Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:18, 24 February 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)

Domer, lets not be deliberately obtuse. Its very clear what I said, you've decided to interpret my comments as unhelpful, entirely due to the reasons I've listed above. Or is this the kind of comment geared towards making me make a retaliatory comment so you can go ahead, manipulate admins and get me banned? NewIreland2009 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc, please stop the bully tactics. Just because you do not agree with what has been said does not allow you to remove it and threatenen people with being blocked. For a very good reason, you do not have admin powers so please do not pretend you do. NewIreland2009 (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin's eyes are needed here. I know I will get blocked for the reversions, but as you can see the pair of gobshites by working together managed to implicate me, and make themselves innocent. This is ridiculous, what I said above still stands and its not a forum post; their subsequent actions have merely vindicated what I said about editors guarding articles. This is why these articles are of such a devastatingly poor quality, inconsistent, messy, and unencyclopedic. NewIreland2009 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Coogan, p359

• 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