Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Michael Collins (Irish leader). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Free State Army

Will the user who reverted my last edit please desist. Any book on the matter will tell you former British army veterans (As in WWI Irish Veterans) and young men unassociated with the volunteers served in the new army. Mulcahy was particularly keen to recruit veterans as the army badly needed some regular army experience that the pro treaty IRA lacked and the newcomers couldn't just learn off the bat. Its such a well known reality it shouldn't have to be sourced - any book on the free state army mentions this.

Just a little rule - do not revert factual edits unless you know what your talking about. You look like a moron when you do this. 78.16.122.29 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is so well known you should have no problem citing a source. Until then, it does not get added. O Fenian (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Garvin, Charles Townshend, Tim Pat Coogan have all mentioned this in books I've read. Its a widely known fact and it doesn't need a reference, though I will if you continue to be so anally retentive about it. 78.16.122.29 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I said cite a source, not reel off a list of authors. O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look up a few of my books later. I'm reporting you afterwards. NewIreland2009 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Run to teacher, be sure to include all your attacks and incivility. Also do you know what "nucleus" means? The addition you made has the nucleus involving up every young man in Ireland. If the nucleus was "the pro-Treaty IRA, ex British army veterans and young men unassociated with the Volunteers during the War of Independence" who were the other recruits that formed around this "central part"? When you take away existing IRA members, former British Army veterans and young men unassociated with the Volunteers, exactly who was left to recruit? O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivillity? You threatened to block me mate. I'm gathering that you have since learned you were wrong, probably by a quick internet search so you resort to pedantry. In fact, following your argument through, then the 'nucleus' of the new army would be the young men unassociated with the volunteers during the war since statistically speaking a small minority of the new army were IRA veterans. Anyway, had a look over a book I own and on page 122 of Tom Garvin's '1922: The birth of Irish democracy' (Dublin 2005) I suggest the sentance be rephrased since its neither correct or as you point out, it doesn't even make sense. However, the makeup of the new army were young men unassociated with the volunteers, ex british army veterans and IRA veterans. Of course, Garvin's book is just the nearest I had to hand, any book that deals with the Irish civil war will describe the makeup of the new army. This point need a reference because it is so widely known that it doesn't need to be supported by any reference - its like needing a reference to claim the Easter Rising happened in 1916. Now I'm reporting you. NewIreland2009 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The timeline of events proves you were incivil before and after I made any "threat". I would suggest it is undisputed that the nucleus around which the new Army was formed were the former IRA members, given they were the only existing members. And if you really wish to dispute that, I will provide sources to prove it. O Fenian (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact do a Google books search for IRA nucleus "free state army" and see how many results confirm that the IRA was the nucleus of the Free State Army. You are confusing "nucleus" with "make-up". O Fenian (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reporting this because this is the kind of battle I'll get in - your never going to back down. How about you actually read some of them books rather than wield google book like some kind of source? Its laughable! The problem is that you can't face up to the fact that British army veterans served in the new army, or that only 30% of the volunteers supported the Free State. The claim that they formed the 'nucleus' is in itself dubious, but this wasn't the grounds on which you reverted me. In fact, it could have been cleared up on the talk page if you hadn't used such an authoritarian approach. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Republican propaganda, if you can't face up to the fact that British veterans served in the free state army then its your problem. I accept i made an error in this regard, but I don't believe for a second that you objected to my edits on these grounds - rather, you worked out later you were wrong and like most people who are in the wrong you resort to pedantry. I'm going to edit the article to make it more accurate and convey the point that the army was strongly composed of British army veterans and men unassociated with the war of independence. NewIreland2009 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall. Its such a well known reality that it doesn't require citation. Do we source that the Easter Rising happened in 1916? Please think about your comments rather than pound out a generic response that doesn't apply to this issue.

And thanks to the person who stepped in to add the source, even if I don't agree that its required. NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I empathised with what you were going through! Mooretwin (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think is required if an editor requests that you provide a source then you must provide one simple. BigDunc^Talk 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, ducking the question doesn't help. I'll ask again: Must we supply citations that the Easter Rising happened in 1916? Just because you don't happen to know doesn't make it not widely known. Please answer this question. NewIreland2009 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read this it is highley unlikely that an Irish editor would ask for a citation regarding the Easter Rising, also it has been pointed out to you on a couple of occassions so will you read No Personal Attacks as it seems that you haven't, calling editors cowardly is not helpful and continued personal attacks could lead to you being blocked from editing. BigDunc^Talk 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm begging you, please try to understand this individual case. I'm pointing out that since the fact is so well known (regardless of whether wikipedia editors are ignorant of the fact) that it doesn't need a citation. It just looks messy and could become chaotic in the future. The essential problem here is that you don't seem to understand that this is an individual case and doesn't come under the jurisdiction of that policy you have mentioned. And I wouldn't need to make personal attacks if users actually thought about what they were typing, rather than behaving like mindless wiki drones. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All this bluster does not change the fact that your original edit was wrong, and should not have been made, and everything since then could have been avoided if you had followed policy to begin with. I do not know about anyone else, but I do not know why "republicans" would not want to mention that the Free State Army had veterans of the British Army in, so your paranoid conspiracy theories seem to be coming apart at the seams. Perhaps if you followed policy with every future edit you make your time here will be easier? O Fenian (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fenian, looks good now. But to be honest, I don't think even you believe what you typed there. You asked to me provide a source for whether British army veterans served in the army. The pedantry came later.

Besides, I'm letting it go. This is my last post on the matter. NewIreland2009 (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I asked you to provide a source for the lie that you added to the article, that British Army veterans formed the nucleus of the Free State Army. You were wrong, get over it. O Fenian (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"No, I asked you to provide a source for the lie that you added to the article" "provide a source for the lie" "for the lie" I think your just trying to draw NewIreland2009 back into the argument. Your smugness is very childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.64.107.243 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Civil service essay

The BBC summary of this is a misleading distortion of the essay. Peter Hart's "The Real Mick" explains it on page 30; "The most interesting [essay] is 'Letter to a friend who thinks the British Empire is expanding too rapidly - His reply', in which Collins has the imperialist write from 14 Idiots Row". The contents of the essay were not Collins own opinions, he was taking a position he was required to do so to write the essay. I have removed it as misleading and largely irrelevant to a biography of Collins, as it should not get bogged down with minor details about sentiments in essays he was required to write. O Fenian (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Collin's name

I am curious that the middle name "John" or "Sean" is added in this biography as I have read mean biographies and not seen it added. Could someone please indicate where this was found? Lindoreen (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ó Coileáin family

Starting discussion on whether or not a single line mentioning family origins should be included in the main article. Give reasons for and against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.136.84 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll start. Variations of the line "The Ó Coileáin family descends from the early aristocracy of County Limerick, from the ancient Uí Chonaill, Lords of Connello (Coogan 2002, pgs. 5-6; O'Hart 1892)" have been repeatedly called irrelevant by a series of editors with accouts. Why has not been stated, even when mentions of Ó Coileáin's Uí Chonaill ancestry exist on the French, Gaelic, and several other pages, and the matter appears generally well known, as a Google search is able to prove further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.136.84 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT. Other wikis don't count, they are not WP:RS. Telling other editors to google for it, is frankly unacceptable editing. We're not here to prove your assertions. The "series of editors with accouts" (sic) as you call them are established/experienced editors who have registered and contribute regularly to this and other articles. What they have arrived at is a WP:Consensus. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Btw, I'm pretty sure if you researched most Irish peoples ancestry back to the 12th century, you'd find they nearly all would have a Gaelic aristocrat or two for an ancestor. Why is this relevant? Snappy (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Because it is covered in a couple of sentences in a biography does not mean we should include it here. The biography is over 500 pages long, a Wikipedia article will never be that comprehensive. Therefore we should stick to the most relevant information, which this is not. O Fenian (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snappy and O Fenian, this information is simply not important for this article. This is not an article about the Ó Coileáin family. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well - perhaps there should be a paged dedicated to the Ó Coileáin family and a sentence with hyperlink here, or something to that extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.128.179 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A big problem is that the O'Collins article is something of an unresolvable mess because so many names have been anglicized Collins. It features only two, and in the case of the first there are even O'Cullens of again different origins not mentioned, who it just so happens are related to the second O'Collins but aren't exactly the same. These both have ended up in Cork from Limerick, there to mix with the Wicklow ones and English ones. I'll bet there are French Collins too. It could sound French. All we know for sure is that our Michael Collins is one of the Ó Coileáin bunch from Uí Conaill in Limerick who have been closely associated with their cousins and neighbors the O'Donovans forever, but it might not be fair to the other Collins to go on about him in the O'Collins article. If someone creates a Uí Fidgenti article then I can put it together like I have the Eóganachta article and we can mention him there, because Uí Conaill was half or more of it, the O'Donovans of Cairbre Eva the other half, hence the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.59.42 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

The hatnote needs to be fixed. If I knew how to change the template, I would. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it's done. Rd232 ^talk 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring (Ó Coileáin family and References)

I was the original contributor of the line about Michael Collins' distant Uí Chonaill of County Limerick ancestry, which is properly sourced, and the original reformer of the references to an academic format. There was no consensus reached in June and I fear we will need to involve an admin or two now. Back then I did not have an account and no ability to involve Wikipedia administration, but now I do. For the meantime I have tagged the article. DinDraithou (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was a consensus reached. BigDunc, O Fenian, Republican Jacobite and me (Snappy) all agreed that the reference to distant ancestry was irrelevant for a wikipedia article. As O Fenian said in June: "Indeed. Because it is covered in a couple of sentences in a biography does not mean we should include it here. The biography is over 500 pages long, a Wikipedia article will never be that comprehensive. Therefore we should stick to the most relevant information, which this is not." Snappy (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of you appear in any way qualified to make judgements here. The situation in June was me, an academic person with no account and thus limited Wikipedia abilities, versus three or four people with very limited knowledge, but with accounts. The way you left the references looking proves my point. I do not think you know enough to recognize what is relevant information. The same goes for O Fenian, who missed that the "irrelevant" information occupies several pages in the beginning of the book. You two were joined by a science fiction author. Ha. DinDraithou (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This addition does nothing for the article supposed lineage dating back centuries has no relevance to this article and at best are dubious. Your academic credentials or your claim to them have no relevance either and just portray you as arrogant as you are unaware of the academic achievements of any editor here. BigDunc 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou would do well to read WP:Civil. Also, your self proclaimed academic credentials are not relevant here. Very nice of you to dismiss everyone else as having "limited knowledge", even though you know nothing about them. Answer this simple question (and try to use small simple words, so I can understand it with my limited knowledge), what relevance is there in mentioning the 12th century ancestors of Michael Collins? Snappy (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the way you left the references looking was bad, and that's what I have to judge from. It means none of you are familiar enough with normal academic business. BigDunc, your colourful addition to my talk page just now approaches incident worthy. DinDraithou (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add again that mentions of Collins' ancestry can be found on most other-language Wikipedia pages of any length. That is a superior consensus to what you claim to have here. DinDraithou (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually what other Wikipedias do (random sampling: German doesn't mention it, French and Spanish do) is irrelevant. Please don't engage in edit warring, and do not describe others' edits as "vandalism", which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (WP:Vandalism). Finally, the burden of evidence for relevance or significance is on editors who want to include information. (Otherwise we might need to argue why it's irrelevant what X had for breakfast one Tuesday morning.) If you can't persuade others that the information should be included, you can either follow dispute resolution, or accept the WP:Consensus. Rd232 ^talk 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant at all, and the Gaelic page, the largest, mentions it too. Coogan includes Collins' ancestry as part of his motivation. You should read it before supporting this "fearsome consensus of the uninformed" nonsense. DinDraithou (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Coogan includes Collins' ancestry as part of his motivation." I'm not quite sure what that means, but it sounds like something that might speak to relevance. Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I saw the Third Opinion template on the page and came over. In looking at the talk page, it is pretty clear to me that there is a consensus against inserting the reference that DinDraithou is re-inserting into the page. I will be removing the template on the article page. PGWG (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This so-called consensus is not a very scholarly one. DinDraithou (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is a self proclaimed academic like you doing slumming it on wikipedia with us "uninformed" and "unscholarly" as you call us. (Very uncivil, btw). Shouldn't a noted academic be writing papers and authoring books which will be eventually be read by tens of people. Snappy (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus "is not a very scholarly one"? You will have to explain what you mean by that, 'cause I, for one have no idea what you mean. Wikipedia has no rule requiring that consensus be "scholarly," whatever one might choose to mean by that. However, there is, as you seem to acknowledge, a consensus, and your actions are not in keeping with it. Please stop. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At least two out of four members of this "June consensus" are notable Wikipedia troublemakers, veterans. I read the incidents board. As far as I can tell you have a little club here. DinDraithou (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take before this argument was advanced, not long at all it would appear! When you can't defend your own position, start attacking other editors with vague unsubstantiated assertions. Any chance you might actually answer my question on the relevance of the information you are trying to insert? Try answering the question without personally attacking me, personally attacking other editors, or having a go at wikipedia policies. Do try to remember, that this is wikipedia not the ivory towers of your self proclaimed academia. Snappy (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I can't see what harm is done by including it in the article. Noble ancestry in the paternal line is certainly relevent. One sentence on the topic of his personal ancestral background, if referenced in an actual book about him, is probably fair enough. I can't imagine what the grounds for opposition would be, unless it was a general Grand Orient dislike of lineage, rank, noble blood, other "egalitarian" levelling concerns used as the basis of argument. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, with the key phrase being if referenced in an actual book about him PGWG (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It was referenced, in the most widely read biography of Collins. See pp. 5-6: http://books.google.com/books?id=xscRAhBt2JgC . I can easily support it with other material as well, enough for a paragraph, but that really belongs in the future Ó Coileáin article. DinDraithou (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My question would be then to the editors here (excepting Din, who has stated his positon here very clearly and concisely with a Reliable Source) - why do you disagree with including this mention? Specifically, what by what policy do you think that a mention to his ancestry should be excluded? PGWG (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is nothing new. The issue is whether something that is given a one sentence mention in a 500_ page biography of Collins merits inclusion in this article. As I said before, I do not believe it does as did others ar the time. Contrary to the claim above, Coogan says nothing about Collins motivation being linked to his ancestry that I can see. O Fenian (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

References

We could be getting into an edit war over lists of references. However one list appears to make some attempt to follow standard Wikipeida format for quoting books, and so is superior. PatGallacher (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're just not right about this. I made that list appear as it would in an academic article. It's alright if you're not used to reading these, and aren't familiar with the format (most aren't), but as it is this Wikipedia article looks substandard, as if it was put together by sports fans and professional television watchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.38.226 (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd that the first reference to Dwyer has no information about the source - just a page number. There is a more complete reference in a citation later in the article, but that information is usually provided when a reference first appears. Is this setup intentional? Moretz (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Years - move(s) to London

The "Early Years" section mentions that he moved to London *twice* without mentioning him ever moving away from London. I assume the Post Office employment took him elsewhere, but something appears to be missing. Moretz (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The following chronology does not add up:

Michael Collins' Catholicism

There seems to be a bit of back and forth edit war on whether or not Michael Collins is a notable Irish Catholic. That's a joke right? In the whole history of Irish Catholics, Michael Collins is a bigger Catholic than St. Patrick.Malke 2010 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is so patently ridiculous, I can't believe you wrote that with a straight face. You have to demonstrate that he belongs in the category, and your opinion does not count. He is notable as an Irish Republican, not an Irish Catholic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't know Ireland and Irish history very well. And btw, Irish Republican most definitely equals Irish Catholic.Malke 2010 00:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Collins is not notable for being a Catholic so he does not go in the category, and you may find your two sentences are very contradictory. I have read many books about Michael Collins and his religion barely gets a mention in any of them, unless you would like to provide evidence to the contrary? O Fenian (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you're not very well read.Malke 2010 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Collins is definitely notable to the people of Ireland for being a Catholic and a revolutionary. Putting him in both categories is correct.Malke 2010 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources not opinion needed. O Fenian (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to oblige.Malke 2010 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to it, since his religion barely gets mentioned in any biography I have read. Unlike Wolfe Tone's religion.. O Fenian (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just the fact that Collins was a Catholic could put him in the Irish Catholic category. To keep him from it sounds like POV pushing. Perhaps fans of Wolfe Tone's religion?Malke 2010 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If every Irish person who is a Catholic is included the category becomes useless, which is why only people notable for their Catholicism go in it. O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The fight for Irish independence was also a fight for freedom of religion, specifically the freedom to practice Catholicism in Catholic Ireland. Michael Collins is notable as an Irish Catholic.Malke 2010 01:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)And this is a ridiculous statement: "If every Irish person who is a Catholic is included the category becomes useless, which is why only people notable for their Catholicism go in it." What exactly does an Irish Catholic have to do to get into the category? Sounds like POV pushing, or worse, religious discrimination. In Ireland, we call what the english protestants did, genocide. Michael Collins was fighting against the Irish Holocaust. So yes, being an Irish Catholic in that circumstance is notable.Malke 2010 01:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All those books that deal with the suppression of Catholicism in Ireland in the early 20th century seem to have passed me by, perhaps you could recommend one or two? O Fenian (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because you've skipped all the ones that detail the Irish Holocaust.Malke 2010 01:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And in exactly which year(s) of the early 20th century did the "Irish Holocaust" take place? O Fenian (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at your comments, you seem to have a history of attempting to suppress Collin's background. You make claims that a mention of a fact about him is not enough, in your opinion to merit inclusion in the article. Anything that has a reliable source can be included in this article. Malke 2010 01:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish Revolutionary

If ever anybody was a most notable Irish Revolutionary it was Michael Collins. Please, no more WP:SYN.Malke 2010 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why he is already in a category which is a sub-category of it. O Fenian (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He belongs in the category. Not a subcategory. He is the definition of an Irish Revolutionary. Malke 2010 01:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Collins' inclusion in the category of Irish Revolutionaries does not seem much different than that of Harry Boland, Edward Daly, Thomas Kent, Michael Mallin, Peadar O'Donnell, or others currently listed in the category. Indeed, Boland's article states, "During the Irish War of Independence Boland operated alongside Michael Collins". Yet Boland is included but Collins can't be? Doesn't stand the common sense test. Sure, Collins is listed in the subcategories of Members of the IRA and the IRB, along with the rank-and-file, but his was a leadership role which seems to indicate more direct inclusion in the parent category. Is there a specific reason that he should not be included in the Irish Revolutionary category, other than that he's already in a sub-category? Harry Boland and Tom Clarke are also listed in sub-categories. Eastcote (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the strange logic above, I have deleted Harry Boland from Category:Irish Revolutionaries – 'if he is listed in a subcategory he doesn't need to be in the supercategory' (sic). I planned to do all the other individuals listed but the list is too large. However, I think that I have demonstrated the point. There has been a clever attempt to muddle the fatuous bid to include him in the list of notable catholics with this issue, which is on the other hand, beyond doubt. He led the Irish forces in the War of Independence, how more revoluntionary could he be? The only reason I can see why some people seek to exclude him is that, in the Provo orthodoxy, he supported the Treaty. To exclude him is blatant POV. If he is to be excluded then every other individual listed must be excluded too. Reductio ad absurdum. --Red King (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That whole section of categories is a mess, and a POV-ridden mess at that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem bizarre that, as a minimum, members of the First and Second Dáil are not automatically included in this category. RashersTierney (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Years - move(s) to London

"After leaving school aged 15, Collins moved to London. While there he lived with his elder sister, and studied at King's College London. After taking the British Civil Service examination in February 1906,[4] he was employed by the Royal Mail from July 1906. In 1910, he moved to London where he became a messenger at a London firm, Horne and Company.[4] "

He was born in 1890, so if he began his studies at King's at the age of 15 the year would have to have been 1905 or 1906. So he couldn't possibly have taken the Civil Service exam at the beginning of 1906! Or been employed by the Royal Mail just a few months later. This leaves no time at all for him to have studied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.29.41 (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the BBC citation, it's clear that Collins took the CS examination in 1906 in Cork, not London, and it doesn't have him moving to London until 1910. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC Michael Collins listing under Irish Catholic categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion was do not include unless reliable sources can be found and included in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

collapsed for readability

Two editors, RepublicanJacobite and O'Fenian are claiming that Michael Collins should not be listed among Irish Catholics. Their reasoning is that Michael Collins is not known for his Catholicism. That's akin to saying Martin Luther King cannot be listed under African-Americans because he's not known for being an African American, he's known for being a Civil Rights leader. They are reverting anyone who adds this category to Collin's article.Malke 2010 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They are also both claiming that Michael Collins cannot be listed under the Irish Revolutionary category, despite the fact that the opening sentence on his article states he was an Irish Revolutionary.Malke 2010 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Diffs:[1][2][3] Malke 2010 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your example is not quite relevant - MLK is mentioned in many sources as African-American, that part is discussed at length, so MLK is notable for being an African-American, as well as being a civil rights leader and whatever else. The question here is not, was he a catholic or not. The question is, can you verify in reliable secondary sources that he was or was not catholic. Right now there is no mention of his religion in the article, so adding the category Irish Catholics would be an unsourced addition, which on controversial articles is not usually allowed. If you can reliably source the information you wish to include you will have more chance of including it, but until you provide sources the information you wish to include is non-verifiable and unlikely to find a place in an article on probation. Weakopedia (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would think that. But that is because this article has been sanitized of Collin's Catholicism.Malke 2010 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The framing of the RFC is wrong. Unlike many other religious categories, Category:Irish Roman Catholics has inclusion criteria that mean simply being a Catholic is not enough. Despite repeated requests for evidence from reliable sources he meets the criteria, none has been forthcoming despite a promise that it would be. Snappy is another editor who has removed the category, so it is not just "two editors" in addition. O Fenian (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Those criterea are 'Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-indentified as a Roman Catholic.', so any source must show that Collins self-identified as Catholic, and must show his Catholicism was notable - that means it really needs to be well-sourced enough and notable enough to appear in the article before appearing as a category. Weakopedia (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Weakopedia. Michael Collins did self identify as a Catholic and his Catholicism was notable since he was a revolutionary attempting to rid Ireland of the British who were persecuting the Irish Catholics. They (the British) had no quarrel with the Protestants whom they recruited in their war against the Catholics. This article has been sanitized of his Catholicism, as do many books about him. But the fact is the man was born and raised a Catholic, lived as a Catholic and fought to rid Ireland of those who would persecute Catholics. That is notable. Malke 2010 12:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I have said in the discussion above in the many biographies of Collins his Catholicism does not even seem to be mentioned other than him being born into a Catholic family. O Fenian (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the sources that support his Catholicism? It's hard to make any comment without seeing sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources:

Collins was born and raised and died a Catholic. (See: Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland, Tim Pat Coogan.) His parents and siblings were Catholics. His sister became a nun. He had Catholic burial rites. Apparently there are editors here who actually believe Collins was not a Catholic. In his letters to Kitty, Collins also mentions that he said the rosary and prayers for the deceased relatives and he went to Mass. So he practiced his faith. (In Great Haste: The Letters of Michael Collins and Kitty Kiernan).

Some people wrongly believe that because Collins sided with the British in the creation of the Free State, that he was either not a Catholic or that he'd converted. This is false. He was never anything but a Catholic. Or they wrongly assume that because Wolfe Tone, a Anglican/Protestant, is claimed to be the father of Irish Republicanism, that all Republicans are Anglican/Protestants. This is also false. And in fact, Wolfe Tone cared little for his own religion. Collins fervently worked to free Ireland from British hegemony and its Catholic suppression. The war with Britain was a religious war. Always has been. Collins was born and raised and died a Catholic. I also found several other references that mention his Catholic faith. I will add this to the article with the appropriate citations.Malke 2010 04:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Collins also made a pilgrimage to the shrine of the recently beatified Irish Catholic martyr Blessed Oliver Plunkett's at St. Peter's in Drogheda. Plunkett was murdered by the British for his Catholicism. "In Drogheda I saw the head of Blessed Oliver Plunkett. It's simply marvellous, and also I lit candles there--the first for you, and so on." (From, In Great Haste: The letters of Michael Collins and Kitty Kiernan.)

The beatification of Plunkett was an event in Catholic Ireland and Collins making a pilgrimage there is significant.

He often signed his letters to Kitty, "God be with you, Kitty dear." So here we have, Collins born and raised Catholic, lived as a Catholic, visited the shrine of a Catholic martyr recently beatified, said the rosary and prayers, attended Mass, signed his letters, "God be with you," sounds like a Catholic who practiced his faith. And he was fighting for religious freedom from the British who spent the last 200 years trying to wipe Catholicism out of Ireland. Catholic Requiem Mass and funeral service. Yep, he's a Catholic and it deserves mention in his biography. Malke 2010 06:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Chapter on Michael Collin's Catholicism and his devotion to his faith entitled, "Two Catholic Revolutionaries - Michael Collins & Eamon de Valera" in Church and Revolution by Thomas Bokenkotter. See Also: Michael Collins, the Last Leader, by Margery Forester, London 1971; "In London with the Treaty Delegation: Personal Recollections" in Capuchin Annual 1971, article by Kathleen McKenna; Ireland's Civil War, by Calton Younger, London 1968; The Big Fellow, by Frank O'Conner, Dublin 1965; MIchael Collins by Rex Taylor, London 1958;

All these books discuss and/or note Collin's devout Catholicism. I have another dozen books, all detailing the same thing. I will list them and the Irish newspaper articles later.Malke 2010 14:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, at issue here is not whether Collins was a catholic, but whether his catholicism contributed to his notability and sources have yet to be produced to support that claim. Category:Irish Catholics is clearly for those whose catholicism made them notable, say bishops and church leaders, it isn't for the addition of anyone otherwise the category becomes completely overpopulated and meaningless.

Furthermore misrepresenting editors arguments and making wild claims like "Some people wrongly believe that because Collins sided with the British in the creation of the Free State, that he was either not a Catholic or that he'd converted....Or they wrongly assume that because Wolfe Tone, a Anglican/Protestant, is claimed to be the father of Irish Republicanism, that all Republicans are Anglican/Protestants" is unlikely to lead to you being taken seriously as I've yet to meet anyone who subscribes to such bizarre notions (though there have been numerous other protestant republicans cf Ronnie Bunting, John Turnley, Billy Leonard etc).

This also applies to claims like: "he was fighting for religious freedom from the British who spent the last 200 years trying to wipe Catholicism out of Ireland." While the conflict in Ireland does have some religious roots among other causes, few serious historians would argue that events like the Irish War of Independence was a result of the Brits trying to shut down churches etc. Unless you have sources which say that then it remains your personal point of view and as such will likely be dismissed as original research. Valenciano (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The British used divide and conquer to reach their goals which was the subjugation of Ireland. They allied with Protestants in Ireland who were, by and large, wealthy land owners who wanted to keep their status quo. The majority, the Catholics, were poor, even among landowners. So, it became Catholics versus Protestants. And the history of Ireland is most definitely one of genocide against Catholics. See Oliver Cromwell. The point is, this long history and the British alliance with Irish Protestants makes religion relevant, and Michael Collins was a practicing Catholic. This article should reflect that. Whether or not Collin's Catholicism meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion as a notable Irish Catholic doesn't diminish the fact of his Catholicism. Also, I mentioned all the sources regarding his Catholicism in response to questions by these editors who stated they did not know of any sources that refer to Collins as a Catholic.[4][5].

As regards sources that support the relevancy of religion in the Irish War for Independence and the Irish Civil War, I can provide these as well. The creation of the Irish Free State set Catholic upon Catholic. And the British didn't need to 'shut down' churches. With the long history of the Brits in the past invading monastaries and convents and murdering clergy, the Church well knew better than to speak out. The Clerics spoke out against the War for Independence and Michael Collins spoke out against the Clerics doing so. The war for independence and the civil war most certainly involved religion.Malke 2010 16:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been asked once not to represent other's comments, such as posting this diff next to your own comment of "Also, I mentioned all the sources regarding his Catholicism in response to questions by these editors who stated they did not know of any sources that refer to Collins as a Catholic". I would have thought anyone with even a basic grasp of English would have been capable of understanding the meaning of "his Catholicism does not even seem to be mentioned other than him being born into a Catholic family". Other than Coogan which covers the ground already covered and dismissed, your other sources are primary sources, and are not relevant to this discussion. I exclude from that comment the long list of books you provided without any actual evidence to support your claim that they discuss "Collin's devout Catholicism". O Fenian (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the personal attack within your comments. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Also, that goes as well for RepublicanJacobite [6]. I'd appreciate it if you would go back to my talk page and remove that and/or apologize. O'Fenian, you stated that his Catholicism didn't seem to be mentioned "other than his being born into a Catholic family." I responded with numerous sources that show he was a practicing Catholic. I supplied the diffs to editors' comments, that included yours, as a courtesy to the editor I was responding to.Malke 2010 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no personal attack, and I suggest you review WP:KETTLE. O Fenian (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, all the sources I've listed are reliable sources. The collection of letters is published by a reputable publisher (St. Martin's Press) and it was edited by Leon O'Broin, who was a distinguished writer and historian. All the other sources are either biographies or histories and they also fit the criteria for RS.Malke 2010 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A collection of letters is a primary source. Since you say that "The Last [sic] Leader" by Margery Forester contains details about Collins Catholicism, how about providing a page number and quote right now? The same applies for every other source you just listed also, as you have not provided anything except a list of books. O Fenian (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a comment as an outsider to this debate, it seems that Collins is being held to a higher standard than others who are listed in the category of Irish Roman Catholics. For instance, Basil W. Maturin, whose article is a simple stub, is notable only as an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, and not because it was a "defining characteristic or related to their notability". Richard Bellings and James Dillon were 17th century statesmen/soldiers whose association with "the Catholic side" in the war with Cromwell was more political than religious, and not a "defining characteristic or related to their notability" any more than was Collins' Catholicism. Charles Bewley is noted only because he was a Quaker convert to Catholicism. James FitzGerald's article makes no mention of his being Catholic at all. And Patrick Sarsfield, notable as a soldier, was not notable specifically for being a Catholic. So why is Collins restricted from the category, when he was assuredly Catholic, and espoused a cause that even today is seen as a decidedly Catholic cause? Eastcote (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the category from other articles is a matter for those articles, and their erroneous inclusion in the category does not justify extending the erroneous inclusion to this article. O Fenian (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The category is valid for Michael Collins. The criteria seems to be applied to him in an unusual way on this article. That he was a Catholic and an Irish revolutionary is not in doubt in the part of Ireland where I was born. Nor am I aware of it being in doubt in any other part of Ireland.Malke 2010 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a personal attack: "I would have thought anyone with even a basic grasp of English would have been capable of understanding the meaning of. . ." Please refactor your comments.Malke 2010 18:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. Since I will not be refactoring it before the heat death of the universe I suggest you do something constructive such as providing the quote and page number from Margery Foster's book. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. You keep adding WP:KETTLE, yet you don't supply a diff where I attacked you. If there is an edit I've made that you feel is a personal attack, I will be happy to refactor it. In the meantime, please refactor yours. As regards supplying a list of page numbers and quotes, I will be doing that with the edits within the article when I've made them. I'm working on those now. If you are familiar with any of these titles, then you already know that they all speak to Collins' Catholicism.Malke 2010 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the "anyone with even a basic grasp of English" comment is bit insulting, and it wouldn't hurt to say "Yeah, sorry about that". It could lead to more constructive dialog. Eastcote (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at all the abuse he has come out with on this and user talk pages. Right after being told not to deliberately misrepresent other people's comments he deliberately misrepresented my comments. The barriers to constructive dialogue right now are Malke 2010's abuse, deliberate misrepresentation of comments and failure to provide quotes as requested. O Fenian (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any "abuse" that Malke has directed at you on this talk page, and abuse on other talk pages is a matter for those pages. I'm speaking specifically to your comment about "a basic grasp of English", which is not a civil way to discuss a difference of opinion. Again, I think an apology would be in order to restore more civil discourse. Eastcote (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Try Talk:Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader)#Michael_Collins.27_Catholicism. No refactoring or apology will be forthcoming, so I suggest dropping the subject. O Fenian (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest being more civil. I only see what is on this page, and I don't like surfing around to find other's transgressions on other pages. Whatever has transpired between you and Malke has nothing to do with me. But you are beginning to take a rather uncivil tone with me as well, which is not a way to conduct business. Eastcote (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You would be better off encouraging Malke to provide a quote that he seemingly has no intention of providing, assuming he is even capable of providing the quote in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am on topic. Provide the quote from Forester as requested. I have a copy of the book in front of me right now, and I would like you to provide a quote and page number that supports your assertion. Should you fail to provide this information then editors will draw a very specific conclusion I am sure. So how about it, quote and page number right now? O Fenian (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was I told not to 'deliberately misrepresent others' comments?" Is there a diff? Also, can you supply a diff of where I've made a personal attack against you or others here? And what does the quote from Margery Forester's book, Michael Collins: Lost Leader, need to say to satisfy you? Did I quote it above directly? Or did I say it was among the other books I have that support or note Collins' Catholicism? Where in the book, does it not do that?Malke 2010 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall make this simple. Please provide the page number and quote from Forester which you said here "discuss and/or note Collin's devout Catholicism". Those are your exact words, so why cannot you provide the quote and page number? Provide more than one quote and page number if you want, but your stalling on this is not helpful. O Fenian (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for me to get back to the library for the Forester quote. All I have in front of me right now are my notes, as her book is a reference book at our library and does not circulate. But since you have the book, can you quote anywhere in it that shows Michael Collins was not a Catholic? Can you give us a quote and page number? Can you show us any reliable source that claims Michael Collins was not a Catholic?

Here's a quote from a book I'm reading right now. It's from the biography, Michael Collins: A Life, by James Mackay, Page 21: (From Mackay): . . ."his father taught him well, at an early age, to think for himself, to question everything. This extended into the field of religion. The Collinses were devout, but this did not necessarily mean that everything about their faith was accepted unquestioningly. There is abundant evidence to suggest that Michael, in the middle period of his life, took religious observance rather lightly, but in the last three years of his life he came back to his faith and in the stressful period of the Truce and the Treaty, as well as in the civil war that followed, he often found solace in the Mass and the Rosary."

Page 30: (From Mackay):. . ."Michael never lost his faith. That was too deeply ingrained in him. . .but he went through a phase as he approached manhood when he was decidedly hostile to the Catholic Church. On one occasion in 1909 he caused a furore at a Sinn Fein meeting when he delivered a tirade against the priesthood's role in Irish history, attacking the spineless attitude of the hierarchy and concluding violently, 'Exterminate them.'"

Will that do for now? You also mentioned you wanted me to prove the British killed Catholics in the 20th century. Will examples of the anti-Catholic pograms by the British Belfast Government under Sir Henry Wilson in April, 1922, suffice?Malke 2010 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Can you show us any reliable source that claims Michael Collins was not a Catholic?", I have no interest in feeding your trolling any more. In addition you will find none of the quotes above are sufficient for inclusion in the category. O Fenian (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of trolling is another personal attack. Do you have a reliable source that proves Michael Collins was not a Catholic?Malke 2010 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

After being told twice to cease deliberately misrepresenting other editors positions you continue to do so, that is trolling in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And the quote I've provided, along with the others I will provide, will be more than sufficient to prove that Michael Collins was an Irish Catholic and an Irish Revolutionary and he does indeed deserve to be in the category.Malke 2010 21:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Being a Catholic is insufficient for inclusion in the category. O Fenian (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not true in his case. He's one of the most famous Catholics in history. So if someone like Michael Collins can't make into the Catholic category, then perhaps the criteria for the category needs to change. In any event, you've still not provided any reliable source that claims Michael Collins was not a Catholic and that he was not a practicing Catholic, nor have you shown that his Catholicism did not impact his life's work as an Irish Revolutionary.Malke 2010 21:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And I've not misrepresented any editor's comments/opinions. You've said that there is nothing more than a mention by Coogan that Collins was born into a Catholic family. And you've not shown any reliable source that he was not a Catholic. Nor have you shown with a reliable source that Collins doesn't belong in a the Catholic category. And you've again made a personal attack.Malke 2010 21:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Collins meets this criteria: [7].Malke 2010 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Collins is "one of the most famous Catholics in history"?! That is utterly ludicrous! There are thousands of people famous specifically for being Catholic, not for any other reason. Collins is most famous for being an Irish Republican, first, last, always. He is not famous for being Catholic. No one, either in this discussion, or in the article has claimed that Collins was not Catholic. The point is, he is not famous for being Catholic. Get it through your thick head.

As for trolling, I agree with O Fenian. This entire discussion has been dragged on by you for no reason whatsoever. You have utterly failed to provide the sources that prove your point. Yet, on and on you go, with no end in sight. It's time to put up or shut up, as the saying goes. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Collins is one of the most famous Irish Catholics in history. As for personal attacks, you both resort to that when you fail to come up with valid reasons, such as reliable sources, that prove your argument. Please remove the personal attack.Malke 2010 23:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No sources have been provided that show Michael Collins religion "was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability". They show he was a Catholic which has never been in dispute despite the trolling assertions to the contrary, yet do not show it was a defining characteristic or related to his notability. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the sources show that. You've based your argument on Coogan not mentioning more than Collin's being born into a Catholic family, and Coogan is hardly an unbiased source. The totality of my sources, including "Church and Revolution" by Thomas Bokenkotter, the chapter "Two Catholic Revolutionaries: Michael Collins and Eamon deValera" are valid and prove Collins deserves to be included in the Irish Catholic catgory, as well as having mention of his Catholicism within the article. Collins Catholicism was a defining characteristic for him as well as for the war for independence and the civil war. It most definitely is related to his notability. It's part and parcel of his belief system, of what made him the man he was. You can't prove otherwise.Malke 2010 22:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer to that is contained in WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy." Editors don't need to prove negatives, the burden is on you to prove that it is his catholicism which affects his notability. Which sources explicitly say that Collins was a religious leader? Valenciano (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at that infobox section again - it isn't for religious leaders, it's for Irish people whose Catholicism is notable. So it is not necessary to show that anyone was a religious leader. The burden of evidence does lie with the editor who adds material, but please do not invent additional burdens that there is no consensus for. Weakopedia (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, it is for people whose religion "was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability". A sentence about Mass or the Rosary does not fulfill that. Malke is currently advancing his own arguments, not ones sources have made. Otherwise let us have precise quotes from books that support the claims "Collins Catholicism was a defining characteristic for him as well as for the war for independence and the civil war" and "It's part and parcel of his belief system, of what made him the man he was". It is not for me to prove otherwise, Wikipedia does not allow people to advance crackpot theories then say "you have to prove otherwise". O Fenian (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? If so, please read what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that the standards of notability should drop in this case - I said 'it must be notable' and you said 'no, it must be notable'. That's the same thing. Also, please try to comment on edits, not editors. You are making a battleground of this page, to it's detriment. Weakopedia (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You said "it's for Irish people whose Catholicism is notable". It is actually for people whose religion "was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability". This discussion will go much smoother if people stick to the facts. O Fenian (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what you think is the difference in interpretation, because it looks like you are having trouble understanding the meaning of the word 'notability' and how it means the same thing in both cases. If someone is notable for the religion, then their religion is notable. If someones religion is notable, then that person can be said to be notable for their religion. Weakopedia (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(To Weakopedia) I'm not imposing additional burdens but the guidance there is fairly clear: people "for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability" Have a look at any of the bios that cover Collins and his religion is barely mentioned, if it all, nevermind given the type of prominence that we'd need to include it here [8], [9], [10], [11]. As those make clear, Collins was a revolutionary leader and his religion seems to be an incidental piece of trivia, not a contributing factor in his notability. Valenciano (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How unusual - I am not sure either of you have actually read the words I have written, at least not in the order I wrote them. You said 'Which sources explicitly say that Collins was a religious leader?' and I said 'the infobox does not require that he was a religious leader'. Notice that I didn't say 'he meets the requirements for the infobox' nor did I say 'his religion is not an incidental piece of trivia'. All I said was that he does not have to be a religious leader. Since you have just quoted the infobox conditions for inclusion, I presume that you also now realise that the criterea for inclusion do not include being a religious leader, so that is at least one problem of miscommunication out of the way. Weakopedia (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I read everything you wrote. Also I'm not speaking about the infobox, I'm speaking about the category. Valenciano (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this entire issue is hinged on Malke2010's misguided insistance that the events in Ireland in the first quarter of the 20th century are purely attributable to religion. Whatever may have happened previously, if the British had an issue with Catholocism of the type that Malke2010 suggests, why was there no parallel "suppression" of the religion in the overwhelmingly Catholic Malta, or the largely Catholic British Honduras, for that matter? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not long ago, Jimbo Wales was discussing BLP's with some admins over on the AN/I noticeboard and an admin specifically asked him about online citations, and he said he did not require that all citations be online. So please don't add requirements to this burden that do not exist.Malke 2010 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who asked for an online citation? Valenciano (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You did.[12].Malke 2010 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. O Fenian (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do not know the difference between "inline" and "online," this discussion should be brought to a speedy end. You can use some time off to study up on policy. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying, that adding a citation is something every editor is aware of. I was not familiar with the term 'inline.' As regards suggesting editors' study policy, both of you might start here:[13].Malke 2010 15:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering it says "Do not misrepresent other people" WP:KETTLE still applies. O Fenian (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is just a mistake then between inline and online. Malke has the citation on the book he should simply add the cat and add the book cite and close this down. This cited is more that enough for inclusion "Collins was born and raised and died a Catholic. (See: Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland, Tim Pat Coogan.) His parents and siblings were Catholics. His sister became a nun. He had Catholic burial rites. Apparently there are editors here who actually believe Collins was not a Catholic. In his letters to Kitty, Collins also mentions that he said the rosary and prayers for the deceased relatives and he went to Mass. So he practiced his faith. (In Great Haste: The Letters of Michael Collins and Kitty Kiernan)." Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Please pay attention. No one has claimed that he is not Catholic. The point is that he is not notable for being Catholic. Read the standards set for inclusion in the category. Furthermore, the latter book is a primary source, which would have to be backed with a secondary source. Anyway, it's all beside the point, since the issue, despite Malke's evasions, has never been if he was Catholic, but whether he is notable for said Catholicism. No source has been provided to prove that. I rather doubt that any such source will ever be provided. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, he was a catholic. It is excessively pointy to object to his inclusion when we regularly add such people, he is notable for his leading the Revolution and that said.. he was a catholic and can happily be added to the cat. (with a citation of course) The fact that he was a catholic is clearly a notable point in regards to his notable actions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely pointy.Malke 2010 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The standard says: "Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-indentified as a Roman Catholic."

Collins Catholicism doesn't have to define his notability. How would that define anybody but the Pope, anyway? Does RepubicJacobite have a source that says Collins' Catholicism is not related to his notability?Malke 2010 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source that says Catholicism had nothing to do with the Irish War for Independence and/or the Irish Civil War?Malke 2010 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is more the point that you have failed to back up your view, which seems to be that Catholocism has everything to do with them. I note that you have ignored my observation that other countries under British control at the time in question with majority or large Catholic populations did not suffer the "anti-Catholocism" you have suggested was the policy in Ireland. One could similarly point out that there was no official or systematic persecution of Catholics in England, Scotland, or Wales at the time, either. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) (To Malke:) Republicanjacobite doesn't have to prove a negative, again read WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to prove that it was Collin's catholicism which made him notable as opposed to his notability stemming from him being a revolutionary leader. You have provided no sources so far to prove this instead relying on your own POV, straw man arguments which misquote or misrepresent others, and ultimately synthesising your POV and primary sources. None of the third party sources seem to deem this notable, neither should we. It's not just a matter of WP:POINT, for those categories to have any worth they should only include those notable for catholicism. To Off2riorob, the incorrect inclusion of other people in those cats is a reason for removing people from it, not by compounding the error by erroneously adding more people. Valenciano (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

From the biography, Michael Collins: A Life, by James Mackay, Page 21: (From Mackay): . . ."his father taught him well, at an early age, to think for himself, to question everything. This extended into the field of religion. The Collinses were devout, but this did not necessarily mean that everything about their faith was accepted unquestioningly. There is abundant evidence to suggest that Michael, in the middle period of his life, took religious observance rather lightly, but in the last three years of his life he came back to his faith and in the stressful period of the Truce and the Treaty, as well as in the civil war that followed, he often found solace in the Mass and the Rosary."

Page 30: (From Mackay):. . ."Michael never lost his faith. That was too deeply ingrained in him. . .but he went through a phase as he approached manhood when he was decidedly hostile to the Catholic Church. On one occasion in 1909 he caused a furore at a Sinn Fein meeting when he delivered a tirade against the priesthood's role in Irish history, attacking the spineless attitude of the hierarchy and concluding violently, 'Exterminate them.'"

I also have citations for the various anti-Catholic pograms committed by the British Belfast Government under Sir Henry Wilson in April, 1922, as well as earlier examples.Malke 2010 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Cooper: The British weren't attempting to conquer the U.K. They already owned it. And you should review the history of the Catholic Church in the U.K. I'd start with Henry VIII. That might help you understand just where those who didn't convert stood.Malke 2010 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for your attempt to lecture me on the history of my own religion in the country in which I do actually live, but we are talking about the early 20th century here, not the early 16th century. You have claimed that the religion of the majority of the Irish population was the primary motivator for British policy in Ireland at the time. Why, then, did similar events not happen in the other countries under British control which also had large or majority Catholic populations? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Valenciano: Collins' Catholicism doesn't have to make him notable. You misunderstand the criteria, possibly because of your own POV, straw man arguments which misquote or misrepresent others, etc. Catholicism doesn't have to make Collins notable. It is RELATED to his notability. And if you keep deleting the category, then you've got to come up with a good reason why. Can you show that Catholicism had nothing to do with the War for Independence? Is there a British government document, a decree, a law, or a declaration that says Catholicism has nothing to do with the conflict? Malke 2010 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the criteria is pretty clear: "Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-indentified as a Roman Catholic." Despite numerous requests for cites to the contrary you have failed to prove that Collins religion was a defining characteristic or related to his notability, until you do then there's really nothing more to say. Also (for the third time) I'd ask you to read WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so the onus is on you to do that, not on other editors to provide negative proof. Valenciano (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Valenciano, please then define the guideline: What is a defining characteristic? What constitutes a relation to their notability? How does the person self-identify? etc. Thanks.Malke 2010 21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Defining characteristic? Dictionary.com covers it pretty well: "pertaining to, constituting, or indicating the character or peculiar quality of a person" .... "a distinguishing feature" .... "A feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably."

Is being a catholic in early 20th century Ireland, where ~85% were catholics, a "peculiar quality", "distinguishing feature" or semthing that helps to "identify" or "tell apart"? Honestly now?

Relation to their notability? Easy. Did Collins being a catholic make him more or less notable? Or was his notability unaffected by it? Put another way, if he had been of a different religion, would he be any less notable? The answer to all that is clearly that his religion had zero impact on his notability. He's famous for being a political and revolutionary leader. So without sources which explicitly say otherwise, as I say, there isn't anything more to add. Valenciano (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You actually believe that being a Catholic in Ireland, especially during that period, was not related? Which Ireland are you talking about?Malke 2010 14:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A better question is, why are you so against Collins Catholicism?Malke 2010 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Valenciano (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Close the RfC, please

Given Malke 2010's utter failure, after multiple requests, to provide sources proving the notability of Collins' Catholicism, his many evasions, attempts to change the subject, attempts to change the standards by which this issue would be decided, and his multiple comments like the one above (in which he casts aspersions upon other editors, accusing them of bias, etc.) which are nothing but disruptive, I suggest that this RfC be closed. Let it not be said that he was not given a chance to make his case, and utterly failed to do so. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This flogged horse is well and truly knackered. RashersTierney (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not closing this RfC. The above questions I posed deserve to be answered. You can't show any reason why Collins doesn't merit inclusion in Irish Catholics. You're having to put up now and you know you can't. Not one of you have put forward any source that shows why Collins should be included. The history of Ireland shows exactly why his Catholicism mattered. Henry VIII viewed remaining Catholicism in Ireland as being against the Crown. It's part and parcel of the entire history of the conflict with the British. If anybody's Catholicism matters, its Michael Collins.

So again, what is it about Collins' Catholicism that bothers you so much that you would put up this much trouble to exclude him?Malke 2010 21:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of sources this is beyond pointless, and is well past the disruptive stage. O Fenian (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't rush to close the RfC. I'm not so sure Collins does not fit into the Irish Catholic category. The criteria are: "Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic...OR...related to their notability...AND...where the person has self-indentified as a Roman Catholic." Certainly Collins does not fit before the big OR, because he was not necessarily defined by his Catholicism (though the argument can be made). But he fits after the big OR. Membership in the Roman Catholic Church was indeed related to his notability. He is notable for being an Irish revolutionary, who espoused what is generally held to be the side of Irish Catholics in the continuing troubles in Ireland. He certainly wasn't a champion of the Irish Protestant cause, which is generally held to be for union with Great Britain. Anywhere you go in the world and ask about the nature of conflict in Ireland, you'll get the response "Catholics vs. Protestants". He was a major player on the "Catholic" side, which makes his religion "related to his notability". Eastcote (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And I've provided several reliable sources. But no sources have been given to show Collins' Catholicism isn't related to his role as an Irish Revolutionary. And the religious wars were set off by Henry VIII and continue to this day. Remaining a Catholic was viewed as being against the Crown.Malke 2010 22:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide proof of your last claim in the context of events in the early-20th Century? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. So, that's three votes to close the RfC as having run its course and being a source of disruption. And no relevant votes to keep it open. Can an admin. mark this as resolved that the categories remain out, so we can all move on to more important matters? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment There's no voting on Wikipedia. The matter is still open.Malke 2010 02:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Close Even though he's been asked several times Malke2010 has failed to provide sources to back up his claims. His continual refusal to read and comprehend WP:BURDEN, despite it being pointed out to him three times means there's nothing more to add. Until he coughs up some sources (bearing in mind WP:SYNTH) his POV pushing and illogical requests for negative proof will be ignored. For me, his attempts to personalise the discussion mean that he's forfeited the right to be taken seriously. Valenciano (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Close I think it's clear that Malke has been unsuccessful in pushing his own polarised and highly selective interpretation of both the category in question, and events in Ireland during the timeframe we are concerned with here. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The guy was a catholic, whats the problem with that? Add him to a cat that he clearly is a shoe in for, close this rubbish and move on. Is it some problem that he was a catholic? Somthing to hide from the wiki world? Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Off2riorob. What is the problem with Collins being a Catholic? Sources were given. What is wrong with the sources given? Would you like sources that show the conflict in Ireland had a religious motivation?Malke 2010 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He was a Catholic through and through. Catholic, catholic , catholic. Catholic until the day he died and was given the last rites. He was a catholic man from a catholic family, his sister was a nun. We have millions of such people in the Roman Catholic category, why should it not be ok for this Catholic? Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism?Malke 2010 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, the vast majority of Irish people notable enough for other reasons to have a page on them on Wikipedia should therefore also be put into the category. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much yelling and sniping here, everyone. Seems to me pretty obvious; the fight for Irish independence was simulaneously nationalist and religious, and Collin's heritage and culture were a significant part of his biography. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"the fight for Irish independence was simulaneously nationalist and religious", absent any sources that say so that is an invention of Malke, no credible historian I have seen has made that claim about the 20th century struggle for independence. O Fenian (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

JPGordon's is my position also. it is an easy NPOV choice. Clearly his religion is significantly relevant in the notable issue in his life, adding someone to a cat like this is a simple shoe in and totally normal practice in wikipedia articles. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Add him to the category and move on. Catholicism was clearly "related to his notability" as an Irish revolutionary connected with the "Catholic" side of the conflict. To say Malke "invented" the notion that Irish conflict has been simultaneously nationalist and religious is too weird. Religion and nationalism have been intertwined in Ireland for hundreds of years. The proof you're seeking is like asking for proof that John Wayne was an American actor, or that Maggie Thatcher was prime minister of Great Britain. Why the stubborn resistance? Eastcote (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Replying to my post while ignoring the part that says "absent any sources that say so" is unconvincing in the extreme, as you are just making the same unsourced assertions. For your point to even be entertained please provide credible sources stating the Irish War of Independence was a religious conflict. O Fenian (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jpgordon and Eastcote are correct. And I can't believe OFenian is saying there was no religious conflict present during the 20th Century. Can he provide a source that shows the religious conflict that started with Henry VIII's breaking away from the Catholic Church ended at the start of the 20th Century? Look in any Irish history book. The conflict is ongoing even today. Remaining a Catholic with allegiance to the Pope was seen as treason to the Crown. Can Prince William marry and a Catholic and still ascend the throne? No. Why not? Because the King is also the spiritual leader, not the Pope. Did the British align with the Protestants in Ireland, those who had remained loyal to the King? Yes. Did these Protestants want to be ruled by the Catholic majority? No. Same thing in the six counties to the north which were illegally coopted by the British invasion. The Scots were forced to emigrate to provide a Protestant foothold. The idea was to wipe out the Catholics. Who suffered in the great famine? The British would only give watered down soup to the Irish Catholics who converted to Anglicanism. And then the dawn of the 20th century and that all goes away, magically over night? Was the Rising held on Easter for a reason? Why was a Republic so feared? Because it would mean the Catholics would be the ruling class and have dominion over the Protestants. Show us a source that says none of that is true.Malke 2010 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be more pertinent to ask you to identify a reputable source that says that any of that is true in the sense that you're pushing it. What on earth have current matters of royal protocol got to do with events in Ireland a century ago? And yet again you are claiming that anti-Catholocism was the sole motivator of British policy, yet you have repeatedly and conspiculously ignored my numerous requests for you to explain why the same was not true of almost exclusively Catholic Malta and substantially Catholic British Honduras, for example. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How are they related to British hegemony and religious genocide in Ireland? And please define 'reputable source.' And I don't mean this kind. I mean the kind you'll accept personally. I've provided sources and all of you have ignorned them or claimed they were not RS. So stop wasting my volunteer time and get specific about the sources before I go to the trouble of posting them.Malke 2010 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You're the one claiming that the main if not only reason Britain was trying to maintain its rule over Ireland was in order to subjugate/oppress/destroy Catholics. It is therefore entirely logical to ask why they were not doing the same thing to other large Catholic populations then under their control. Why "religious genocide" in Ireland, but not in Malta, British Honduras, etc.? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite please don't template editors as you did to Off2riorob [14]and please refrain from personal attacks such as this one [15]Malke 2010 18:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources on Irish history include:
Church and Revolution, Thomas Bokenkotter
Ireland's Holy Wars 1500 - 2000, Marcus Tanner
In Search of Ireland's Heroes, Carmel McCaffrey
Modern Ireland, R.F. Foster
Making Sense of the Troubles, David McKittrick
History of Ireland, Malachy McCourt
The Course of Irish History, T.W. Moody
Michael Collins, James McKay
The Cause of Liberty: A Thousand Years of Ireland's Heroes, Terry Golway
In Great Haste: The Letters of Michael Collins and Kitty Kiernan
The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845 to 1849

to name a few.Malke 2010 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Providing random lists of books has previously been dismissed as inadequate, particularly ones that are primary sources. How about providing quotes and page numbers from McKay that support your assertions? O Fenian (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How are these primary sources? And random? What does random mean? And I've already listed the passages from MacKay.Malke 2010 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"In Great Haste: The Letters of Michael Collins and Kitty Kiernan" is a primary source. The passages from McKay do not support any of the assertions you are currently making. Since this affliction seems to be spreading from you to other editors, I suggest that other editors disregard any assertion without an accompanying source. O Fenian (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The letters aren't really a primary source. They're collected and commented upon. They are published by a reputable publisher. It's not a primary source. And the passages from MacKay do indeed show that Collins was a Catholic. He self-identified, etc. You've not shown any source that proves otherwise. And how are the other books not qualified? Especially, Ireland's Holy Wars, by Marcus Tanner, a scholarly text published by Yale University Press. Are you dismissing that also? What about The Cause of Liberty? The Great Hunger? Modern Ireland?Malke 2010 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Close. Without a direct source where the individual self identifies as a Catholic, I don't see due cause for including him. The only source provided so far that I can see has been the MacKay quote and unfortunately p.30 provided above puts his religious denomination in murky waters. He may very well be Catholic, but without a clear cut source indicating so, that everybody can verify on their own it would seem questionable to pick this particular denomination over other denomination categories. Since more than enough time has been provided to find one and since now lists of seemingly unaffiliated books are being shown without page numbers and quotes with the claim that they support the premise, I think the RFC should be closed. One's intelligence can only be insulted so much.Chhe (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My, what a long section. It's odd that anyone is looking for sources that Collins was a Catholic (yes, I'm aware of WP:VER, but it's a red herring, as is the fact of his Catholicism in any event). The category is for people for whom "their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-identified as a Roman Catholic." This is derived from policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories. Self-identified? Yes. Related to their notability? Not in any way. Collins just isn't notable for being Catholic. Defining characteristic? Not in any way. There were Protestant, Jewish and agnostic and atheist Irish rebels too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Cooper: Were there also land-owning Protestants/Anglicans in Honduras and Malta whom the British could manipulate? Was the political situation and the history of the British in those countries identical to the situation in Ireland? If not, then it would appear the British had to use other tactics. You appear to have no understanding of the fundamental nature of the conflict in Ireland.Malke 2010 17:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who seems to have a highly selective and skewed view of the period in history in question here. You have repeatedly tried to claim that the main if not the sole motivator for British policy in the early 20th century was anti-Catholocism, but if that were the case, it would be entirely logical to assume that they pursued the same policy against Catholics in other territories under their control, not least Britain itself. Yet there is absolutely zero evidence in support of that scenario, and much evidence directly against it. As for all that other nonsense you posted... Wow! A few disparate grumblings, and you seem to spin them into evidence of some sort of impending anti-Catholic pogrom. I suppose it much be easy to get completely the wrong end of the stick from several thousand miles away, but really.... Nick Cooper (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary of refusal to provide sources and evasion

At 18:40, 17 May 2010 two quotes about Collins were provided from James MacKay's book. Since then the following posts containing evasion and constant requests for negative proof to prove his own unsourced (and largely wrong) assertions were made:

[16] "Valenciano: Collins' Catholicism doesn't have to make him notable. You misunderstand the criteria, possibly because of your own POV, straw man arguments which misquote or misrepresent others, etc. Catholicism doesn't have to make Collins notable. It is RELATED to his notability. And if you keep deleting the category, then you've got to come up with a good reason why. Can you show that Catholicism had nothing to do with the War for Independence? Is there a British government document, a decree, a law, or a declaration that says Catholicism has nothing to do with the conflict?"
[17] "You actually believe that being a Catholic in Ireland, especially during that period, was not related? Which Ireland are you talking about?"
[18] "The above questions I posed deserve to be answered. You can't show any reason why Collins doesn't merit inclusion in Irish Catholics. You're having to put up now and you know you can't. Not one of you have put forward any source that shows why Collins should be included. The history of Ireland shows exactly why his Catholicism mattered. Henry VIII viewed remaining Catholicism in Ireland as being against the Crown. It's part and parcel of the entire history of the conflict with the British. If anybody's Catholicism matters, its Michael Collins. So again, what is it about Collins' Catholicism that bothers you so much that you would put up this much trouble to exclude him?"
[19] "And I've provided several reliable sources. But no sources have been given to show Collins' Catholicism isn't related to his role as an Irish Revolutionary. And the religious wars were set off by Henry VIII and continue to this day. Remaining a Catholic was viewed as being against the Crown."
[20] "And I can't believe OFenian is saying there was no religious conflict present during the 20th Century. Can he provide a source that shows the religious conflict that started with Henry VIII's breaking away from the Catholic Church ended at the start of the 20th Century? Look in any Irish history book. The conflict is ongoing even today. Remaining a Catholic with allegiance to the Pope was seen as treason to the Crown. Can Prince William marry and a Catholic and still ascend the throne? No. Why not? Because the King is also the spiritual leader, not the Pope. Did the British align with the Protestants in Ireland, those who had remained loyal to the King? Yes. Did these Protestants want to be ruled by the Catholic majority? No. Same thing in the six counties to the north which were illegally coopted by the British invasion. The Scots were forced to emigrate to provide a Protestant foothold. The idea was to wipe out the Catholics. Who suffered in the great famine? The British would only give watered down soup to the Irish Catholics who converted to Anglicanism. And then the dawn of the 20th century and that all goes away, magically over night? Was the Rising held on Easter for a reason? Why was a Republic so feared? Because it would mean the Catholics would be the ruling class and have dominion over the Protestants. Show us a source that says none of that is true."
[21] "How are they related to British hegemony and religious genocide in Ireland? And please define 'reputable source.' And I don't mean this kind. I mean the kind you'll accept personally. I've provided sources and all of you have ignorned them or claimed they were not RS. So stop wasting my volunteer time and get specific about the sources before I go to the trouble of posting them."

The fifth diff down is the worst in my opinion. Post a load of unsourced drivel, and then challenge other people to prove you wrong. Well it is not happening. As has been explained about eighteen times it is up to you to prove anything you say is correct using sources. And by sources we do not mean a list of random books either. But the following diffs show the real depth of the proble:

[22] I say "Providing random lists of books has previously been dismissed as inadequate, particularly ones that are primary sources. How about providing quotes and page numbers from MacKay that support your assertions?" [assertions obviously meaning all the ones posted above]
[23] He replies with "How are these primary sources? And random? What does random mean? And I've already listed the passages from MacKay."

So in other words MacKay sources nothing that he has just said, as the quotes can be seen in the first diff at the top of this sub-section.

Any further discussion without sources for any point made should be ignored. And by sources obviously I mean sources directly relating to Michael Collins, not BBC news articles that do not even mention him. O Fenian (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have provided sources but you ignore them.Malke 2010 21:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

More evasion. You do not provide any sources for discussion. You provide a list of books which you refuse to provide quotes from, since we are still waiting for those quotes from Forester. Or you provide links to blogs or news articles that have nothing to do with Michael Collins. Either provide quotes from sources, or stop wasting all this time over a category that you have zero chance of adding without those quotes. O Fenian (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a simple insertion to the cat, I am totally uninvolved and all this to keep someone who clearly was a catholic and that fact is relevant to his notability but there is all this effort to keep him out of the cat, why is that? what is the problem again? it is dwarfed amongst all this, he was a catholic, no one disputes that do they? Is there anyone here who disputes that Collins was a catholic? Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but that's irrelevant. So are 86% of people born in the south. He's not notable for his Catholicism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The event that he was involved in that created his notability revolved around religion and revolution thus making his religion notable, as per User:jpgordon clear uninvolved comments above... "Seems to me pretty obvious; the fight for Irish independence was simultaneously nationalist and religious, and Collin's heritage and culture were a significant part of his biography." --jpgordon. To be clear this comment was made after a request on his talkpage from user republican jacobite to close the RFC, he had a look at the issue and made that comment clearly in support of the simple addition of the category. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2Rio. Collins was Catholic, and Catholicism was clearly "related to his notability" as an Irish revolutionary connected with the "Catholic" side of a conflict internationally recognized as being a sectarian conflict. The vehement opposition to Collins' inclusion is puzzling to me. And I'm no Irish Catholic partisan, and really don't care whether Collins was Catholic or not. I'm just baffled by the stone wall erected to his inclusion. So what documentation is being sought? I presume (a) Collins was Catholic, (b) Collins was Irish, (c) Collins was a revolutionary, (d) The revolutionary strife was sectarian in nature, between Protestant and Catholic, and (e) Collins espoused the Catholic cause. Which of these elements requires documentation so that he can be included and everyone can get on with life? Eastcote (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

86% of the people in the Republic of Ireland are irrelevant? What does that mean? And once again, Collin's Catholicism does not make him notable. It doesn't need to make him notable. It's RELATED to his notability.Malke 2010 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I see lots of assertions, including erroneous ones, but no quotes from sources to discuss. In the case of one particular assertion I believe we will be waiting until the cows come home before a source can be provided. This has gone on for too long, I will not discuss any point that is not backed up by a direct quote from a source that is talking about Michael Collins. O Fenian (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So what is wrong with these that Malke has previously presented? Chapter on Michael Collin's Catholicism and his devotion to his faith entitled, "Two Catholic Revolutionaries - Michael Collins & Eamon de Valera" in Church and Revolution by Thomas Bokenkotter. See Also: Michael Collins, the Last Leader, by Margery Forester, London 1971; "In London with the Treaty Delegation: Personal Recollections" in Capuchin Annual 1971, article by Kathleen McKenna; Ireland's Civil War, by Calton Younger, London 1968; The Big Fellow, by Frank O'Conner, Dublin 1965; MIchael Collins by Rex Taylor, London 1958; ... Something here on google search should seal the deal. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He has not presented anything except a list of books, with no supporting quotes. When I asked him for a quote from Forester that "discuss and/or note Collin's devout Catholicism" (his exact words), a book I am familiar with as I have a copy, he went strangely quiet about the book and has to date failed to provide a quote from it. I have also asked for quotes from the other books, none have been forthcoming other than the MacKay quotes which are insufficient for inclusion in the category. O Fenian (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Noone's disputing that he was a Catholic. He may well have been "devout" - that would have been absolutely the norm at the time. It's still not relevant to his notability. Wikipedia:BLP#Categories: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." The Easter Rising was not about religion. Catholic Emancipation had occurred 87 years earlier. The War of Independence was not a religious war (though there were sectarian elements on both sides). The Irish Civil War was not a religious war. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of quotes from reliable secondary sources that show Catholicism is part and parcel of the conflict in Ireland, and that Collins was Catholic. What else is required?

Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland, Palgrave Macmillan (May 17, 2002), pgs 12-13. "Two other influences which Michael John and Marianne [Collins' parents] also passed on to their children were a strongly held Catholic faith and a love of Nationalist literature and songs. ...Michael always had a deeply felt religious sensibility, though he did pass through the usual Republican anti-clerical period when he lived in London."
John Wolffe, Religion in History: Conflict, Conversion and Coexistence, Manchester University Press (February 10, 2005), pg 98. "...under British protection, a privileged Protestant minority established itself in Ireland, while the majority of the population remained Roman Catholic. Irish Protestants were therefore insecure, and the Catholics felt oppressed and degraded, a recipe for the conflicts that came to a head in the nineteenth century and culminated in the political division of the island in 1921." And of course, Michael Collins was center stage in the 1921 political division which was the culmination of those centuries of religious conflict.

Eastcote (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR since the second source does not even mention Collins, and more specifically WP:SYN since you are combining two different sources to draw a conclusion not present in either. I would still like a source that says the War of Independence was a "conflict internationally recognized as being a sectarian conflict", since you appear to be combining two different issues. One is the "internal" conflict in Ireland between Catholic and Protestant, and the other is the more important "external" conflict between Irish nationalists and Great Britain. While the two may overlap at times they are in fact quite different. O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As O Fenian has said, this is OR and SYN. Neither source says what you are claiming they say, so you are taking a little from the one and combining it with a little from the other, hence synthesis. And, once again, you use evasion when you are caught misquoting a source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that at all, the first cite clearly alludes to Collins Catholicism and the second cite is only there to add the point that religion was an issue in the revolution, simple and clear and well cited. Its not even a big issue, it is just normal around the wikipedia and totally fine to add such people with less relevance than this subject. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You wanted sources and now you've rejected them. You want a single source that says, "Michael Collins was an Irish Catholic revolutionary who was a leader on the "Catholic" side of a conflict internationally recognized as being sectarian"? And it's synth to quote a source that says the conflict was sectarian, and another to say Collins was Catholic? So if I quote a source that says Collins was a main player in the 1921 partition, that will be synth too because it doesn't say it in the quote from Wolffe above? Those are quite high standards and higher than I've seen elswhere. Eastcote (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to try and change any policy you do not agree with, policies can be changed after all. Until you do, we will follow the policies as they are written. Just out of interest, what religion was Robert Barton, who was part of the negotiating team on the so-called "Catholic side"? O Fenian (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No policy needs changing at all to add this category with this citation. It is so clear. Indisputable. It is endless, we need to attract more independent opinion to this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the category description, and the first sentence of WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The sentences after that expand upon it in great detail, you cannot combine source A saying "Collins was Catholic" to source B saying "Religion was a factor in the conflict in Ireland" to draw conclusion C "Collins' religion was important". O Fenian (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The first citation is a clear assertion of his catholicism, that is plenty on its own, all that is needed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply being Catholic is insufficient for inclusion in the category, as has been said about a dozen times. Please read the discussion before bringing up points that have been rejected time and again, you are just wasting everyone's time otherwise. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The first citation is a clear assertion of his catholicism, that is plenty on its own, all that is needed. He was a notable person in an revolution that had religious aspects and therefore his religion is a reportable part of the issue that he is notable for. So, he is a catholic and a revolutionary catholic. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat my previous points, since you appear to be doing nothing other than repeating your refuted arguments and ignoring what other editors say. O Fenian (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this seems obstructionist. There are more than one of us out here saying this, and our points seem to be ignore. Sources are asked for, sources are provided, sources are dismissed. It's a simple cat addition, that most don't care about. What's the point of the zealous continued blocking? Plug the man into the cat and let's move on. Eastcote (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a constant refusal by other editors to accept the category inclusion criteria, and think that by repeatedly saying "he was Catholic" that there will be some miracle and consensus will occur. I notice you ignored my question about Robert Barton, for the record he was a Protestant. You provided a source that brings nothing new to the table, we already known Collins was a Catholic. The other source does not even mention him, it is original research to use it to apply anything to Collins. O Fenian (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere along the line, with edits richoceting around, I missed the Barton question. Relative to inclusion in the Irish Catholic Cat, Barton fits the criterion of Catholicism being related to his notability. It was a religious conflict (that's been cited), and he was a leader in the culmination of that conflict on the "Catholic" side. But...he doesn't fit the criterion that he be Catholic himself. Collins fits both criteria. You keep asserting that we are trying to "change policies". No we're not. We're saying they should be observed. To meet the criteria, a person should be Catholic, and that should be related to their notability. The criteria do not say that Catholicism must be the sole reason for their notability. That would get them in, certainly, but having it be "related" will also get them in. Eastcote (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Collins was not fighting on the "Catholic" side (either with quotation marks or without), he was fighting on the Nationalist side, and, as O Fenian, and others, have said, the two are not one and the same. There were those who fought on the Nationalist side who were Protestants, and there were those, like James Connolly, who were Marxist atheists, and there were those, like W. B. Yeats, who was not Christian at all and was highly critical of Catholicism. So, the Nationalist side in the War of Independence, the conflict in which Collins was a major player, and which conflict, and his role therein, give him his notability, was very diverse, involving people who were not at all Catholic, some who were devout, and some who were vague on their religious faith. The fact is, the War of Independence was not a religious war, it was a war of national liberation. It was this war, and his role therein, that give Collins his notability, not his faith. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ in the strongest possible terms that the War of Independence being a religious war has been cited. O Fenian (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Collins Catholicism is related to his notability. The British have always had Anti-Catholic policies. They have them in place even today. The War for Independence was about getting the British out of Ireland and not only regaining the country but regaining religious freedom as well.Malke 2010 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

According to which sources? O Fenian (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what "anti-Catholic polices" does Britain have "in place even today"? Apart from a few rules on royal protocol - which have little implication in the "real world" - what restrictions are there on Catholics living in Britain now? Why are you so keen to maintain a victim-status-by-proxy? Nick Cooper (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What does, 'victim-status-by-proxy' mean?Malke 2010 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What "religious freedom", exactly, did the nationalists need to regain? Considering, as pointed out previously, that Catholic Emancipation had been achieved no less than 87 years earlier? Agree entirely with User:RepublicanJacobite, User:O Fenian and User:Nick Cooper - this was not a religious war. Doubtless there'll be some quote in some romanticised Irish-American "history" claiming it was, but even if you produce it, WP:UNDUE will apply. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you believe Catholic Emancipation accomplished? Do you believe it wiped out anti-Catholicism?[24]. Do you believe the Civil Rights Act of 1965, eliminated racism in the U.S.?Malke 2010 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My beliefs are entirely irrelevant - I'm not trying to insert them into the encyclopedia. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism did not stop with the Catholic Relief Act.Malke 2010 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another break

I assume certain editors are aware of Catholic Unionist and Protestant Nationalist? O Fenian (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Briscoe was an IRA activist and a Jew during this conflict. By the convoluted logic of much of the above in favour the proposal, he should be categorised as a Catholic Jew as opposed to a Protestant Jew. This patent nonsense about the Irish civil war being substantially a sectarian conflict has been indulged for far too long here. Please drop the dead donkey. RashersTierney (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Convoluted logic of the proposer" is a personal attack. Please refactor your comments.Malke 2010 06:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the sentence: "Convoluted logic of the proposer."Malke 2010 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove 'convoluted logic.' It clearly refers to my post. I will not tolerate personal attacks.Malke 2010 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it would appear that no one is disputing that Collins was a Catholic, then including that in the article should not be a problem.Malke 2010 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to change the terms of the debate. Yet more evasion on your part, since you know damn well that his Catholicism is not the issue. Further proof, as well, that you have not been paying attention and/or have not read the dozens of messages above that show you are incorrect and which have attempted to show you the facts. The final evidence, I would argue, that this has all been a waste of time since your apparent goal is disruption. You have been warned about WP:TE, why not take that advice and stop now? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization is not correct. Everybody here seems to agree that Collins was a Catholic. Since that is the case, and since there is no mention of it in his biography, then including it now should not be a problem.Malke 2010 18:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can eds. please note the title of this RfC and please remain on topic. RashersTierney (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is on topic. How can we put Collins into the Irish Catholic category if there's no mention first in his biography? It seems mention of his Catholicism is relevant and hardly an issue here judging by the multiple posts that concede that point.Malke 2010 18:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not going to be placed in that category. And so, the issue is settled. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mention of his Catholicism is relevant in his biography. Whether or not he is put into the Irish Catholic category at this time, doesn't preclude the mention in the article. An edit with a reliable source is permitted, and as there seems to be agreement that Collins was a Catholic, it shouldn't be an issue.Malke 2010 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, more evasion, changing the subject, avoiding the issue at hand. You seem to have now conceded defeat, accepting that he will not be added to the category. So, let's wrap this up. The subject, as has been mentioned before, has been exhausted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Amen? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Other editors who are in support of Collins being included in the categroy have not posted their opinions. There doesn't seem to be a rush.Malke 2010 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Free State Army

Civil service essay

Collin's name

Ó Coileáin family

Hatnote

Edit warring (Ó Coileáin family and References)

See also section

References

Early Years - move(s) to London

Michael Collins' Catholicism

Irish Revolutionary

Early Years - move(s) to London

RfC Michael Collins listing under Irish Catholic categories

Close the RfC, please

Summary of refusal to provide sources and evasion

Another break