guarding articles not an important aspect of any article? You cannot accept that someone is standing up to you over your incessant passive aggressiveness and laissez faire attitude to the rules you dislike. If you cannot see that what I said clearly is extremely relative then just ignore it. By attempting to delete it you are raising suspicions of attempted censorship of realities you don't like, which is what I think you and your buddy were up to here, causing all kinds of disturbance because you personally don't like what was written. JUST LEAVE IT THERE IF YOU DISAGREE! Or preferably, state how 60 + citations is relevant to the article? Or deny that you guard articles? Or offer evidence from that wiki page that I am breaking guidelines? This is a how a discussion is meant to occur, not a blanket removal of text one disagree's with. So yes, I have plenty to offer this discussion, yet you seem unable to read it. NewIreland2009 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My question was what specific 'content' problems you had with this article - I was not looking for complaints about user behavior - believe me, I get plenty of those all the time. If you think this article is say, over cited, then say exactly that - then try to make recommendations of what specific citations are redundant.--Tznkai (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) NewIreland2009 I have been watching your edits here and if all you can do is bitch and moan yet are incapable of making even one constructive suggestion and refuse to provide evidence of the contradictions you claim in this article, then please leave. Your comments are disruptive and do not enhance the article or the wiki in any way. Cooperate to reach a consensus, which is how we work here, or go waste your time elsewhere because we don't need your obtuse, vague assertions. As for us not seeing "that what I said clearly is extremely relative" we have yet to see anything relative from you. If 60+ citations are not enough for you, provide some of your own, so long as they are verifiable and reliable sources it does not matter if they concur with the current prose or disprove it, which could justify editing, but provide something tangible and positive. ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Local Jury and Dates

I see this para: "A local jury found Woods responsible and said that O'Neill had been 'brutally murdered in the execution of his duty.' Charlie O'Donoghue and Stephen O'Neill, who were present the night of the killing both attended the inquest. Hornibrook's house was burned some time after the incident."

What was the jury? Was it a part of the Sinn Fein Courts system? Was it ad-hoc or well established? Who arranged and chaired the inquest? In regard to the diary found by the IRA, when was it found? If its content suggested treasonous activity, was it sent on to Dublin for a decision? If not, why not? I can see that there are references but some dates and detail would make this article more informative. Thanks,86.44.145.103 (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see that there are references, so if you want additional information go and get it just make sure it's referenced. Any unreferenced comments and opinions will be removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but wouldn't it be best for someone expert like you to put in the dates along with the reference. Surely in an encyclopedia you should put in the facts and the reference, not just generalities and the reference? More on that jury, anyone? I can't believe the amount of argumentative discussion above and the lack of such basic data in the article itself.86.44.145.103 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, get a book and add all you want. I'm no expert, never said I was but I've not added generalities you have. Now please read WP:TPG as the purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Big Dunc - The article already says "Perpetrator(s) Elements of the local Irish Republican Army" (not my words) so why revert the removal of the sentence starting "It is not clear who ordered the attacks or carried them out but both..."? It at least makes the article consistent. 81.151.165.51 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Review of Books and associated details

This blog is not a reliable source. Equally Tom Wall (an "avid reader of modern Irish history") does not seem to have any credentials as a historian, other than reading books. The claim that Meda Ryan does not give any reference for the documents is a false one, and even if it were true it is an observation being made by an editor not an observation being made by a reliable source. So as usual from this disruptive editor, the edits are against policy. Discussion welcome. O Fenian (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To the point, and agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No discussion from Big Dunc just parroting of O Fenian who had the good grace not to revert when more sources were provided.

Who provides the credentials for historians? You can be assured the Aubane Historical Society has few if any of the credentials you write of or expect yet they are, rightly, liberally quoted in these articles.

This Dunmanway Massacre article is full of observations by editors as pulling this or that quote out of books or articles to emphasis or make a point is just that, making observations. There is no mention by Ryan of where these explosive diairies or documents can be seen so quoting them is like sayoing I have a lost book from the bible, important, interesting but if you quote it without producing it, it must be mentioned in any article derived from it. You just love petty rule quoting and threatening to block but readers deserve a more rounded version of issues. 81.158.172.237 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert because more sources were added, please do not make assumptions in order to support your argument. If you would like to provide examples of cases where you claim this article is full of observations by editors we can discuss them with a view to removal or amendment, but that does not mean you can add your own. If you object to Misplaced Pages policies so much, I suggest you either try and change the policy or stop editing. O Fenian (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I could be mixed up with Big Dunc in this discussion since they are not in it? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to mix Domer up with Big Dunc or indeed O Fenian but you all operate in much the same way, reverting wholesale and not finding fault with nationalist-inclined Troubles article edits.81.156.129.168 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not contributing to this article anymore and haven't been for several months because of the obnoxious tag team editing at work here but let me just say that the editing here has been a disgrace to the people involved. Repeatedly removing sourced and cited material on spurious ground and then harrassing he people trying to put iti in. Jdorney (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Judging by this edit and the above, there are two issues. (a) the number of deaths - 13 or 10. This seems odd as two sources are given - unless they contradict each other, surely this is settled? (b) whether the DRB blog book review by an amateur historian, which is sceptical about the documents Ryan is supposed to have used, can be considered a reliable enough source to include at least as attributed opinion if not fact. (Note that it is an institutional blog, so it can't be instantly dismissed as "it's a blog"). I suggest the latter question can be resolved by posting at WP:RSN, and the former by somebody looking the figures up or otherwise explaining how there is confusion about that. Let's try and focus on content here, and use appropriate dispute resolution. In the mean time, please refrain from edit warring, particularly to reintroduce the disputed source. Don't make me protect the page. Rd232 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Both sources say ten. Please see User:O Fenian/Abuse for some of the problems caused by this IP editor. I have other problems caused by this editor, but will take them to yout talk page. What makes it an "insitutional blog"? I see nothing here to support that, or is simply having a website with an official sounding domain name grounds for that assertion? O Fenian (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends what you mean by "institution". It's not some guy on blogspot, is it? Anyway ask at WP:RSN, see what people think there. Rd232 11:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there it is. 10 dead and a blog that needs to be taken to WP:RSN if it's going to be used. Anyone want to that? Rd232 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On AGF and being constructive

I'll not be feeding this discussion. I revert Trolls and remove WP:OR. When I'm not doing that I'm a content editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Terminology like "Troll" is frowned upon, because it's incompatible with WP:AGF. If you have problems with an editor, use dispute resolution. Rd232 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends who uses it and please read WP:AAGF. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. What did I do to deserve that? Rd232 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The mistake you're making here is assuming these two editors (particularly Domer48) are here to write good articles rather than push one pov and keep another out. To this end they're prepared to use WP rules and regulations to their advantage but not discuss content in any meaningful way. I have no idea why this has been tolerated here for so long, but the last time I tried to edit this article I ended up getting blocked for the ony time in five years of contributions. Until mods protect other editors from this treatment there is no point in trying to contribute to this article. Or the Peter Hart one, or the Plantation of Ulster one for that matter.Jdorney (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have had problems in the past, I'm sure it is worth trying again. If everyone shows good will in working together, and engages in constructive debate based on good sources, we can have a good outcome. This would require all sides to put away past grievances and get a big helping of assuming good faith. Rd232 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please! --Domer48_'fenian' 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Rd232! Lettting this editor whine and bellyache is just what we all need. Still crying about being blocked and blaiming others for their own actions. That making unsupported accusations is not incompatible with WP:AGF in your view tells us all so much. For example Rd232, if I were accuse you defending disruptive edit warring IP's and allowing all sorts of BS because of your own POV and how you keep displaying this bias, thats ok because it's direct at an editor? That is has nothing to do with improving this article means nothing. So is it your view we just turn every talk page into a soap box to let editors vent? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That, unlike the comment you removed and I reverted, is an indefensible violation of WP:Civil and WP:NPA and WP:Battleground and WP:AGF, and you would do well to apologise. Once again, problems cannot be resolved by either (a) ignoring them or (b) rejecting attempts to move forward in a constructive manner. Need I remind you (or perhaps tell, if you weren't aware) that I came to this topic in response to the hooha over your 19 Aug block, the end result of which was that the 1 month block was overturned and I started doing some mediating. I will continue to try to get everyone to work together constructively, civilly etc - do not think you are exempt from this requirement. Rd232 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So you agree with the example I gave of making unfounded accusations? Now can you explain your actions here in removing my comments? Should I have just replaced them? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving a conversation to a user talk page (and it was BTW a request addressed to me which would have been better placed on my user talk page in the first place) is completely different from simply deleting comments. With this sort of response you do not do anyone any favours, least of all yourself. Rd232 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally this is not the first time you're not indenting your replies properly. Please be more careful, it makes the discussion easier to follow. Rd232 21:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 lets be clear, you did not move a conversation to a user talk page, you just removed it. You are not moderating discussion, you’re participating. If you wish you can appoint yourself moderator on any article you like that’s fine by me. But please do not create issues, that you then want to act as moderator on. Now this discussion does not in any way have anything to do with improving this article and your talking about things that requires sanctions on editors? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the conversation, I didn't move the text, because the text was covered elsewhere (User talk:86.164.136.21). You asked me to address an issue, a request which clearly wasn't appropriate for an article talk page, and I told you that I was aware of the situation (and had in fact imposed an editing restriction, which I pointed you to). Again, you know all this, and forcing me to tell you again achieves what? PS If you know how to moderate a WP discussion without participating, please tell me. I've deliberately refrained from substantial editing eg at Peter Hart, which merely led you to complain that I wasn't editing. Rd232 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What's new? Best of luck RD. Draw your own conclusions. Jdorney (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions implies giving up. I'm not doing that yet, and I'd urge you to do the same: please let's have another serious attempt at constructive discussion about content. If it fails in a way that requires sanctions on editors, I'll ensure that that happens. Rd232 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Content issues

Ok, since there's now a mod involved to keep things reasonably civil, here are some of my concerns about the content. I have a lot to say, so I going to start off with just the introduction:

Before I start, a few months ago I started work on what I thought the article should look like here User:Jdorney/Dunmanway_Massacre. I never finished it but the introduction is more or less what I would to see. We can see there are a few differences.

• The sandbox version has material on the conflict in the region and cited a previous examples of reprisals taken out by the local IRA of the loyalist population in 1919-21. This should go back in.

• The sandbox version also has details of the truce that was in palce at the time of the massacre. The events mentioned in the article -from the British sending of agents to the area, to the IRA comandeering the Hornibrooke's car, to the killings, were all grave breaches of the truce. Again this is relevant and needs to go back in. On the same topic, the British military evacuation of the area, two months before the massacre is also relevant and likewise needs to go back in.

• The stuff about the Treaty split. What we have now is a highly tendentious general account of the Treaty debate. Whether it was decided under duress etc, whether the 1922 election was valid. Aside from the fact that it's arguing the anti-Treaty case (which is by no means universally accepted), is it relevant to this article? I don't think so. Isn't it enough to say the local IRA went predominantly anti-Treaty and therefore were not under the control of the Irish Provisional government?

• The sandbox intro also mention that the leadership fo the local IRA - Tom Bary, Liam Deasy etc were not in the area at the time bcause they were in Dublin attending teh Anti-Treaty IRA executive. Is this not also relevant? I.e. whoever carried out the killings was not under the control of even their local leadership?

No one has to agree with me but if can we discuss these issues, I'd consider that first step. Jdorney (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Put your proposed text on reprisals taken out by the local IRA of the loyalist population in 1919-21 up here, and lets discuss it. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed alt intro

West Cork, where these killings took place, was one of the most violent parts of Ireland during the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921) and was the scene of many of the conflict's major actions, such as the Kilmichael ambush and Crossbarry Ambush. It contained a strong IRA Brigade, (Third Cork Brigade) and also a sizable Protestant population - roughly 16%, some of whom were loyalist in political views . British intelligence noted that loyalists in Bandon were particularly helpful to them . Republicans also suspected the involvement of local loyalists in the killing of two republicans, the Coffey brothers, in Enniskeane in February 1921 .

In addition to attacks on RIC and British military targets, the IRA also killed those who gave information to the British forces. According to Tom Barry, the local IRA commander, the Third Cork Brigade killed fifteen informers in 1919-1921, including nine Catholics and six Protestants In addition, they responded to the British burning of republican homes by burning those of local loyalists. For example in June 1921, in revenge for the burning of two republicans' homes, Tom Barry wrote, 'The IRA extracted a heavy price in return...we burned to the ground in that district all the homes of British loyalists . British intelligence wrote that "many" of their informers in West Cork... "were murdered and almost all the remainder suffered grave material loss" .

The fighting ended with a truce on July 11, 1921. Under the terms of the truce, British units were withdrawn to barracks and their commanders committed to, 'no movements for military purposes' and 'no secret agents noting descriptions of movements'. For its part, the IRA agreed that, 'attacks on Crown forces and civilians to cease', and to 'no interference with British Government or private property' In December 1921, the conflict was formally ended with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which would set up the Irish Free State. The Dail approved the Treaty in January 1922. Under the terms of the Treaty, British forces began to evactuate Ireland in early 1922, evacuating their barracks in west Cork in February 1922. Jdorney (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this as a WP:LEAD?--Domer48_'fenian' 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, as the introduction,or to be incorporated into the introduction -what's currently the "background" section. Jdorney (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So your suggestion is to replace the current background section or merge this information into it? To replace the current Background you'd first need to provide a rational for it, or at least explain what is wrong with the current version. Likewise on a merge, for example what is missing from the current Background, and what should be included from your proposed text? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful here to show the proposed alt intro on a WP:Usersubpage. Copy the current intro to that subpage first, save; then copy the alt, save. That would permit a diff which would clarify the changes being proposed. Rd232 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re both comments; 1, merging would be better than replacing. I've outline above why. First of all the details above re the conflict in west cork should go back in. Second the stuff about the Treaty is tendentious and out of context and should be trimmed.

2. User subpage is already there, link above.

Jdorney (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the link. But you said it was from a few months ago and it seemed (without looking) to be a draft of the whole article. My point was to enable a diff specifically between the alt intro and the current intro, which would require a separate subpage. Rd232 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get on it. Won't be ight away though.Jdorney (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Describing the Protestant dead as informers

First things first; a number of the murdered Protestants were not on the supposed list of people 'helpful' to the authorities so it is inaccurate in your own terms to describe them as informers. They were, O Fenian, in your terms not guilty but 'innocent victims'. If you will accept that some other phrasing is necessary.--Fynire (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. Perhaps you could actually provide quotes from the source to confirm what you are saying is correct? O Fenian (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Meda Ryan, Tom Barry, p. 213 "In one case a son was shot when his father was not at home. An elderly man was shot instead of his brother". So two at least of the murdered Protestants were not 'informers' and were 'innocent' in your terms unless guilt by association had become republican law.--Fynire (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc and O Fenian appear to be ignoring this evidence, and then claiming "no consensus" on the Talk page. Would it not be more constructive to engage in this discussion. Is there a reason why Ryan's observations are wrong? On the wider issue, where is the evidence that all those killed were "informers"? Mooretwin (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should have known you would edit war to paint loyalists in a more sympathetic light! And finally we get something worthy of discussion, instead of summaries that have no basis in policy. O Fenian (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks. And your accusation makes little sense, given that "loyalists" would not consider "informing" to paint them in an unfavourable light - quite the opposite I should imagine: they would consider it as bravely doing their duty. I've no interest in painting anyone, "loyalist" or otherwise in a more or less sympathetic light. My interest is in seeking to achieve an article that is informative, properly balanced, adheres to NPOV, and covers all relevant views where these differ. The impression from reading this talk page is that there is no consensus between two historians (Ryan and Hart) that all those killed were informers. Yet the article appears to be written from the point of view of one of those historians (Ryan). Now it seems that this particular historian actually acknowledges that two of those killed were not informers. If O Fenian does not know, could someone advise what the evidence is that all were informers? Mooretwin (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about personal attacks? BigDunc 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see O Fenian has actually edited to (in his own words) "paint loyalists in a more sympathetic light". Makes his comments above seem very odd, but credit where credit is due. Mooretwin (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop being dishonest. I made one edit, and never changed what I said. O Fenian (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Informers or suspected informers

Should the text refer to "suspected informers"? There doesn't appear to have been any trial process to ascertain the "guilt" or otherwise of those killed, so surely we can only say that they were suspected informers? Mooretwin (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I added "suspected", but O Fenian reverted it, saying that they were "confirmed" informers. What is the source for this? Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you do not know, why are you adding your own commentary to the article? Keep your less than neutral opinions out of articles please. O Fenian (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's precisely because I don't know that I inserted "suspected". If I knew that they were "confirmed", then I wouldn't have inserted the word "suspected"!

I'll ask again: what is the source that they were "confirmed" informers? Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source to say that they were "confirmed" informers, then the text ought to read suspected. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Information is cited and sourced in the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be differing views. Ryan says they were all informers. Hart disputes this. Yet the lede goes with Ryan, without mentioning Hart's dissension. Mooretwin (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So there are two different views, but the article takes the side of one. This can't be the right way to write the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Where does Hart dispute they were informers? Exact wording and page number please? O Fenian (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article says: "That those killed were informers is disputed by Peter Hart, who claims that the Protestant community had been "notably reticent" about giving information to Crown forces during the War of Independence and says of the Loyalist Action Group that, "there is absolutely no evidence that such a conspiracy existed". He concludes that "these men were shot because they were Protestants. No Catholic Free Staters, landlords or spies were shot or even shot at". Moreover, he suggests, any useful information given by the dead men to the British forces would have been given before the Truce signed in July 1921, seven months earlier." And a source is provided (footnote 65). Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The first part of that part of the article is pure commentary, Hart does not actually dispute that they were killed as informers. O Fenian (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article says "That those killed were informers is disputed by Peter Hart". Mooretwin (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, you should be able to provide a quote from him where he actually disputes it then? O Fenian (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should I? Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you refused to source the offending phrase I have removed it, and some other commentary not in the source. O Fenian (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to Niall Meehan being open to the suggestion of various motivations - "political, military purposes or revenge", which indicates that he hsa not "confirmed" that those killed were "informers".Mooretwin (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a cite where Hart says "Those killed were not informers" or something similar please provide it. O Fenian (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling them informers whether they did or not provide information to the security forces is not neutral. It is like treason which none dare call treason if it is succesful. These people (Protestants and Catholics) thought it their duty to help the lawful authorities. So let's leave out pejorative one-sided epithets and indicate neutrally why they were killed or what they did.--Fynire (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So we are supposed to say there were killed for being informers without saying they were informers? O Fenian (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You could get round that by saying they were suspected informers. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Except they were not suspected informers, they were informers according to the British! O Fenian (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for that? Mooretwin (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a wild stab in the dark, it is staring you in the face. O Fenian (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you are incapable of looking at a footnote? O Fenian (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in the article, and no footnote which says that "the British" said that they were informers. I do see mention of "The Dunmanway discovery confirmed the existence of an espionage organisation"; "The Auxiliaries' files showed that some Protestants in Dunmanway had formed a group ... he IRA suspected of passing information to the British forces during the War of Independence". But I do not see anywhere that those killed were shown to have been members of such a group. I see no reference to any judicial process which demonstrated the "guilt" of those killed, so surely the most that can be said is that they were "alleged informers". Mooretwin (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have no interest in reading sources, I have no interest in replying. O Fenian (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being very unhelpful; which is contrary to the WP concept of collaborative editing. Are you relying on this: Over the next two days ten Protestant men were shot and killed in the Dunmanway, Ballineen and Murragh area. In Dunmanway on the 27th April, Francis Fitzmaurice – a solicitor and land agent – was shot dead. Fitzmaurice had during the 1919-21 period an "inside track" on both the IRA and their activities. Also that night David Grey, a chemist, and James Buttimer, a retired draper, were shot in the doorways of their homes on the Main St., 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. In Grey's case as a ten-year old girl averred to Meda Ryan, he sought out "information from children in their innoence." Consequently she said they were warned against chatting with Grey despite his kindness.? Mooretwin (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly my fault you do not get it. I am not sourcing anything from the text of the article, I am sourcing it from the source cited in the article. They were not alleged informers, they were confirmed informers according to documents captured from the British. O Fenian (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is your fault, because you have unhelpfully failed to explain the basis for saying that those killed were "confirmed" as "informers", and you now appear to be admitting that the article does not explain this either. Would it not be better if the article was clear? What does the source say? What was the "confirmation"? Which British people confirmed it? Do you not wish to improve the article so that it provides answers rather than raises questions? Mooretwin (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The informers were confirmed as such in documents captured from the British, documents including but not limited to the documents confirming the existing of the "Loyalist Action Group". O Fenian (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say this in the article, and which source makes this claim? Mooretwin (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can't see where it says this in the article, sourced or otherwise. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and is therefore misleading by stating "informers" rather than "alleged informers", as there is nothing in the article to demonstrate that those killed were confirmed as informers, without dispute. I shall amend the lede until such time as sourced information is provided in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Lead section is part of the manual of style, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view are policies. Attempting to bring the article in line with the former does not allow you to violate the latter policies. Feel free to add it to the rest of the article if it bothers you that much, but do not amend sourced content again. Now will Mooretwin improve the article, or will he push a point-of-view? Difficult one.. O Fenian (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the sourced content to confirm that they were all informers? Neither you nor I have been able to identify it. So I am not violating any policies in seeking to ensure that the lede reflects the article. If the article doesn't demonstrate that they were anything other than alleged informers, then the lede should refer to alleged informers. Ironically, in insisting that the lede refers to "informers" and not "alleged informers", it appears that you are "pushing a point-of-view". Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

They were not informers. They were law abiding citizens in a war-zone where they were a minority. A neutral statement would be that they assisted the police and army as was expected of good citizens. Some may have been more bravely loyal than others but you would need to indicate which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynire (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not a neutral look at their activities. A neutral look is that they were informers, without taking any position as to whether their activities were right or wrong. Which is exactly what calling them informers without further elaboration does, it does not take sides. O Fenian (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Where's the evidence to say that they were informers? I note your failure to respond above. (Please try to avoid being cryptic when you respond.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Try this one O Fenian: if a woman in the house next door to you was being raped and you rang the Garda, are you an informer, pure and simple? --Fynire (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That question is not germane to the matter under discussion. O Fenian (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No - in terms of criminal activities that argument might have some validity and then only if the information being passed to authorities permitted legal action, i.e army, police or judicary, came from inside the offending organisation. If you are prepared to accept that the IRA was a criminal organisation, then informers might just be the right terminology. If you wish to cast the IRA as a political orgainsation then informer is patently the wrong term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.121.87 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in your opinion of whether they were informers or not or whether it is an appropriate term, only whether a reliable source identifies them as informers with irrefutable evidence to substantiate it. O Fenian (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not "Murder"?

Killing were refered to by Arthur Griffith as "murders", and were not legal by any objective standards of the day. Therefore, they were murders, not the morally ambiguous "killings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womblewilly (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Killing is a neutral term, murder is not. O Fenian (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If we can have categories like "Murdered Irish American", what is the problem. In what way do the killings not fit the definition of murder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womblewilly (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not our job to define events. We do not take sides, which is how the article it as present. Arthur Griffith's views are in the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree entirely in the sense that if the event itself fits the definition of "murder" or anything else. I am not taking sides, but "killing of informers" itself is itself taking sides with the party which committed illegal acts. If you object to "murder" then perhaps a more neutral statement would be "illegal killing" or "illegal premeditated killing".Womblewilly (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it taking sides? It is presenting a neutral summary of events. Informers were killed, it does not say it was right, it does not say it was wrong, we only report the views of others as to whether it was right or wrong. O Fenian (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but the words "killing" and "informer" are presented in such a way as to paint the individuals in an unsympathetic light. Equally, "murder" does not imply right or wrong - simply that it was illegal and premeditated. That the killings were illegal and premeditated is beyond doubt. Also, I think some of the families of the dead would dispute that they were informers. The evidence is second-or-third hand at best and unverifiable at this point. "alleged informers" is closer to a non-POV statement. Womblewilly (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to politically motivated killings, the consensus on Misplaced Pages as a whole is to use neutral terminology such as killing and describe convictions using murder. Otherwise during the War of Independence itself it would cease to be a war, and simply be the IRA, Auxies and Black and Tans all "murdering" each other. There is a discussion above regarding the informers, they were identified as informers in captured British documents. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly an act of warfare. As a reminder, as ceasefire was in place at the time. Anyway, to avoid the appearance of POV, I have simply added the factually verifiable statement that the killings were unlawful. They were executed (pardon the pun) under no law of Dail Éireann or Westminster. The capture British documents did not identify all those killed by first name. In some instances, only surname was used, so those killed could not be absolutely identified as definitive informers. Also note that Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and to the best of my knowledge, the British document no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womblewilly (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the document identified all those listed by both names. In the case of two people killed only their surnames matched, as they were the relatives of the informers. Please revert your edit, or I will report you for a breach of the three revert rule. O Fenian (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly reverting "alleged" in a mo.Womblewilly (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have much bigger problems with this article as it now stands than just this, but just on the "informer" document. Is there anyone else apart from Meda Ryan who can vouch for its existence? Honest question. Because if not then how can it be treated as irrefutable proof of anything? Why does the article say "Meda Ryan is right, everyone else is wrong"?

Secondly, if they were killed because they were informers on the IRA, then why does the article resist saying that it was IRA members or republicans that did it? Again, honest question Jdorney (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First question, Media Ryan is not the only source for the documents, and second question, they were informers per question one and it is not known who carried out the attacks. That we don't know exactly who carried out the attack, it does not change the fact that they were informers. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. If there are other historians who can vouch for the informer document, who are they? Names and publications please.

If we don't know who killed them, then how do we know they were killed because they were informers? And why is this theory given more prominence than any other? Jdorney (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would have been able to answer the first question yourself, since you have the book with the additional sources cited by Media Ryan. As to your second question, I suggest you read the article, the Lead section I would have thought explained it well enough, however if that was not clear enough, the section titled "Suggested motivation" would be an obvious place also. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not answer the question. Meda Ryan's book claims this. Does any other historian?Jdorney (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So Media Ryan cites another published source, exactly what you asked for, and now you want another one? Put another way, find a source that challanges Media Ryan as a source, or challanges the sources that Ryan cites or this discussion is going no were. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

One book does not count as two sources. Ryan cites various sources to make her point. my question is does any other historian vouch for the document. It's quite simple. Yes or no? Jdorney (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the answer is "no": Meda Ryan (or "Media" Ryan as Domer calls her) is the only source. Mooretwin (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As Per my comments above, cite a source that challangs the information or move on. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Meda Ryan is obviously at the centre of a huge conspiracy. Knowing a then unknown Peter Hart would years later write a book that attempted to paint Republicans in a bad light, she anticipated what he would write and conducted interviews and planted documents that she could use at a later date to contradict Hart. That sounds plausible doesn't it? Hart's version of events contains some items of interest, like the killers asking for each man by name. Why would they do that, if they were happy just to kill any Protestant men? How many homes were there in the area where Catholics and Protestants lived under the same roof (Census records for the time tend to suggest approximately none)? Hart's version is also suffering from significant omissions, from when Meda Ryan's work was conducted at least one person and probably others had died by the time he conducted his "research" (although that doesn't normally stop him interviewing them!!), and he deliberately does not quote a sentence from a key document as it directly contradicts his pet theory. O Fenian (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, first of all, there are several sources which challenge Ryan's version. Off the top of my head, Peter Hart, Tim Pat Coogan and all the contemporary press - which all say the killings were revenge for the shooting of the IRA officer in the Hornibrooke house. So the question is quite valid. Are there any other sources that can vouch for this document. Yes or no?

OFenian, first, on a point of info, Ryan updated her book on Tom Barry after Harte published IRA and its Enemies" to rebut his arguments. So its not a conspiracy one way or the other. Second, what you are arguing is that we favour one source, Ryan or over another. Actually several others. This is not NPOV. Jdorney (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian's views about Ryan and Harte are very interesting, but unfortunately not notable. The fact that O Fenian favours "Media" Ryan's interpretation of events should not mean that the article should favour her interpretation. The article should explain that there is more than one interpretation. I believe this is WP policy. Mooretwin (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney could you possibly start your posts with "once upon a time" because it has been illustrated often enough now, that while you can cite things off the top of your head, the references never appear. Just because rent a row shows up with nothing more than a POV, does not change the fact that you have both provided nothing. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say about the content, please don't contribute. Jdorney (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of lede disputed

Note that I've put a tag on the lede and directed discussion here. The issues (discussed above) appear to be that the lede, and the article, favour Meda Ryan's interpretation of events, i.e. that those killed were all unquestionably informers. The article, however, does not actually state that they were all "confirmed" as informers and there is no mention of any judicial process having taken place to establish the "guilt" of those killed. It also appears that other authors do not agree with Ryan. "Alleged informers" therefore appears to be the appropriate way to describe those killed. Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you can not support your POV on the talk page does not mean the article is POV. If there are sources which dispute the text, add them. If you can not provide sources, don't bother raising it here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to "support a POV". Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm trying to find out the basis for saying in the lede that those killed were all informers, when there appears to be nothing in the article to support this. It seems, therefore, to be contrary to NPOV to say in the lede that ten of those killed were informers. Neither me nor O Fenian can identify anywhere in the text that says that these people were informers. I have no source to say that they were all informers, so I can't add anything to support such a claim.

A further complication is that O Fenian says that Ryan says they were all informers, but unhelpfully, won't identify the source for this. But Jdorney says that other authors disagree with Ryan. If this is the case, then there is a NPOV violation in the lede, since the lede takes Ryan's side without attributing this and acknowledging that other authors disagree. Mooretwin (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source that the people killed weren't informers? BigDunc 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source to say that you don't beat your wife? Would the absence of such a source mean that it was acceptable to say that you do beat your wife? Or would the onus be on the accuser to provide the source to prove the assertion, rather than on the accused to disprove it? Mooretwin (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a source that says they were informers and only you and your merry band of POV pusher mates that say different, we go with the source it is verifiability not truth. BigDunc 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again, then. Where in the article does it say that they were all informers, and what source is provided to back up the statement? Mooretwin (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Note that I've put a notice at WP:NPOV concerning the removal of the POV tag.) Mooretwin (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Among other places. BigDunc 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What matters here, the crux of the issue, is whether the Meda Ryan position is a) one from a WP:RS and b) not contradicted by other WP:RS on the subject. If the position meets those criteria than there isn't an NPOV problem with the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Simonm223 for your input. Media Ryan is a WP:RS, and no she is not contradicted by other WP:RS on the subject. Could I possibly use your post above the next time this merry band of POV pushers try out the same nonsence on the other articles they operate on, or should I just ask you on your talk page to repeat the same message to them again, and again and again? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is understood that I have not commented directly on the reliability of Ryan as a source. My statement was purely if condition a and b are true then there is not NPoV violation in the lede and makes no decisions about either condition as I just don't know. As there is a dispute over what the Ryan source actually says I would appreciate it if the a block quote of the text from the Ryan source that specifies that the victims were informers could be posted here on talk.Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Providing a quote is no problem Simonm223, however lets first allow Jdorney the oppertunity to do so, since they were the one who went to WP:3O. They have the book, but still suggest its POV. If they fail to provide it, I will of course be more than happy to do so. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm in no particular rush. I was drawn here from NPoV commentary and only want to help make sure article meets WP:NPoV appropriately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all Simonm223, thanks for the calm reasonable approch. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that one interpretation of the event, ie Meda Ryan's, is being actively promoted at the expense of the other versions. So, do the other sources disagree? Yes. Peter Hart, the IRA and its Enemies p.282, On motivation "It was undoubtedly O'Neill's death which sparked the following three nights of raids and murders." On identity of killers, p283, "the killers were clearly active members of the Anti-Treaty IRA". On the informer theory p.285, "The Protestant community in Bandon and elsewhere in Cork, had with very few exceptions, been very reticent during the Tan War and provided far more frustration than support to Crown forces".

Ok, so that's Peter Hart, Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins, p358-359 "Ironically one of the worst outbreaks of sectarian killing was in Collins' home district. It began when an Anti-Treaty commandant, O'Neill, was shot dead when he called to a Protestant owned farm near Bandon on April 25. Three Protestants were shot dead at Dunmanyway and over the next week the latent sectarianism of centuries of ballads and landlordism claimed a total of ten Protestnat lives". OS we can see two things, no mention of informers and, again, revenge for O'Neill's death as motive.

Right, third source, New York Times, April 28 1922, , "the fact that all the victims are Protestant gives cause to the greatest alarm as to the motive. It is feared that the murders are reprisals for the murders of Catholics in Belfast, but in the same district the commandant of the Irish Republican Army was shot dead in his house by a Protestant farmer on Wenesdy morning...It is not known if this had any connection with the subsequent crimes". So, again, no infomers and again, the suggestion that revenge for O'Neill's death was the motive.

Ok, so that's three sources. One flatly contradicts the informer argument. The other two do not mention it. All three give revenge as the motivation. Lets be clear here, I don not want the Peter Hart version. I want the NPOV version. But at the moment we have the Meda Ryan version and that is POV Jdorney (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright I'd like to draft a neutral lede, considering WP:BALANCE but I need to see the Ryan quote first if possible. Thanks for the assistance. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Meda Ryan's version. First, Ryan cites the seizure of Auxiliary Division papers by the IRA in early 1922, when the Auxiliaries were withdrawn from their barracks at the workhouse in Dunmanway. p157, "The Dunmanway 'find' confirmed the existence of a British Loyalist vigilante type organisation called, 'The Loyalist Action Group', known locally as the Protestant Action Group'. But it had nothing to do with religious practice. This espionage underground organisation was affiliated to the County Anti-Sinn Fein Society (League), Unionist Anti-Partition League and to the Grand Organge Lodge of Ireland."

Second, the main body on the killings. p158. "Over a three day period, a spate of killing took place in west Cork The outrages were sparked when Capt Woods shot IRA man Michael O'Neill in the hallway of Thomas Hornibrooke's house at Ballygroman, near Ballincollig on Wednesday 26". A few lines down. Some days, later (though it is not reported in the Irish daily newspapers) Capt. Woods, Thomas Hornibrooke, and his son Samuel went missing unaccounted for, and in time presumed killed. Thier house was burned sometime after the incident. Over the next few days more men from the same area and the same outlook - loyal Protestants in the Dunmany-Ballineen-Murragh area. Three were from Dunmanway, seven including the 'principle victim, Revd. Ralph Harbord (son of revd Richard C.M. Harbord), Murragh Rectory, were from the Balineen area. All of these named were associated wit hthe 'Loyalist Action Group'. On that same night 27 April, a post office official, son of a process server, sherrif's officer and caretaker of the masonic lodge, was shot dead. Because the men killed at this period were Protestant and as teh majority of the IRA were Catholic, an insinuation has arisen in recent years, that the motive for killing the men was sectarian".

Informer allegations. p159: Yet all of the surnames (in the Dunmanway/Balineen/Enniskeane district) of those shot in the closing days of April 1922, were listed as helpful citizens' in teh Dunmanway 'find'. But teh first names of two of those fatally shot are not on the list only the last names are there. In one case, a son was shot when his father was not at home. An elderly man was also shot instead of his brother who had been 'wanted' by the IRA, and he had been, 'one of the men' who 'fingered' IRA men resulting in their arrests torture and the deaths. Those who saw the document knew the names fo the helpful citizens - some of whom 'escaped'. (Only one loyalist was listed in the diary, the others were in separate dossiers)".

Ryan's source for this information is listed in her notes on p329. "Dan Calahane, author interview 25/2/1981. He had the diary and documents and studied them carefully. Flor Crowley studied and worked on this 'find'. Though many of the names are in Tom Barry's private papers, in letter, arising out of his investigation, there is not an exact copy of the lists".Jdorney (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's not just the lead that's the problem. The whole article as it stands is POV, by actively supporting the above and dismissing the other sources.Jdorney (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree Simonm223, so we have one source (Hart) which does not contradict Ryan, however does offer another motive for the killing i.e. simply that they were Protestants. So we should also see what information Hart puts forward to support this conclusion as Media Ryan has done. Now as to how relilable Hart as an historian is concerned, as opposed to Ryan, we must consider that Hart did interview dead people, and his book "The IRA and its Enemies" was the subject of a book its self titled "Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies" by Dr. Brian P. Murphy osb, a member of the Benedictine Community and author of a number of books on Irish History, Niall Meehan, Head of the Journalism & Media Faculty, Griffith College, Dublin, and Dr. Ruan O'Donnell, Head of the History Department, University of Limerick who is also an established author of books on Irish history. So Simonm223 is again correct we must consider WP:BALANCE and also WP:WEIGHT which is equally important. We can also find out what is wrong with the current wording for the Lead section "The motivation behind the killings has generated differences of opinion among historians, including the conclusions they have reached. At least one historian has claimed that the incident had sectarian motives, but this is contradicted by a number of historians as unsupported by the evidence." Is this not an accurate reflection on the article section titled "Suggested motivation"? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So the reliablilty of the Hart source is questioned. What about the Coogan and NYT references? Any objection to use of them? Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we be in the business of questioning sources in the first place? I would argue that Ryan has based an awful lot on aninterview with someone about a document she had not seen and her interviewee was not in possession of at the time. But we are not supposed to cross-examining sources here on WP. Peter Hart certainly annoyed a lot of people in Ireland of the nationalist view, with the "IRA and its Enemies" but that does not mean he is not a reliable source. He is a very promiently published academic. Moreover, what all the sources on Dunmanway, actually including Ryan, argue is that the killings were in response to the death of IRA comdt. Michael O'Neill. Hart says this is because they were Protestants and men. So does Coogan. The NYT says maybe. Ryan says it was because they were informers. There are, to my knowledge, no other sources that say this. The article should therefore be more balanced to reflect this. Jdorney (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we be in the business of questioning sources? Actually... yes.

As per: WP:RS. If a source is unreliable (say because it engaged in poor scholarly discipline such as maintaining annonymous sources and credulously accepting primary sources of dubious provenance - I will not comment on the "interviewing dead people" comment as that remains to be seen, Hart claims to have tapes) it should not be leant as much weight as a reliable source. So if it were a symple matter of Ryan says yes Hart says no than, based on what I have seen, NPoV would lean towards yes. However I still need to weigh the reliability of the Coogan and NYT references provided. NYT is generally a RS. Coogan I have no knowledge of. Simonm223 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so Ryan citing a document she has never seen? I can't say it's not true, but basically she's going on the word of one old man in 1981. It's ok to include it but basing the whole article on it, I don't agree with. Jdorney (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not one source has been given to say they weren't informers but we get Hart is is discredited for his chats with dead people, the NY Times editorialises and Coogan who by the way is a RS speculates on the killings. BigDunc 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the other sources propose reasons for the killing other than the assertion that the dead may have been informers. Currently the article states that the victims were informers as if it were an iron clad fact. I am not convinced this is the case. Now I'm not pulling for an NPoV tag to be put on the article just yet as I think this is an easy fix. I just want to work on building consensus before I start editing so I thought it would be prudent to familiarize myself with the salient points first. Although I disagree over the veracity of the "talking to dead people" comment I would concur that Hart does not appear to be an entirely reliable source. He suffers from a milder case of some of the same revisionist history errors perpetrated so flagrantly by Gavin Menzies. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a source (Marcus Tanner (2003) Ireland's Holy Wars: The Struggle for a Nation's Soul, 1500-2000. Yale University Press), which mentions the massacre. It does not, however, state that those killed were informers. Tanner says (pp.291-292):

But Protestants were in a worse position than ever: they became a prime target for anti-treaty forces. The year before they had been picked off as supporters of the British. Now they paid for loyalty to the Free State. ... The danger was far greater in the Republican stronghold of Kerry and Cork, the scene of the worst sectarian killings in the previous two years. Almost a month before Gregg's brush with the troops in Dublin eight Protestants were killed in and around Dunmanway, County Cork. The murders in Dunmanway were particularly brutal. ... ... . ... The result, as intended, was the flight of 100 remaining Protestants from the Bandon area on the next boat train to England.

So, it seems that Ryan is the only source that says the victims were informers. Therefore I propose that the first sentence of the lede does not mention informers or motives, but that this is dealt with in the third sentence. The lede would therefore read something like The Dunmanway Massacre refers to the killings of ten Protestants in and around Dunmanway, County Cork between 26 April and 28 April 1922. It is not clear who ordered the attacks or carried them out but both Pro- and anti-Treaty Sinn Féin representatives immediately condemned the killings . The motivation behind the killings has generated differences of opinion among historians, including the conclusions they have reached. According to Meda Ryan, the victims were killed for being informers, whereas other historians have suggested sectarian motives. Mooretwin (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Currently the article states that the victims were informers as if it were an iron clad fact. I am not convinced this is the case." Precisely. the whole article needs to be de-poved on this point. I have no problem including Ryan. I do have a problem completely endorsing her view at the expense of the other sources. Jdorney (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How many of the sources dispute that the files found in Dunmanway contained the names of thoes who were shot? If we have a source that says the documents don't exist, or did not contain the names of those killed we will need to see it. Hart as a reliable source is very questionable, with sources cited to support this, while claims by an editor about Media Ryan not seeing the document, or simply basing her views on an interview are simply not true. There is no source to date in my knowledge which disputes the fact that they were informers, and if ther is, we would all like to see it. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone other than "Media" Ryan, as you call her, state that those killed were informers? If not, then Ryan is the only author who has written about these killings who has made this claim. The article should therefore attribute the claim to Ryan. The fact that you and other republican editors personally agree with Ryan's conclusions is not relevant. Calling for people to provide sources to prove a negative is disingenuous. Mooretwin (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan has shown why they were killed with the backup of Brit documents, the rest have speculated that it might have been sectarian, just because you and your fellow loyalists don't like it is tough. BigDunc 09:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a "loyalist", and I doubt that Jdorney is. The fact remains that Ryan is the only author to make this claim. The basis of her claim should be discussed in the main text, as can the veracity of Hart's and others' claims. Currently, the text doesn't even appear to explain to the reader what (according to Ryan) the documents say, and doesn't appear to state, never mind explain, Ryan's assertion that the documents named those killed as informers. The article is poorly written. Mooretwin (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. Meda Ryan's notes make clear that her entire argument is based on an interview in 1981 with a man, Dan Culahane, who said he had seen this list. Meda Ryan does not claim to have seen it. In fact she says, "there is not an exact copy of lists." (p329) This does not prove anything. It's mere speculation. And no other author supports her version. Jdorney (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please provide a source which disputes that the files found in Dunmanway contained the names of thoes who were shot? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From my reading the source says that the files found in Dunmanway contained the surnames of the victims and these matched the surnames of some local informers. However assuming that religious tendencies follow family lines this could support an hypothesis that they were killed for being informers. It could also support an hypothesis that they were killed for being protestant as payback for the slaying of an important IRA member. From what I've seen from both sides of this Ryan's assertion that the victims were informers is an opinion, an educated opinion surely, but an opinion nonetheless and not a fact. As such a neutral lede should present it that way unless there is corroboration. With that said Hart's statements don't appear to be grounded in good academic practice and should not be relied upon as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The files contained the full names of those killed in only two cases were only the surnames given. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry I misread the quote the first time. ok, notwithstanding that, it might still be a good idea to soften the first line of the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, how could any source dispute the 'informer list', when no one, including Meda Ryan has seen it? Agan, none of the other sources even mention it. Here are another two. Peter Cottrell, The Anglo-Irish War, the Troubles of 1913-1922, p78, "The incident at Ballygroman House sparked two further nights of violence as armed gangs raided Protestant households in the Dunmanway area, killing ten men . NIall C Harrington, Kerry Landing, August 1922, p8, "Over a hundred Protestant families fled West Cork after a series of sectarian killings in which ten Protestant males were shot dead". Once again, no mentions of informers. Once again, sectarianism and revenge as the motive. So why does the lead say, "one historian says it was sectarian and others disagree"? It is clearly the other way around. All the soruces except for Meda Ryan say it sectarian. And only she has teh informer angle.

Re Hart, Simonm232, are you aware that his critics come from a distinct ideological background? He is cited extensively in all the recent academic literature on this period of Irish history. Ryan, a highly partisan amateur historian, is not. I'd go so far as to say he's been a bit sloppy sometimes, and exagerated his conclusions but to say he's discredited for use on WP when he's accepted by his academic peers is going too far. Taking Meda Ryan as a reliable source and excluding Peter Hart is frankly bizarre. But again, I don't ant the Peter Hart version in this article, I just want it reflect the balance of the sources and not Meda Ryan's opinion.Jdorney (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please lets be clear here, how many sources say the killings were sectarian? Of the "Over a hundred Protestant families fled West Cork" how many were also on the lists of "helpful" citizens. Media Ryan notes a number were given safe paggage out of the country. You don't mention that I see. Now, as to Hart, who comes from a distinct ideological background, has and is cited extensively in all the recent academic literature on this period of Irish history because of his "sloppy sometimes, and exagerated his conclusions" were as Media Ryan has not. Hart is and has been extensively discredited. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How many sources say it was sectarian? At least six at the last count. You can count them below in the proposed lead section. The rest, I'm not sure what point you're making Domer. I don't accept that Hart is discredited. As he is cited on all the recent academic literature. Jdorney (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN. Hart is discredited, just because you don't accept it makes no difference. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hart is not discredited in the eyes of his peers. Meda Ryan published "Tom Barry, IRA Freedom Fighter" in 2003. If she had discredited Hart, he should not have been cited in the following years by reputable authors. The following academic authors have cited Hart in published works since then,

• Richard English, Armed Struggle, A History of the IRA (2003) and Irish Freedom, The History of Nationalism in Ireland (2006).
• Michael Hopkinson, The Irish War of Independence (2004).
• Robert Lynch, The Northern IRA and the Early Years of Partition (2006).
• Michael Harrington, The Munster Republic, The Civil War in North Cork (2008).
• Gerry White & Brendan O'Shea, The Burning of Cork (2006)

It's clear that Peter Hart's work has not been discredited in the eyes of his peers. Jdorney (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And did they cite the parts of his work that have been discredited? I find it amusing that Jdorney seeks to discredit Meda Ryan so much over her use of sources, yet has nothing to say about Peter Hart's use of anonymous interviews, at least one of which either did not occur at all or took place with someone who completely misrepresented his credentials. O Fenian (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new lede

The Dunmanway Massacre refers to the killing of ten Protestants civilians and the disappearance and presumed death of another three in and around Dunmanway, County Cork during 26–28 April 1922. The killings occurred after the Anglo-Irish Treaty and before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War, at a time when the Irish Republican Army were in control of west Cork. It is not clear who ordered the attacks or carried them out, but Sinn Féin and IRA representatives (pro-treaty and anti-treaty) immediately condemned the killings. The motivation behind the killings has generated differences of opinion among historians. It is generally agreed that they were "sparked" by the killing of an IRA commandant Michael O'Neill by a local loyalist named Samuel Woods. Woods and the two men he was living with subsequently disappeared. Why the ten Protestants were targeted the following week is disputed. It has been widely reported that the attacks were sectarian however one historian has recently claimed that the dead were named in a British file as informers

Jdorney (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with your POV pushing crap its getting a bit boaring now at this stage. Lets stick with the references and not your make beleive world. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the proposal, which is, despite what Domer says, referenced. It would be helpful if Domer explained his objections rather than making personal attacks on another editor. Mooretwin (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN. Your a POV pushing editor, if you want I'll support my comments with diff's? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil and do not engage in personal attacks. Please restrict your comments to the text. If you have objections to the proposed text, you are at liberty to spell them out. Interventions such as these are unhelpful. Mooretwin (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite clearly extensively referenced. Civil please. Thanks. Jdorney (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You should also read WP:OR and WP:SYN. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those apply. They are all secondary sources.Jdorney (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes no difference, try reading WP:OR and WP:SYN again.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to downplay the Meda Ryan source as no sources actively contradict that information. I softened the lede somewhat based on the lack of corroborating sources. My opinion, as a neutral and uninvolved third party with no Ireland related axes to grind at the moment is to suggest that the version I put in is neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, can you please point out why you think that violates WP:OR and WP:SYN? I'll reply then.

Simon, the problem here is that all the other sources (including ones published since) don't even mention this angle. Nor can it be checked as, according to Meda Ryan, "no exact copy of the lists exists". So it remains a theory but no more. Why should it be favoured over all the other sources? The other problem is that the lead doesn't currently mention the actual reason for the attacks, ie the killing of Michael O'Neill. I don't know think this is a pov issue. Just a factual one, since all the sources agree on this.16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see the killing of Michael O'Neill as reason for the massacre is also something of a nature nearly as speculative as the reasoning put forward by Meda Ryan. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive. Meda Ryan also gives O'Neill's killing as the "spark" that ignited the massacre. So does virtually every other source. What is disputed is why those particular people were targetted. And on this point, the lead right now tells us that only one source says the killings were (or were likely) motivated by sectarianism. In fact, each and every srouce except for Meda Ryan says this. So, once again, why is this source being promoted over all the others?Jdorney (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we are discounting Hart as a source. The NYT was speculating and that leaves Cooney. Who is a single source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As the saying goes, if you give enough rope. Now lets see what Jdorney has omitted to say about Media Ryan's research. On the documents discovered "The document was sensational-especially the list of informers' names. The meticulously kept record 'showed that the writer of this diary not only knew a great deal about the men of whom he wrote but that he was also expert in judging the details that mattered'." Ryan is citing Flor Crowley who analysed the diary and documents. Crowley notes that the IRA gathered 'quite a lot of paper' in this haul and that it was dispatched to their HQ, and that some of it made its way to Séan MacCárthaig IO for the IRA in Cork. This was all extensively covered in the Southern Star newspaper on 23 October, 30 October, 6 November, 13 November and the 20 November 1971, and cited by Ryan. Ryan also interviewed Dan Cahalane who had the diary and documents and like Crowley had studied them carefully, and she also notes that many of the names in the documents also appear in the private papers of Tom Barry. To even have suggested that evidence for the diary and documents rests with Media Ryan is a deliberate distortion of the facts. Now on page 213 of Ryan's book it states that "of those shot in the closing days of April 1922 were listed as 'helpful citizens' in the Dunmanway 'find'." She continued "Those who saw the documents knew the names on the 'helpful citizens'-some of whom 'escaped.'"

Based on this information Simonm223, and the sources cited by Ryan, that the use of the words "likely" and "purported" in the lead is not supported by or reflective off the sources used. That they were informers is beyond doubt, and the lead should reflect that.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If an additional source is needed in support of Media Ryan, we could cite Fr. Brian Murphy osb, who in the Irish Political review Vol 20 July 2005 who writes "I concluded by observing that, 'in short, evedence from this British source confirms that the IRA killings in the bandon area were motivated by political and not sectarian considerations.'" This can also be cited in "Troubled History" which I cited above. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Include those other sources in the article and I'd not dispute the change. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Simonm223, does this now address the suggestion that Media Ryan is the only source for the documents?--Domer48_'fenian' 18:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. I'll keep Dunmanway Massacre on watch for a while in case trouble flares up. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon, as listed above there are a total of six sources

• New York Times, April 28, 1922
• Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins, p359
• Marcus Tanner, Ireland's Holy War, p291-292
• Peter Cotrell, the Anglo-Irish War, The Troubles of 1913-1922, p78
• Niall C Harrington, Kerry Landing, August 1922, p8
• Peter Hart, The IRA and its Enemies, p282-285

which cite a sectarian motive. Re Hart, I don't accept discounting his work as a source, as I've outlined in the section above, as he is consistently cited in all the academic literature. Once again, and this is an honest question; Why is Meda Ryan's version more credible than all the other sources? If there is another source that agrees with Ryan, that's ok. But again, does that mean that this interpretation in right and all the others wrong?

Domer, Re the facts, they are that Meda Ryan does not have the lists, never had the lists and the only person who did have them and who said that all the people killed on April 26-28 were listed there as informers, was Dan Calahane, an IRA man. Ryan interviewed him in 1981 and he is the only listed source connecting documents captured in February with the people killed in April. It's all on p329.

Re the Southern Star and Flor Crowley, they do not lnk the documents with the Dunmanway killings. Again look at p 329. The source is Dan Calahne interview. Re Tom Barry, she says, "Though many of the names are in Tom Barry's private papers, in letters, arising out of his investigation, there is no exact copy of the lists". Jdorney (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Some advice, stop digging! You really should read WP:SYN, I did tell you. Re: "the facts" I've outlined them above. Here is another "fact" for you. When you invite a third opinion, present them with all the "facts" and not the fairy tales that you have tried above. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could confine yourself to the content and stop the personal attacks? Thanks. Jdorney (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am commenting on content, your content. If you have a problem with it being described as "fairy tales" I more than happy to describe it simply WP:OR. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the six sources listed, let's hear it. Jdorney (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that the absence of agreement is not the same as evidence of disagreement. Are there actually any sources that unambiguously dispute these men were informers? O Fenian (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim that they were informers goes unmentioned in most of the sources. It would seem appropriate therefore to make it clear that the informer angle is only proposed as a theory by some. Mooretwin (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the absence of agreement is not evidence of disagreement. O Fenian (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Making it clear that the informer angle is only proposed as a theory by some would accurately reflect the historical assessment of the events, which is what a WP article should be seeking to achieve. Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the sources, you would realise that your comments are wrong. O Fenian (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that cryptic comment: helpful as ever. If my comments are wrong, then so too are everyone else's, as Ryan and the priest are the only sources mentioned so far who say that those killed were informers. Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OFenian, in answer to your question, the position re historical debate as I understand it is this. The incident was reported at the time as a probable sectarian attack, though more directly linked to the killing of Michael O'Neill. Hence this is what you'll find in the New York Times (and the other press, whose achives are not online).

In historical accounts where it's mentioned, you again get this version, In Dorothy McCardle's Irish Republic, p705 (1937). In Tim Pat Coogan's Michael Collins (1990), p358-358, In Niall Harrington's Kerry Landings (1992).

Peter Hart in The IRA and its Enemies, (1998) went much further by explicitly saying it was the anti-treaty IRA that did it and that it was part of much more widespread campaign of intimidation against Protestants. Peter Cotrel's Anglo-Irish War (2006) endorses Hart's version but seems to be based on Hart's own research.

Meda Hart re-published and updated her Tom Barry Story (1982), with Tom Barry Freedom Fighter in 2003, specifically to rebut Hart, principally on Kilmichael and Dunmanway. Regarding Dunmanway, to my knowledge she is the first author to say those killed at Dunmanway were informers. She did this on the basis of an interview with an IRA veteran, Dan Calahane in 1981, who told her they were on a list of informers. Has she been contradicted? Not publicly no, except by Peter Hart. But has she been endorsed by other researchers. Again, no, except by Brian Murphy apparently, though I haven't seen what he has written so can't comment.

So what we are left with? Roughly 80 years of reports saying it was probably a revenge attack on loyalist Protestants for the death of Michael O'Neill, one account that says it was an anti-Protestant pogrom and one that says it was a killing of informers. Should the article reflect this balance and not promote either Peter Hart's or Meda Ryan's versions? Jdorney (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Tribal Patrol" (Eoghan Harris, 2009) prefers to assert Ryan's version as preferred version. They will not give up. Mooretwin (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alleged or likely

The current lede says that those killed were "likely informers", which is awful English. What is wrong with saying that they were alleged informers? As there was no judicial process to establish their "guilt", all that we can say, surely, is that they were alleged informers. Mooretwin (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would remove both, but certain loyalist POV warriors seem to have a problem with facts they do not agree with. O Fenian (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, it is those seeking to achieve a neutral POV - not "POV warriors" - who wish to temper the tone of the article so that it does not subscribe exclusively to a particular interpretation. Please try to remain civil and stick to discussing the text. Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the section above titled "Neutrality of lede disputed" an outside opinion was sought, a determination was reached in the section titled "Proposed new lede" and the wording was changed to reflect the source used, supported in the section of the article titled "Suggested motivation." Now Mooretwin, you were the one who looked for this outside view on NPOV, and have decided to ignore it. They were not described as "likely informers", or "alleged informers" but as informers plain and simple. This is supported and backed up with evidence and not just opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't address the question. Is "alleged" not preferable to "likely", for reasons of good writing if nothing else? Mooretwin (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The current intro says "the killing of ten Protestant informers, including two of their relatives and the disappearance and presumed death of another three" ... this mightn't be very important, but should it not say "the killing of eight Protestant informers, two of their relatives, and the disappearance and presumed death of another three" ? ~Asarlaí 13:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

IP removing sourced content

It appears another IP has joined the cause of the removal of the word informers from this article, it is sourced what they were and it also mentions that not all of them were informers which was an issue raised earlier. BigDunc 13:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Plus Fynire is still attempting to add deliberate factual errors into the article, as Coogan, Ryan and even Harris say 10 dead. Harris's version of the three alleged deaths also differs from other accounts, so lord knows where he's getting his information. That 3 were declared legally dead years later is of no relevance, as such proceedings do not say when someone died only that they are dead. The article says 10 dead and 3 presumed dead, so the infobox must match. O Fenian (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming absurd. If you are dead or presumed dead you are dead. --Fynire (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Harris talks of 10 being "pulled from their beds" not 10 only killed. This article deals with the broader time frame and the three from the Hornibrook family are plainly part of that. --Fynire (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says 10 dead and 3 presumed dead, so the infobox must match. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So put in 13. Presumed dead is dead. How would you gauge death Team O Fenian/Domer? Would you have to touch the corpse? --Fynire (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumed dead is not the same as confirmed dead. O Fenian (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, presumed (To assume true without proof) is not the same as dead. BigDunc 09:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

TV programme on RTÉ

I've removed the WP:OR from this section. The information removed was not in the source at all. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Background section

I realise we are still in the middle of sorting out the pov section. This will hopefully clear up some of the problems the article has. However I want to bring up another point. The background section at the moment is a very poor introduction to the article.

• First, two thirds of it are about whether the Treaty and the June 1922 elections were valid. This is irrelevant to this article and should be removed. Put it on the Anglo-Irish Treaty page.
• Secondly the June elections happened two month after the events at Dunmanway, so could not have influenced them. This too should be deleted.

• Three, there is some very important information missing.

• A; Part of IRA operations in Cork during the War of Independence was collective reprisals on loyalists. After the British in December 1921 started burning republicans' houses in so called "offical repsisals", the IRA responded by burning loyalist houses (many of which were Protestant) (Tom Barry, Guerrila Days in Ireland, p214).
• B; The terms of the Truce - the IRA and the British both committed to no patrols, no intelligence gathering and no offensive operations against either enemy personal or informers or their property. Both sides broke these terms the day before the Ballgroman house incident. The British for sending intelligence offiers into Macroom. The IRA for imprisoning and killing them and then trying to comandeer Hornibrooke's car. (Paul McMahon, British Spies and Irish Rebels p66)
• C; British forces had withdrawn from the area as of February 1922. The only British forces left in Cork was one battalion of the British Army in Cork city. So there were no British forces to protect either loyalist, Protestants or informers. (McMahon p66) (Ryan p154, 156)
• D; the local IRA sided against the Treaty and were not under the control of the Free State Provisional Government. (Ryan p154, ) This also meant that the Government's forces were not in a position to prevent the attacks (Hart p27).

Comments welcome.

Jdorney (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

All of those points seem valid and relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make these changes. Jdorney (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We can deal with the background, when we have addresses the Lead. Whether the Treaty and the June 1922 elections were valid is not irrelevant, as the section title suggests "Background" like context is important. The June elections happened two month after the events at Dunmanway, again the "Background" or context behind the elections are important. If you wish to propose some additional text, please do so. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the discussion of the Treaty relevant to the Dunmanway massacre? And how could the June elections be relevant when they happened after? The additional stuff is outlined above. If, there are no objections, then it's going in.Jdorney (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And another thing. The assertion that, "both sides agreed to put it to the pople in a general election to decide whether to accept the Treaty and the disestablishment of the Republic", is simply wrong. The Treaty had already been passed and it and the Free State were already established facts. The issue was the first election for the Free State Dail. Jdorney (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"If, there are no objections, then it's going in" Well I've put forward some objections. Now I've pointed out a number of times how your facts and been proved wrong. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What are your objections to the four suggested additional pieces of text which Jdorney proposes adding in? Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And you're objections are...? It's not enough to say "I object". Re facts, which facts are wrong exactly?Jdorney (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets deal with my first two objections re: context and background. I'll deal with the rest then, one step at a time. In answer to dispute trolling buddy, my objections are context and background. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful and constructive if you explained your objections to the four proposed additions, so that we can narrow down the areas of dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my post above. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have. No explanations there. Jdorney (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No explanation of Domer's "objections" forthcoming, then. No reason not to insert the additional information. Mooretwin (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to remove reference to Protestants

A recent edit by BigDunc, in support of the same edit by Sarah, has removed reference to the fact that the victims of the killings at Ballygroman were Protestants, claiming that their religion is "not relevant". I find it difficult to accept any argument that religion is not relevant to anything to do with the ethnic divisions and conflicts in Ireland, but, even apart from this, their religions must surely be relevant in this particular context, given the allegations of sectarian motives. Mooretwin (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well trolling for a dispute is not uncommon with you, this being just another example. Now read the article to see why their religion is "not relevant". --Domer48_'fenian' 12:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil and do not attack other editors. Please try to be constructive. Mooretwin (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Its only an attack when it is unsupportable! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

1. Coogan, p359
2. Peter Hart, Pg.289
3. Irish Political Review Vol 20 No. 7 July 2005 (ISSN 0790-7672 pages 10-11
4. Meda Ryan, p.213
5. Meda Ryan, p164
6. Tom Barry, Guerrilla days in Ireland p. 214,
7. Irish Political Review Vol 20 No. 7 July 2005 (ISSN 0790-7672 pages 10-11
8. Tom Barry, p223-224
9. Meda Ryan Pg. 211-213
10. Tim Pat Coogan, Pg.359
11. Meda Ryan Pg. 211-213
12. New York Times, April 28, 1922
13. Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins, p359
14. Marcus Tanner, Ireland's Holy War, p291-292
15. Peter Cotrell, the Agnlo-Irish War, The Troubles of 1913-1922, p78
16. Niall C Harrington, Kerry Landing, August 1922, p8
17. Peter Hart, The IRA and its Enemies, p282-285
18. Meda Ryan, Tom Barry, IRA Freedom Fighter, p157-159.

• 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