Talk:Dunmanway killings/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Corrections and references.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ Some of those burnings were reprisals for the destruction of houses like O’Mahony’s of Belrose, Tom Tom Kelleher’s of Crowhill, and others which the Essex destroyed a few hours after they had captured and released me. in The value of those homes would total approximately three thousand pounds, but the I.R.A. exacted a heavy price in return, and destroyed property of active British supporters valued at least one hundred thousand pounds. First we burned to the ground in that district all the British Loyalists’ houses. Colonel Peacock’s home, Stephenson’s of Cor Castle, Brigadier- General Caulfield’s, Dennehy’s and Stennings’, all in the Inishannon district. ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing and comments

I've raised these issues on this talk page before some examples being here, here and here on omitting facts, getting references wrong, getting basic information like names wrong and adding text which is not in the reference but to no avail. I'm also having the same experience here, and raised some of the same issues. Now I don't mind editors being repeatedly canvassed, like here, here and here but the childish comments [1], [2] are un-called for please stop.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I give up

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

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

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

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

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

Latest blind reverts

Line 9

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

Line 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

Ok, I've archived the talk page with all its disputes. And I've reverted the article temporarily. The choice is between two competing versions of the article. This one [3] which is currently displayed. And this one [4]. Third Parties/moderators please state yours preferences Jdorney (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I ask you, is this constructive debate? Is it reasoned? Is it accepting good faith, talking about the issues? Does it help anyone trying to edit the article? Or is it Domer trying to 'win the edit war', as he says on his talk page [5]? (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Versions, Arbitration please

This one Dunmanway Massacre

And this one User:Jdorney/Dunmanway Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war over importance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) restore the "low" importance rating.

(b) move the article.

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

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

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

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

Category "War Crimes"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance or priority?

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

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

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

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

Whats the deal here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Jury and Dates

I see this para: "A local jury found Woods responsible and said that O'Neill had been 'brutally murdered in the execution of his duty.' Charlie O'Donoghue and Stephen O'Neill, who were present the night of the killing both attended the inquest. Hornibrook's house was burned some time after the incident.[20]"

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

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

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

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

April 2009

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

Dublin Review of Books and associated details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

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

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

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

On AGF and being constructive

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

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

Depends who uses it [6] and please read WP:AAGF. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed alt intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. User subpage is already there, link above.

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

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

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