Talk:Dunmanway killings/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Describing the Protestant dead as informers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Informers or suspected informers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're being very unhelpful; which is contrary to the WP concept of collaborative editing. Are you relying on this: Over the next two days ten Protestant men were shot and killed in the Dunmanway, Ballineen and Murragh area. In Dunmanway on the 27th April, Francis Fitzmaurice – a solicitor and land agent – was shot dead. Fitzmaurice had during the 1919-21 period an "inside track" on both the IRA and their activities. Also that night David Grey, a chemist, and James Buttimer, a retired draper, were shot in the doorways of their homes on the Main St., Dunmanway; It was "firmly established" later that they had been informers, and that their information had done a great deal of damage to the IRA.[25] In Grey's case as a ten-year old girl averred to Meda Ryan, he sought out "information from children in their innoence." Consequently she said they were warned against chatting with Grey despite his kindness.[26]? Mooretwin (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not "Murder"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality of lede disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, third source, New York Times, April 28 1922, [1], "the fact that all the victims are Protestant gives cause to the greatest alarm as to the motive. It is feared that the murders are reprisals for the murders of Catholics in Belfast, but in the same district the commandant of the Irish Republican Army was shot dead in his house by a Protestant farmer on Wenesdy morning...It is not known if this had any connection with the subsequent crimes". So, again, no infomers and again, the suggestion that revenge for O'Neill's death was the motive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's be clear, how could any source dispute the 'informer list', when no one, including Meda Ryan has seen it? Agan, none of the other sources even mention it. Here are another two. Peter Cottrell, The Anglo-Irish War, the Troubles of 1913-1922, p78, "The incident at Ballygroman House sparked two further nights of violence as armed gangs raided Protestant households in the Dunmanway area, killing ten men [2]. NIall C Harrington, Kerry Landing, August 1922, p8, "Over a hundred Protestant families fled West Cork after a series of sectarian killings in which ten Protestant males were shot dead". Once again, no mentions of informers. Once again, sectarianism and revenge as the motive. So why does the lead say, "one historian says it was sectarian and others disagree"? It is clearly the other way around. All the soruces except for Meda Ryan say it sectarian. And only she has teh informer angle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed new lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If an additional source is needed in support of Media Ryan, we could cite Fr. Brian Murphy osb, who in the Irish Political review Vol 20 July 2005 who writes "I concluded by observing that, 'in short, evedence from this British source [A Report of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1920-1921 (Jeudwine Papers, 72/82/2, Imperial War Museum)] confirms that the IRA killings in the bandon area were motivated by political and not sectarian considerations.'" This can also be cited in "Troubled History" which I cited above. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• New York Times, April 28, 1922 [3]
• Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins, p359
• Marcus Tanner, Ireland's Holy War, p291-292
• Peter Cotrell, the Anglo-Irish War, The Troubles of 1913-1922, p78
• Niall C Harrington, Kerry Landing, August 1922, p8
• Peter Hart, The IRA and its Enemies, p282-285

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged or likely

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP removing sourced content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV programme on RTÉ

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

Background section

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

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

• Three, there is some very important information missing.

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

Comments welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits to remove reference to Protestants

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

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

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

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

Civilians

So now we are disputing that they were civilians? Why? Jdorney (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources do. Civilians implies non-combatant, as some were at least alleged to be members of the Loyalist Action Group (and thus combatants) civilian is inappropriate. That is before taking into account whether informers should be described as civilians or not. O Fenian (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Informers - this means someone who gave information to the British forces. Is this not a civilian? Would the same logic justify, for example, the Auxiliary's shooting of Cork civilians who gave information to the IRA (which they did)? Were they combatants too? I wouldn't argue this and I'm sure you wouldn't either. Re the Loyalist Action group. First of all, Ryan says that all of those named were "associated with the Murrgah Loyalist Action Group". Were they members? Was the Loyalist Action Group a combatant organisation in the first place? Jdorney (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Hart, "The West Cork guerrillas were convinced that 'the loyalists had a group called the Protestant Action Group', a counter-revolutionary underground, and that this organization had assassinated a number of Volunteers in 1920 and 1921, most notably the Coffey brothers of Enniskeane", and prior to that he says the Hornibrooks were believed to be involved in the loyalist conspiracy by veterans of the Bandon and Dunmanway IRA. Ryan says that is an alternate name for the Loyalist Action Group, and also links it to the Coffey shootings. O Fenian (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your other point, there is a grey area between combatant and non-combatant, they are not black and white. For more information see Combatant#Unprivileged combatants. O Fenian (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On the first point. Hart also says, "There is no evidence whatsoever that such a conspiracy existed...In fact the murders of the Coffeys and others in 1921, for which local loyalist were blamed, appear to have been the work of an RIC 'special squad' who worked undercover, 'all dressed like old farmers'" (p285) Interestingly enough, Tom Barry agrees. (Guerrilla Days in Ireland, p 98), "The third and fourth deaths of that dark twelve day period [see Upton Train Ambush ] were brothers, Patrick and James Coffey of Breaghna Enniskeane, who were murdered in their beds by Auxiliaries and Black and Tans on February 14". So linking that killing with Dunmanway is highly speculative. On top of that two of the killed were 16 years old, one was 59, two more were in their 60s, one was 70 and the other 89 (Hart p284). That leaves a maximum of three of military age. And re "unprivileged combatants", they are accused of passing information to Crown forces, during a conflict that was over since July of the previous year. That makes them civilians. Jdorney (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How am I linking anything with Dunmanway? You asked for evidence that the LAG was a combatant organisation, there are sources that say yes they were. And if Hart says there is no evidence it is true is it, despite the sources cited by Ryan that say the exact opposite? It is well documented how if evidence does not fit his pre-conceived theory he left it out, such as the sentence beginning "An exception to this rule was in the Bandon area.." from the "Record of the Rebellion in Ireland" and a similar claim by Hart of "no evidence" despite the Sir Jeudwide Papers saying there was. It seems to me that when Peter Hart says there is "no evidence" of anything that is really a euphemism for "I have ignored the evidence". And since violence related to the War of Independence was still ongoing in April 1922, your other argument is specious. I do not advocate describing them as anything other than "men", since that is indisputably the most neutral description. Almost every reader would assume since it does not say "Protestant soldier" that "Protestant men" refers to (so-called) civilians, so I do not see the point of this discussion, unless you are intent on pushing your bias into this article. O Fenian (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So you can cite Hart when you like what he says but the rest of the time he's a liar? And what about Tom Barry? Was he in on it too? The link made to Dunmanway is clear, the argument was that they were not civilians because they were linked with the loyalist action group. But linking this group with any killings is highly speculative and lnking those killed with those killing is more speculative again, especially given their ages. Re the other argument, not specious considring the British were in the process of evacuating the area at the time. Jdorney (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Hart is your preferred source and Ryan is seemingly some untrustworthy person who makes up evidence, I decided to cite a source you could not question. I am not suggesting linking this group with any killings, but my point remains that with (bare minimum) accusations of membership of a combatant group, they should not be described as civilians. You failed to address my point that any reader seeing the phrase "Protestant men" would not think of anything else but civlians surely? O Fenian (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You cited Hart to say the opposite of what he actually said. On the other point, because there were "accusations" that means they were guilty of something? Stretching it a bit. Finally, "men" is ok, but why not include civilians if that's what they were? Why leave the reader to make the connection? Jdorney (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Because combatants and informers are not civlians? O Fenian (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. But to clarify, those killed were not combatants (outlined above) and informers are not combatants.Jdorney (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're going round in circles because you don't listen. Members of the loyalist group were not civlians, you are ignoring the evidence that some of them were. Informers are not civilians either, try reading will you? Also please do not add duplicate information to the lead. O Fenian (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am listening. The loyalist group was not a combatant group (evidence above). Disagreeing is not the same as not reading. Informers are not combatants. Not to mention that assertion that they were informers being highly disputed. And, as pointed out above, two were 16 and five were old men. Are re the info in the lede which you keep removing, what I'm trying to do is get all the victims in there, which includes IRA comdt O'Neill and three British soldiers. 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says that informers are "combatants"? Seems an odd thing to say. If they are "informing" (which means passing on information either to the military or civilian authorities) then, by definition, surely they cannot be combatants. If they were, in fact, a "combatant" they would just be intelligence-gathering and passing the information either from one branch of the military to another, or from the military to the civilian authorities with which the military is connected. That is not "informing". If a member of the IRA passed information about someone to another member of the IRA or to a branch of the Dáil, would he have been "informing"? On the other hand, a civilian who passed information to the IRA about, say, the whereabouts of a policeman, he would be informing. Just some thoughts. Mooretwin (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, informers are a form of spy. And spies are treated as people without any rights in military law. Sarah777 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Mooretwin (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither Hart nor Coogan calls them civilians, at least not that I can see. It is not a neutral term for informers and/or members of the LAG. O Fenian (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, but unfortunately doesn't answer the question. Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You assume I was answering your question, I was not. O Fenian (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

order of intro

I re-arranged the intro [[4]] after it had been previously changed.

• First, the intro was repeating itself. It said the killings took place in Cork in April 1922, then in and around Dunmanway on Paril 26-28. So I put all this info into line.
• Also the phrase "the killings took place" was repeated twice. So I deleted one mention.
• I put the context ,ie in the truce period before the informer info. It's significant that this did not happen during the war of independence but after it. And that this was not an IRA operation against informers. In fact it was condemned by them and guards were posted to prevent a repeat. Jdorney (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the lede I have to say I think it has generally improved significantly over where it was when I came in to help out; you guys have done a very good job making it both more informative and more neutral. I'm very encouraged by what I see here and I think that, if possible, it might be good to keep it generally stable as it is currently. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By suggesting that because this did not happen during the war of independence but after it that this was therefore not an IRA operation against informers is simple WP:OR. Please provide a source which offers this view. Again in the lead, without any supporting sources it says that the killings took place in an area controlled by the Anti-Treaty IRA. Which author has noted this information in relation to the killings? Editors who take two unrelated sources of information to offer a conclusion are only offering the reader with their WP:SYN of the information. The lead is trying to offer conlusions which are not attempted in the article, or supported by the article content. I've removed the WP:SYN, and will address other issues lated. I have provided correctly sourced information with the correct page numbers in the last sentence. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the reference to the killings taking place in a period of truce. This is significant and is covered in the article. It is a simple statement of fact and stating this does not in any way imply anything about whether or not the killings were an IRA operation against informers. The last sentence of the lede is shockingly drafted in terms of the grammar, and I'm not sure that consensus was sought for its inclusion, but I haven't touched it at this stage. Mooretwin (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Offer suggestions on changes with the grammer to the last sentence if you wish. The replacement of the text which is attempting to lead the reader to a conclusion which even the article does not attempt to do and is not supported by the article text however must be removed. The editor who introduced the text outlined above their rational for adding it stating "It's significant that this did not happen during the war of independence but after it. And that this was not an IRA operation against informers." It is the editor above who has suggested how significant this information is in the lead, and that their rational for adding it is prompted by their POV, that those killed were not killed because they were informers. The editor had and offered a clear intension for the text. If however, this view is supported by a reference it would offer us the oppertunity to discuss it here, but since it is only significant in the lead because an editor states that it supports their personal opinion, it can not stay. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that the fact that these acts of violence took place during a period of cessation of hostilities is significant. Stating this does not lead the reader to any conclusions about the motivation for the killings. Mooretwin (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please address the points I raised above. The editor who added the text clearly stated above what the conclusions to be drawn from the texts inclusion are, and those conclusions are not supported by the article or a supporting reference. Now provide a rational other than the above editors attempt to insert their unsupported WP:OR, and please provide a reference which supports the context in which the text is being used or the text gets removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no OR in the lede, nor any unsupported views. The editor is entitled to express his or her views on the Talk page. My concern is the article, not any editor's personal views. Mooretwin (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per my previous request above. The editor took their personal view from the talk page and placed it in the lead. Now address the issues I've raised above, or the text is removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the lead is an expression of Jdorney's personal view? Mooretwin (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer you do not have final say on what goes into the article. This is done by consenus. per request, sources: Re the killings taking place in the Truce, no pov here, simple fact. The British had evacuated the area in early 1922. See Ryan p156, Hart, p112. Re the Anti-Treaty IRA being in control of the area, see Hart p277, Ryan p153-155, Coogan p 358-359. Re being an IRA operation again, no OR. Plain fact is that it was not ordered by any of the 3rd Cork Brigade leaders, who returned to Cork to stop further killings. See Ryan p160-161, Coogan p359. May have involved IRA members (probably did), but was not an ordered IRA operation. Jdorney (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to provide quotes to support your edits. I have the books and have been unable to find the text to support your conclusions or the context in which it is presented. With your record of edit warring to add completly misleading information to articles [5][6][7][8], and claiming that your edits are "clearly factual" I consider my request reasonable under the circumstances. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been clearly provided. Jdorney (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the sources, they do not support your use of the text, and considering your use of wild accusations (noted above) and misleading and incorrect edit summaries (latest example) you were asked to provide quoted references, which you have still not done. Now either you have the page numbers wrong, are citing a different edition or you are trying to use WP:SYN to put forward your personal POV. As you have clearly stated above that it is you who has put forward "the context" to support your view that "this was not an IRA operation against informers" you have been asked to support this with more than just your own opinion. I'll once again allow you the oppertunity to address the issue before I once again remove what is currently WP:OR. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re page no's. My editions are are as follows, Ryan, Tom Bary, IRA Freedom Fighter. Mercier 2003 (hardback edition). Coogan, Michael Collins, Arrow 1991, (paperback). Hart, IRA and its Enemies, Clarendon 1999 (paperback).

Use of extensive quotes is not appropriate in the lede. But; re the anti Treaty IRA being in control of the area. Ryan p154, "Since the handing over of Dublin Castle to the Provisional Government in Dublin, local IRA units around the country had been taking over British evacuated positions" p156, "In west Cork the British military had evacuated all premises held during the war". Hart, p112,"Most police and Army detachments were withdrawn towards the end of 1922, their barracks grudgingly handed over to local IRA units". futher down, "The staffs of the [IRA] First southern Division and all five Cork Brigades unanimously declared theri rejection of the deal [Treaty]", p113, "Although most Cork guerrillas opposed the settlement, they were its immediate benificiaries. For the first seven months of 1922 they constituted the only real authority in the county". p277, The Provisional Government and the Dail condemned the killings and promised to 'bring the culprits to justice', but did nothing. At the time, with only a small nascent army in Dublin and the dissident IRA in control of nearly the whole of Cork, there was little they could do". Coogan, p359, Tom Hales of O'Neills [IRA] Brigade (3rd Cork) ordered all arms brought under cotrol" "Hales, who was engaged at the time in armed oppossition to Griffith's government".

The other line you are deleting is, However there is no consensus on why the ten killed and three disappeared were targeted. A summary of the evidence cited in the lede. In the following two sentences it is demonstrated that there are two competing interpretations.Jdorney (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Without even having to check the sources your own quotes above illustrate your very obvious Synthesis. "It is not clear who ordered the attacks or carried them out" that is supported and referenced but your addition is not. Your addition to the text is to offer the reader an inference which is not supported by the sources or the article. I've already addressed your WP:OR about it not being an IRA operation against informers and you have offered no supporting reference. You really must stop this disruptive editing. Now again, being reasonable, I'll again allow you the oppertunity to address both your WP:SYN and WP:OR. You provide sources which clearly support the inferences you wish to push, or you remove the text. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No synthesis. Only referenced material has been provided. No more comment necessary here. Jdorney (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for Domer48 to explain how a statement that the killings took place after the truce was in place is OR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and removed the editors WP:SYN and WP:OR from the Lead. The use of obfuscation, vacillation and complete inability to support what can now only be described as disruptive POV editing despite repeated efforts provided to them to allow them the opportunity to address the issues have been ignored. Should they wish to return to the issue, it would be hoped their attitude will be one which is more conducive to constructive discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not demonstrated your concerns, nor have you reached any consensus. Sources including extensive quotes have clearly been provided. Jdorney (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Doesn't seem like OR to me either. --John (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer is correct. JD, you appear to be unaware of the Arbcom ruling against WP:OR and synthesis regardless of how blindingly obvious the conclusions might be. And in this case your conclusions are far from obvious and more a product of political perspective than objective evaluation of the evidence. Sarah777 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sarah it is an obvious case of both WP:SYN and WP:OR and obvious also is the Admin's and editors who come along to support it. Now, why does the Admin and editors who support the use of WP:SYN and WP:OR bring the issue to the OR notice board? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree there is definite synthesis here in the article. BigDunc 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, where exactly is the alleged synthesis and OR? Sources and quotes were asked for and were provided. Dispute now listed at Third opinion. Jdorney (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, BigDunc and Sarah, what is supposed to be OR about this? Are you disputing the sources? --John (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if those alleging OR and synthesis (are these not the same thing, anyway?) could be less vague and state clearly which parts of the lede they are referring to, and why they think they are OR. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Original research would include "I know this is true because an old guy in Dunmanway told me there was ethnic cleansing in 1921". Synthesis would be to describe the events, even if referenced, as "ethnic cleansing" unless a reliable source, at the time , had used that exact phrase. Daft of course, but that's Arbcom for ya. Sarah777 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And all that is in the article where? Jdorney (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. I was helping Mooretwin to understand the nuances of Wiki-policies. For the good of the project. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've outlined the issue above! I'm not going to go through it again so read this discussion! --Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you haven't explained even once where the OR and SYN is. Jdorney (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see it either. Where do you believe the material is which contravenes policy, please? --John (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I know it is tedious, but could you do a bullet point summary of the issues here for those who appear unable to understand them? Sarah777 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That I have raised the issues above [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and pointed out how the issues were being ignored [14] and still being ignored. Sarah. I'll provide you with a bullet point summary of the issues, but it is not that the editors are unable to understand them, they simply don't want to.

• “in a period of truce after the end of the Irish War of Independence and before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War in June.”

The editor above states that because the killings took place during a period of truce, therefore the killings could not have been because they were informers. This is their attempt to add information to support their POV and is not supported by any referenced source. No author has offered this view of the killings and it is therefore based on the editors own WP:OR. That they try to use two unrelated facts to support this is WP:SYN.

• “but they took place in an area controlled by the Anti-Treaty IRA”

As with the points made above, we have the exact same use of WP:SYN to support the editors own POV and WP:OR. That “It is not clear who ordered the attacks or carried them out” is referenced to add the above information, (which is not supported by the references) is to present information in an attempt to promote a view that only the editor is making. No source has linked these two pieces of information together or attempted to make the inference being suggested. It is plain old WP:OR using WP:SYN.

• “The motivation behind the killings has generated differences of opinion among historians. It is generally agreed that they were "sparked" by the fatal shooting of IRA commandant Michael O'Neill by a local loyalist on April 26 whose house was being raided. There is no consensus, however, on why the ten killed and three disappeared were targeted.”

This is offering contradictory information, and it is not “generally agreed” this again is just the editors opinion. Yet again, the references do not support the information and is another attempt at WP:SYN. There is no source offered which challenges the fact that those killed were informers. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re. “in a period of truce after the end of the Irish War of Independence and before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War in June.” This is a statement of fact. There is no OR involved. I have therefore restored it. The article does not say, or imply, as claimed by Domer that "therefore the killings could not have been because they were informers". (On the contrary, the article actually says that they were informers!) Mooretwin (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above Sarah, despite the fact that I pointed out how the editor who added the text stated that "I put the context ,ie in the truce period before the informer info. It's significant that this did not happen during the war of independence but after it. And that this was not an IRA operation against informers" and that this was pure WP:OR based on WP:SYN you'll still get an edit warrior who will ignore this and add it back regardless [15]. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, what matters is what the article says: not what an editor states on the Talk page. Please refrain from name-calling against other editors. Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, thanks for your analysis. I do not agree with it, and I think most editors here would not. --John (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, thats all well and good, now provide a rational because most editors agree that it is both WP:OR and WP:SYN. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Domer's excellent exposure of WP:OR at work - so I'm a bit puzzled at the conclusion that "most" editors don't. Unless John is operating on the basis of the known bias of the Anglo wiki community. But most of those are not represented here, so I'm not sure we should be making assumptions about them. Sarah777 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the problem here is the inference that might be taken. First, "generally agreed". Not my opinion. Listed (and clearly referenced) in each and every source about the incident. So please stop removing it. Re the other two, it took place in the truce (fact and referenced) and it took place in an area area cotnrolled by the anti- Treaty IRA (again referenced). No other inference is made in the article. The other pieces quoted are from the talk page. So in the article there is no OR and no SYN. So can you plase stop removing referenced material? Thanks. Fuinally which editros agree it is OR or SYN? Domer, Sarah and BIgDunc. Not a majority Jdorney (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of order?

Is the WoI template out of place? Should it be across the bottom? It is visually challenged where it is, to say the least. I see, btw, that former Stickie, tabloid journalist and now Fianna Failer Eoghan Harris is trolling here under some handle. What's the betting wherever there is truth on IrlWiki he is seeking to revise it? (He being a huge and self-confessed fan of political censorship). Sarah777 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh he is around alright Sarah, even mentioning editors in his bigoted rants in the rag he spouts bile for. BigDunc 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)