Talk:Dunmanway killings/Archive 2

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.[6]" 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 [1] 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 [2] (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 [3] []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 [Hart] 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^Talk 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I brought the Fox source to the Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 [4] 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^Talk 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 [5] or earlier, on the following grounds

• No attempt made to find consensus per [6].
• 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 [7].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 Wikipedia 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^Talk 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 ^(talk) 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 [8] 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)

• [related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 3#Respondents feedback on Dunmanway Massacre Third opinion.]

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 Wikipedia 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. [Peter Hart, Pg.279-288]." 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." [Brian Murphy OSB, The Month, a Review of Christian Though and World Affairs, September-October 1998] In Peter Hart: the Issue of Sources, Murphy notes that Hart cites A Record of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1920-1921 [Jeudwine Papers, 72/8212, Imperial War Museum]. 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 [UK] 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. [Brian P Murphy OSB & Niall Meehan, Pg.25]." 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. [Meda Ryan Pg.213]" 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." [Brian P Murphy OSB & Niall Meehan, Pg. 24]" 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 [and not no “incontrovertible evidence” as you say] 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. [You will also be familiar with Strickland from Meda Ryan] 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 [Borgonovo’s] 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, "[Borgonovo] 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:

“ Hodder also alleged that Protestants in the area were being forcibly evicted from their farms by republicans on behalf of the Irish Transport Union, on the basis that they were bringing down wages, although she conceded that the local anti-Treaty IRA re-enstated them when it was informed ”

--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)