Jump to content

Talk:Killings at Coolacrease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pearsons - Loyalists, Cooneyites or Protestants?

[edit]

Describing the Pearson family in the opening paragraph as "loyal to the British government" is inappropriate and tends to the pejorative so as to justify the boys' brutal killing. This article is not about justifying their execution.

Later in the article two versions of why the shootings around the roadblock occurred are offered: "In this version, the Pearsons had, as staunch loyalists, become hostile to the local community as the war intensified, leading to their participation as combatants in the war.[7] According to the alternative account,[1] the Pearsons fired a single shotgun cartridge in the air as a warning to rebels who were damaging their property."

This indicates the Pearsons, an unpopular (with other Protestants, mutually) Cooneyite family may have been most interested in protecting their property and not particularly acting to support the government.

Consequently the opening section should not contain that 'loyal to the British government' remark as it is disputed later as a cause. Secondly to even describe Protestants as loyal to the British government is effectively tautologous and designed to be prejudicial. Those who were not 'loyal' could be counted in tens.81.158.172.95 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History Ireland

[edit]

History Ireland recently made available online their archive available via the search option (excludes last three or so issues). This should at least make some more of the discussion available online for citation. I'm not knowledgeable enough to suggest additional sources.Autarch (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so significant

[edit]

I fail to see why this is listed as one of the 15 or so incidents put in the Anglo-Irish War timeline box that accompanies many Irish War of Independence articles. It had no significance on the outcome or direction of the War, and was hardly a major incident or even a particularly noteworthy one. Due to the RTE program I could see it having it's own page/article, but I don't think it belongs in that box. ===—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phi O'Byrne (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wars and Rumours of Wars

[edit]

The relevant part of the source put forward in support of the proposed edit reads as follows:

Sunday Independent Letters Page November 25 2007

British army correspondence (5th Division Curragh Camp): 'It is said by the CI (County Inspector) Queen's County that the two Pearson boys a few days previously had seen two men felling a tree on their land adjoining the road. Had told the men concerned to go away and when they refused had fetched two guns and fired and wounded two Sinn Feiners, one of whom is believed died.' Crucially the very next sentence reads: 'It is further rumoured when the farm house was burning two guns fell out of the roof.' In other words, the army was simply collating the rumours surrounding the deaths of the Pearsons …

Niamh Sammon, Director, The Killings At Coolacrease

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/unfounded-claims-about-killings-1230002.html

This newspaper letter contains an accurate quotation of the source document from the British National Archives. It also includes an interpretation of this Primary Source by the Director of a TV programme, in support of the view that the Coolacrease incident was probably unprovoked sectarian murder by the IRA, in furtherance of a successful land grab, in a context of attempted ethnic cleansing.

The quotation is structured as follows.

“It is said by the CI (County Inspector) Queen's County that …”

(In other words, “The County Inspector of the Queen’s County Royal Irish Constabulary said that …”)

“It is further rumoured …”

(In other words, “Also there is a rumour that …”)

The first bit of the primary source is a report of a statement of fact by the head of the British government police force in Queen’s County (Laois). The second bit is a report of a rumour. The source does not say that this rumour was reported to the army correspondent by the County Inspector of the police. The primary source does not say how the British army correspondent came to know about the rumour, whether through police sources, army sources, or whatever.

The TV Director deduces in her letter above that: “In other words, the army was simply collating the rumours surrounding the deaths of the Pearsons”.

The “In other words” part of this implies that Ms Sammon is basing her deduction on the above two sentences of the British army correspondent. If she had some other basis for her deduction, it is not stated in her letter to the newspaper.

But the two sentences of the Primary Source are not capable of sustaining the interpretation that Ms Sammon puts on them. Her interpretation is far-fetched, unrealistic and unreasonable.

According to Wikipedia policy the edit needs to be based on a Reliable Source.

The source in this case is an item in the Letters Section (i.e. the Opinion Section) of a newspaper. Today’s edition of this newspaper carries a variety of letters, expressing the writers’ opinions on topics including: Jedward fixation stifling real talent, Minister missing a green opportunity, Going electric is another loony idea, and a variety of other topics – variously serious, light-hearted, provocative.

Such expressions of opinion, however interesting or entertaining they may be, do not necessarily qualify as Reliable Sources.

In this particular case, is the newspaper letter a Reliable Source? The writer of the newspaper letter was not some independent and objective authority. The writer was Director of a TV programme on this subject, a programme which was being publicly criticised at the time. So the author had a professional and perhaps financial interest in defending the programme and its message.

On the point at issue, the Programme Narrator in the TV programme said: “Sometime later the local police inspector did report the allegation that the Pearsons had shot and wounded two local IRA men. However there was no official investigation into what happened that night.”

The proposed edit, in confirmation of this statement in the TV programme, is sourced in the Director’s newspaper letter written when the programme came under public criticism. The proposed edit does not have a Reliable Source. Therefore it should be withdrawn. Knockanore (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider the sentences in the Primary Source which can, with reasonable certainty, be attributed to the RIC Chief Inspector of Queen's County, they read:
It is said by the CI (County Inspector) Queen's County that the two Pearson boys a few days previously had seen two men felling a tree on their land adjoining the road. Had told the men concerned to go away and when they refused had fetched two guns and fired and wounded two Sinn Feiners, one of whom is believed died.
This again divides into two parts. The first part is factual report of a statement of fact ("it is said ..."), and the second part is report of a conjecture ("[It] is believed ..."). The wording does not establish beyond doubt where the latter conjecture originated from in the first instance - whether from the people who carried out the attack (that is, the Pearsons according to the first bit - the bit definitely attributed to the police inspector by this Primary Source), or from some other origin. Furthermore, the wording seems to leave in doubt whether the police inspector was actually party to the army correspondent having knowledge of this conjecture.
The one thing that is certain and definite in this Primary Source is that
the CI (County Inspector) Queen's County [said] that the two Pearson boys a few days previously had seen two men felling a tree on their land adjoining the road. Had told the men concerned to go away and when they refused had fetched two guns and fired and wounded two Sinn Feiners
However all this is interpretation of the Primary Source. The proposed edit is based, not on the Primary Source as such, but on the following contrary interpretation of the Primary Source in a sentence of a letter to the Sunday Independent newspaper of November 25 2007:
the army was simply collating the rumours surrounding the deaths of the Pearsons
The trouble with using this sentence from the newspaper letter as the source and justification of the proposed edit is that the author of the sentence had a professional/financial interest in choosing this particular interpretation of the original British army document.
Therefore the Sunday Independent letter is not a Reliable Source. Knockanore (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Cherrypicking

[edit]

Knockanore said:

'The writer of the newspaper letter was not some independent and objective authority'


Are you serious Knockanore???

The whole article is based on sources from people who are not independent: relatives to the people in the story, Paddy Heaney & Alan Stanley, as well as others with 'hidden agendas', as the scrupulously neutral and objective Pat Muldowney (aubane society) might put it. If we follow your logic, all references to these sources should be removed.

You cherry pick what's to be included to suit your views, however 'objective' you believe them to be. It's one or the other: either all references are included to reflect fully the different viewpoints or they are all removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.211.102 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This is progress. You acknowledge in effect that the reference you put forward is not a Reliable Source in the Wikipedia sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
Paddy Heaney and Alan Stanley are in a different category. Yes, they are personally connected to the events. But, in contrast to your proposed reference, their particular connections to those events are precisely what enable them to convey or transmit important witness evidence about the events; and their accounts and contradictions can be collated, tested, contrasted, cross-referenced etc. with each other and with documents, reports, witness statements and other sources; the outcome being reliable evidence and knowledge to be reflected in authoritative secondary sources on which Wikipedia articles can draw - as this article does.
Your proposed reference (the Sunday Independent letter) is not in this category; the author has no personal evidence to give. Her interpretation is far from obvious and, beyond a bald statement of belief or conviction, the author gave no further analysis, evidence or reason for her statement. Therefore this interpretation is open to the criticism that the author's personal and material advantage was the real reason for it. "She would say that, wouldn't she?"
However the letter may have some merit for the article, in that it contains a direct quote of a section of the report of the British Army correspondent. Of course this report is already accounted for in other references in the article, but the letter itself is easily accessible online. Also, the interpretation it puts on this report was itself a public event, in the sense that this interpretation has been publicly proposed and publicly disputed, and there may be some merit in noting this fact.
I have no time until next week to look into the letter and the public dispute of which it was part. But this Talk Page is available to discuss the matter. I request that the contentious edit not be made, and that resolution be sought here on the Talk Page. The status quo ante should stand unless/until a reason for changing the article is agreed here. Knockanore (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Knockanore said:

'You acknowledge in effect that the reference you put forward is not a Reliable Source...'

I did not. You did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.121.108 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consistently refuse to engage reasonably with reasonable points raised here on the Talk Page, your edits amount to Disruption. In that case you cannot be taken seriously. Knockanore (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You pinpointed the problem yourself:

'Also, the interpretation it puts on this report was itself a public event, in the sense that this interpretation has been publicly proposed and publicly disputed, and there may be some merit in noting this fact.'

Therefore until this point is noted and reworded, the disputed line should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.121.108 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is been disputed. No Reliable Source was given for it, and you have in effect agreed that - unlike the other points of information in the article - the source you give for your edit does not qualify in Wikipedia terms as RS. The existence of this newspaper letter, as an occurrence in a public dispute about the subject of the article, can be acknowledged in the article. (Acknowledging the occurrence of this recent public dispute does NOT thereby turn this reference into RS. It's either RS or it is not. You have given no reason why it should be regarded as RS. I have given lots of reasons why it is not.)

But I understand that acknowledgement of a recent dispute is the essence of what you are proposing; and, though the 2007 dispute is relatively unimportant (IMO) in terms of the 1921 subject matter, for reasons mentioned above I do not disagree with including a carefully worded mention of it, including reference to the Sindo letter as proof of its occurrence. First the details of the dispute must be unearthed. This is not rocket science, and, in good faith ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ), I've undertaken to find a couple of hours sometime next week to do the necessary.

It would help if you too would demonstrate the Good Faith that I assume you possess, and Stop Disrupting by repeatedly making an edit which has been repeatedly challenged for not having RS - as you yourself have, in effect, agreed. Knockanore (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So good faith not present, your purpose is, after all, merely to Disrupt, and it is not possible to take you seriously. You CANNOT make an edit which is not based on a Reliable Source. The Source you present is NOT RELIABLE. If you want to proceed, it can only on the basis of Good Faith. Knockanore (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knockanore, this is a dispute about the interpretation of primary sources. The IP's edit is based on a statement by the editor of the television programme, whose standing is as someone who researched the history. I see no dispute that the letter accurately reflects her views, so it is a reliable source for her views.
Since we have two interpretations of the primary source, both interpretations should be reported in the article.
If you want to persist in your argument that the letter is not an RS for Sammon's interpetation, let's take this to WP:RSN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my argument, and that was not the issue. The letter in question is now cited, in accordance with preceding Discussion, as RS for the actual issue that was discussed above. Knockanore (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Killings at Coolacrease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Killings at Coolacrease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killings_at_Coolacrease&oldid=1204749332"