Talk:Kilmichael ambush

Top

Hurling not being a very popular sport amongst west corkmen I would think that it is probably a different Tom Barry that played for Ballyhea

Please explain to me why this needs a war box. Ambushes happen in most wars and I rarely see boxes for them. It seems to me that this website (yet again) has been hijacked by partisan historians with a view to discrediting the British. It's no different to what some of the Muslims write when talking about their own military history. It's propoganda founded more on myth than on concrete evidence, and while I don't know much about this website, I think that only proper battles deserve an info box. Incidentally, do you think the you could have used another source but Tom Barry's autobiography? (anon) User:62.136.19.36 9 August 2007

If an action in a war is notable then it should be given a war infobox. I recognise that compared to many wars this was a small action, but it was important at the time and has assumed legendary status since then, for several reasons. If you have any specific POV or accuracy complaints then raise them. The article uses several sources besides Tom Barry's autobiography. PatGallacher 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For this article perhaps, but not the Crossbarry one which, no doubt, you have edited as well. I really don't care if it has a box or not not but I want to say anyway that legend or not, the numbers involved were tiny in comparison to most historical battles and so the whole thing seems to be dominated by Irish nationalists to me. Don't accuse me of jumping to conclusions either because from looking at some of the users' profiles it is quite obvious.

Furthermore, the controversy article eclipses the other sections because it is too detailed, and it seems to be more of a battleground for the proponents of Hart and Ryan rather than a minor insight into the subject as it should be. From this it appears to the reader that there are only two sides to this controversy and, more critically, only two authors. Aside from the fact that this leads me to assume that the story is of little importance so as to justify writing about it in the first place and that it has been blown completely out of proportion, there are most likely more books and publications which are not included and the apologists seem to have gone for the most extreme views. User:84.64.213.101 13 August 2007

It was a small action, but so what? You will find boxes on all manner of skirmishes on wikipedia. IF you think the article is inaccurate or the tone is baised then tell us why. Kilmichael was an important event, out of all proportion to its military significance, because of its impact on public opinion at the time in Britain and Ireland. It caused martial law to be declared all over the south of Ireland and precipitated the bloodiest phase of the Irish War of Independence. This is why it is still being debated today.

I actually agree about the controversey section being too long though. Jdorney 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See the Action at Bronkhorstspruit and Battle of Arkinholm for small actions that were politically or militarily important. They both have war infoboxes. An complaints about the Crossberry article should be raised there. PatGallacher 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The box seems appropriate to me as a fresh reader of this article. Remember, it doesn't have a big label "War Box" - it just forms a frame with convenient listings of the commanders, numbers, and casualties in the conflict, together with an excellent picture. I'm just amazed this article hasn't been ravaged by post hoc arguments over whether this was an act of "terrorism"; I think Mark Twain might have listed this in the fourth subcategory of it. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish Times report

This report by the Times originated in a document titled The Irish Republican Army (From Captured Documents Only) composed by Basil Clarke, Head of Publicity, and his colleagues Captain H.B.C. Pollard of the Police Authority and Major Cecil Street of the Irish Office. This has been comprehensively challenged most recently in Troubled History, by Brian P Murphy osb and Niall Meehan, Aubane Historical Society (2008), this in addition to The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland 1920, also by Brian P. Murphy. This is also addressed by Media Ryan in her comprehensive autobiography of Tom Barry. If it is to be used, which I think it should, all the background information should be included. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed cuts

A lot of this article seems to me to be irrelevant to its immediate subject. The background section has a longish description of who the auxiliaries were. This should be cut right down and any extra info putin the Auxiliary Division article.

Secondly, the controversey section is far far too long and detailed. The Hart/Ryan controversey is just not important enough to warrant more than a single paragraph. Thoughts anyone?

Jdorney (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So, thoughts anyone? Jdorney (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

__________________________________

Put forward your proposed wording? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to wite anything for your approval Domer. Jdorney (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If your going to propose changes propose them, if not then don't? Please don't use personal attacks in your comments it helps no one.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Domer, please don't accuse others of "personal attacks" where none have been made. Jdorney, remember to indent your comments and that you can use dispute resolution to bring in others if you wish. Rd232 ^talk 09:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

wording changes

Re Superfops wording changes. My preference first.

1. "put down" v "engage". They were sent to Ireland to end the rebellion/liberation struggle/whatever. Ie to "put down" or supress the guerrillas. "Engage" does not mean the same thing.

2. The "Auxiliaries fired on a football crowd killing 14 civilians", v "The Auxiliaries killed 14 people during the football match".

Second sentence implies 14 people were killed in the course of a football match. ie after it stated and before it ended. Not the case. It also doesn't tell the reader how they were killed. Ie unclear and less information.

3.Riflemen v Volunteers. Don't care really, but riflemen tells the reader more information which volunteer does not.

4."Every day" v "everday". Every day describes the auxies' actions ie they travelled this road every day. "Everyday" is an adjective meaning "normal". It can't be used in this way. you could say, "Auxiliary patrols were an everyday occurance".

5. Problem with a whole paragraph here. First "a lorry also containing nine Auxiliaries" v "A lorry of nine Auxiliaries". Second sentence does not make sense. The lorry was made of Auxiliaries? You can't say this. You could say, "a lorry load of Auxiliaries".

6. "the IRA squad who had not engaged the first lorry" v "another group of volunteers". The second sentence does not contain the information given in the first one.

7."When Barry brought the men who had attacked the first lorry to bear on the second lorry, he claims the Auxiliaries called out to surrender, but then opened fire when the IRA men emerged from cover, killing two of them". v

"When those who attacked the first lorry began to attack the second lorry, Barry claims the Auxiliaries called out to surrender, but then killed two volunteers who emerged from cover."

Two problems with second version. One it eliminates Barry's role. Two it doesn't say how they killed the two IRA men.

8.Guthrie "escaped from the ambush site" v "escaped to a nearby house". he didn't escape to the house, ie he wasn't going to towards it. He got away from the ambush and then came upon the house.

9. "severely shaken", someone who is physically sick is pretty severely shaken.

10."It is likely that the ongoing stress of being on the run and the commander of the flying column along with a poor diet as well as the intense combat at Kilmichael contributed to his medical problems." v "It is likely that the ongoing stress of being on the run, being commander of the flying column, having a poor diet and the intense combat at Kilmichael contributed to his medical problems. "

Second version repeats "being" twice.

I'm going to make those changes. If anyone has problem with them please reply on talk.Jdorney (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem with (1), on (2) you miss quote, on (3) they are Volunteers, (4) ?, (5) partial change, (6) again the removal of Volunteer, (7) no problem, (8) changes include you own additions, (9) weasel, (10) no problem.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As usual you either haven't understand or haven't engaged with any of the points made. Jdorney (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

? That's a bit harsh - he's engaged with every point you made, just not really explained the issues he disagrees on. The remaining changes disputed [1] seem to be (i) wording (riflemen v volunteers) (ii) point 2 on the football match killings, where Domer mentions a misquote, but his wording sounds odd/confusing so perhaps he could clarify or explain it (iii) point 8, where it seems the intentionality is at issue. Was the man trying to reach the house? PS If you can't resolve these issues here, try the content noticeboard or a relevant wikiproject. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Engaged" to me means, "addressed properly. That's not what's happening here. Two is a straightforward falsehood, it is not a misquote. Note that the proposed changes were not even made by Domer, this is purely him tryingto throw his weight around. If Superfopp, who actually made the changes wants to discuss them that's another matter.Jdorney (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's what it means to you, but that's hardly the general meaning. He responded to each of your points: if you disagree or don't understand, respond to that particular point. Don't make it sound like he just said "I disagree with your changes", which is patently false. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the points were answered though. Certainly not discussed. And most seriously, 2 is an out and out lie. Yes I said that. Have a look it's, not mis-quoted. This is typical of this user. Jdorney (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney, please slow down and cease with the confrontational approach. Disputes require patience. Personal attacks and accusations aren't going to help matters. You have the attention of several experienced editors now and additional opionions can be sought through the dispute resolution process. Tracking down reliable independent sources would also be useful to establish how these events have been described by authorities on the subject.

Domer, with regard to 2 can you explain what you mean by misquote? Why is the version suggested by Jdorney not acceptable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Auxiliaries killed 14 people during the football match to suggest otherwise is to miss quote all the sources. The match started at 2.45, at 3.10 the Black and Tans arrived and opened fire. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us a source on that, so we can see how other people have worded it? And is the current wording -- "Only a week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries had fired on a football match in Croke Park, killing fourteen civilians." -- inaccurate in your view? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Eyewitness to Irish History, Peter Berresford Ellis, John Wiley and Sons, 2007, ISBN 9780470053126, Pg.238. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping for something I could look up from here. How about http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23901007_ITM? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here I found this [2]. As you can see, "The Auxiliaries killed 14 people during the football match", and is much more informative and correct as opposed to The "Auxiliaries fired on a football crowd killing 14 civilians." Saying that the "sentence implies 14 people were killed in the course of a football match. ie after it stated and before it ended. Not the case," is to completly ignore the sources on it. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If more sources are needed I'll put them together from the sources used in this article already. I have all the books cited. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think more sources would help in this case. You're saying that "Auxiliaries fired on a football crowd killing 14 civilians" is an unacceptable misquote and "Auxiliaries killed 14 people during the match" is a correct quote? I'm honestly not seeing that the first way is a problem: both ways say that the British killed 14 people at a football game. Stylistically, I like the first one better, as it emphasizes how the killings were done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the players was killed on the pitch, hardly part of a crowed. The first one sounds like a load of football fans were killed. Describing the people killed as a crowd is also not correct and saying that it was not during "the course of a football match. ie after it stated and before it ended. Not the case" is to misquote sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your point now. However, the text in the article currently reads "the Auxiliaries had fired on a football match in Croke Park, killing fourteen civilians." That makes it clear that it was a match in progress, not just a crowd. Do you have a problem with _that_ phrasing, ignoring the "crowd" quote you keep mentioning? If so, what if we change "civilians" to "players and spectators"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell me what was wrong with " Only a week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries had killed fourteen civilians during a football match in Croke Park" and why it is not accatable? Is it not correct and informative? I've only mentioned the issue with the "crowd" quote once above can you indicate were I keep mentioning it? I've no problem with additional information being added, such as one of the players being among the dead and having been shot on the pitch, it will still be a sight better that "Only a week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries had fired on a football crowd in Dublin's Croke Park, killing 14 civilians." It would also help if we were offered a source which says that this attack did not take place during the game, and that me suggesting that it did was an out and out lie--Domer48_'fenian' 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, you just did keep mentioning it. :-) I suppose my problem with it is that "the Auxiliaries fired on civilians during a match" implies a single attack to me, and "killed civilians during a match" doesn't -- they could have been picking people off all the way through.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that was removed was "Only a week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries had killed fourteen civilians during a football match in Croke Park" and the question I asked was what was wrong with it? I also asked that a source be requested which would support the suggestion that I had told an "out and out lie." --Domer48_'fenian' 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is "A week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries shot and killed 14 people, including a player, during a football match in Croke Park" okay? Honestly Domer I think some of us were having difficulty following the argument because the differences weren't readily apparent. For example, I see very little distinction between at a football match and during a football match, but I understand (now) that you think it's an important to point out that it was during the match, so that's fine with me. I honestly couldn't see the difference between the two version other than a stylistic one. I don't think you lied. Let's not be confrontational. I'm sorry about the accusations that have been made and hopefully that has stopped. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight your sentence is fine, but the question I asked was what was wrong with the original sentence. Answer, nothing. The sentence which was added however was lased with issues not to mention the fact that the editor insisted that the killings did not take place during the match and to suggest otherwise was an “out and out lie." It was not me who created or made the "distinction" and its importance from my point of view was with both an accusation that was made, which then introduced factual inaccuracies. In the absence of a supporting reference from the editor, their accusation of me lying, failing to engage, and trying to throw my weight around, are unfounded, unwarranted and without justification. Having not myself made any accusations or cast any aspersions I’ll hardly consider my comments confrontational.

You really don’t have to apologise for accusations which were not your own, and I also would like them to stop, but I doubt it very much. With additional claims being made of bad faith, stalking and intimidation in addiion to lying, failing to engage, trying to throw my weight around, pursuing a personal vendetta, bullying, straighforward lies, manipulating the rules, zero discussion of the issues, adding pov quotations into the text and seriously damaging the readability of articles. If asking for these wild claims to be backed up or withdrawn is considered confrontational, in my opinion is to turn logic on its head. Likewise would it be considered confrontational to cite policy to an editor who is edit warring to add information they suggest is "clearly factual" like they did here when its obviously not the case at all? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. Typical Domer. So there was nothing wrong with the first senstence but you changed it and made a big thing out of it to get your way. That is intimidation and stalking.Jdorney (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight it appears that you advice again has proved fruitless. More baseless accusations from this editor, and no attempt to justify their wild claims. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this particular content issue seems to be resolved. Any wider disputes between editors should be taken to dispute resolution if necessary. PS Watch the WP:Indentation people, it's giving me a headache trying to follow the discussion above! Rd232 ^talk 09:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this particular content issue is not resolved. One aspect, has been addressed and not fully but I'd accept the wording by ChildofMidnight but the question I asked was what was wrong with the original sentence. Now the removal of "volunteer" has not been addressed at all. While I accept that some editors have a problem with the term, that is the term that is used, that is what they were known as, and that is what they were. The wording on the section on Cecil Guthrie is per the source. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Remaining content issues

One: Volunteers, IRA members, especially of this era, are legitimately called this as they originally joined the Irish Volunteers, but does this mean they have to be called this on every occasion? No. It just reads repetitively and badly. Besides, "riflemen" and squad is how Barry describes the men.

Two: "escaped to a a house" v "escaped from the ambush site". Was he headed for the house? No, he stumbled across it. So option two is better.

Three: "killed during a football match" is just clumsy. Does this mean the auxiliaries were playing? No. Did the match restart? No (of course not). "Fired on the crowd" is best, since this was an attended match and a player just happened to be one of the victims among 13 spectators.

Jdorney (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording on Croke Park was arrived at through discussion, and on the escape, the house was the only one visable from the ambush site according to Barry and that was the one he headed for. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't, there was no agreement above with your arguement. Jdorney (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the discussion established that there was nothing wrong with the way it was phrased. Can you please stop edit warring on this, Domer? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no discussion to change the wording in the first place, and not one of you could say what was wrong with the origional wording. Now, the only one being disruptive is Jdorney, obvious from this discussion. ChildofMidnight proposed a chang of wording here, and there was no objections! I've provided a rational for the changes here on the talk page, and not a just nonsence in an edit summary. If the was nothnig wrong with the way it was phrased why did two editors offer suggestions here and here? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, you didn't discuss, you just kept repeating "What was wrong with my version" while other editors were trying to come to consensus on the wording. Since you couldn't be bothered, don't be surprised when people revert changes that claim talk page discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I used the text suggested by ChildofMidnight and not the text that I was suggesting! To illustrate how you double standard and total lack of intrest, I'd point out that it was not my text, or my version at all, and yes I did repeat and will again, what was wrong with the origional text! Both yourself and Jdorney have nothing to offer this discussion other than misrepresentation, personal attacks. I have offered this discussion more than a nonsence edit summary, and to suggest that I have not discussed this is just another example of your dishonesty. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary does not constitute discussion, it is nothing more than an assumption of bad faith and therefore a personal attack. This editor has been told about this enough times [3] [4] and to suggest that I have not discussed the issue well this is simply not true, as I have "engaged with every point you made" and to even suggest I have not in light of this edit summary in lieu of actual discussion is an example of dishonesty. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Jesus, are you for real? I'm the only one who's actually explained my edits at all. Jdorney (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be especially careful with comments in edit summaries which cannot be changed, contested or contextualised. If you wish to edit on this topic you can't keep antagonising your fellow editors - you need to discuss, using reliable sources, and accept the outcome of discussion. You have been told enough times about you conduct and comments, they do not lend themselves to reasonable discussion. Your recent reverts were based on these edit summaries [5] [6], and nothing on the talk page! You have suggested above that this attack did not take place during the match, you were shown to be wrong using a reliable published source. You have again inserted your POV, or more correctly removed text which contradicts your POV, and you are being asked to stop. Your incivility and personal attacks must be challanged and stopped, and not ignored as is currently the case.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 1 week at the current version. Work it out here instead of edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As per my comments above, this article is subject to disruption by an editor who has expressed a POV in this discussion, and reflected in their edits. This is just one of a number of articles, as I pointed out here, but due to a lack of will on the part of at least two Admin's this has been allowed to continue. This conduct should have been addressed and not encouraged. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation, "the rules should be used for me to get my way and not to worry about the content". Sarek there really is nothing to work out here. The changes were not even made by Domer in the first place. This is purely about him intimidating me. I've already explained why the original version is better than the changes. I gather no one except for Domer had a problem with it. I won't be repeating myself again. Nor getting into "debate" with Domer.Jdorney (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In this edit here on point 2 you state that it was "Not the case" that the 14 people killed in Croke Park during the game "ie after it stated and before it ended." An opinion which you had repeatedly edited the article to that effect,[7][8][9][10] based on nothing other than your own opinion. I challenged this view, [11] [12], and your response was to say I had not engaged, was throwing my weight around and despite been contradicted by both Rd323 [13], and SarekOfVulcan [14] went on to say I lied, with the result that ChildofMidnight had to tell you to stop with the "Personal attacks and accusations" and that they "aren't going to help matters."

Unlike me, you were not asked to support your opinion, I was, and was more than happy to do so. However, having provided the necessary reference which was all that is required, it was not considered good enough by SarekOfVulcan who wanted an online source. Which I was also able to provide. That at least SarekOfVulcan was happy with. Despite the reference, you still kept editing to your unsupported opinion [15][16] [17], regardless that both SarekOfVulcan [18] and ChildofMidnight [19] offered alternative wording with no one saying what was wrong with the original wording, which was after all supported by the reference I was asked to provide. Your response was a refusal to engage in the discussion at all and when you did it was with again more accusations, only this time it was "intimidation and stalking." You then suggested to use some weasel wording to have the article changed to support you baseless POV mentioned above, despite the references provided, and edited the article to that effect claiming there was no agreement to my argument. However SarekOfVulcan and ChildofMidnight had no problem with the inclusion of "during the match" the phrase which you dispute and were proved wrong on.

That SarekOfVulcan, supports you now, accuses me of edit warring and suggests that I didn't discuss the issue, despite saying I did above and having provided the references they asked for while ignoring you persistent incivility despite being told about it is of little importance to me. Stop the disruptive editing and incivilty they "aren't going to help matters." --Domer48_'fenian' 15:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodness me, Domer, that was quite a speech. Let's try to remember two things here; NPOV is not necessarily the same as DPOV. And article talk is to discuss improvements to the article, in a collegial way. Problems with other editors should be handled elsewhere and otherhow. The best way, in my opinion, to solve disputes like this is to follow the sources. What language do the sources use? --John (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources are only relevant on the 'volunteer v rifleman' point. On this Tom Barry says; (Guerrilla Days in Ireland, 1997, p41-42) "behind this little wall were situated three picked fighters "... No 1 section of ten picked riflemen was placed on the back slope... No 2 section of riflemen occupied a rockey eminence" etc. You get the idea. The term he uses is 'riflemen'.

For groups, Barry uses (p43-45) "command post" for the first group that was engaged and "No 2 section" for the second. Admittedly he doesn't use teh term "squad, which I have used in the text, but I feel the description is the same. The other points are not source related but plain use-of-English questions, which I've addressed above. Twice. Jdorney (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to address the issue of your use of the term "squad" next, that you admit that Barry doesn't use the term and that it was based only on what you "feel the description is the same" much like how "Engaged" to you means one thing but were told that your view was "patently false". Do you now accept that the attack in Croke Park took place "during" the match, "ie after it started and before it ended" and supported by a reference, or are you going to insist that this was "Not the case?" --Domer48_'fenian' 21:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My God, Domer, are you telling me that you have a source saying the game between Dublin and Tipperary, after the minor matter of the massacre of 14 people continued???!!! I would really love to see this source. However I'm pretty sure the game was actually cancelled at that point!Jdorney (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes then, that the attack took place after the match had started, and that it was "during" the game. I would really love to see you provide any source for the edits you make. You tried to suggest that the match had not even started, and were proved wrong, trying now to make out that I or anyone else in this discussion suggested that the match continued after the attack is a little petty. In light of you recent edits, based as they were on simply your opinion, in the event of any additional edits, could you please provide some references because there is a policy based reason for doing so. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 11:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer my source is any English dictionary. This is the last time I'm going to explain this. "During" means "in the course of". This means, after something starts and before it ends. Understand? Did the game finish? No. So "during" is not the right word. Petty?? Mods? Jdorney (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Has offering your opinion, and your understanding or how you view things not already been addressed above. Now since you appear to have nothing other than your opinion to offer, this discussion is closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

John, apart from ignoring the incivility, and personal attacks, is right about one thing and that is the use of sources. As I pointed out above, edit warring [20], [21], [22] [23] to add information which was obviously wrong, despite their saying it was "clearly factual" should have prompted the editor on this article to be more careful. Hopefully they now understand how and why references are important. Maybe John would like to redirect their question on what the sources actually say, to the editor who actually has a problem understanding the need for sources and not directing them towards an editor who has provided a reference, and who I might add, always supports their article contributions with a vast number of sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go folks. The discussion's closed. Can I revert it back now? Jdorney (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets not be childish, your really not helping yourself and starting to look silly. You have been offered enough advice, and you should really start to listen. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why I should listen to your "advice". Every single editor here except you has agreed with the original wording. Third Opinion on its way. Jdorney (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been offered advice from two Admin's, Rd232 [24] [25] [26] ChildofMidnight [27] [28] and on all counts you've ignored them. That you wish to ignore me is of no concern, but your wording was not the origional wording in the first instance. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly delusional Domer. No admins have warned me of anything. They have agreed with me. I won't be responding any further. 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good! I said you had been offered advice, not warned and no they did not agree with you. Now there is an editor here to offer a third opinion, lets see if you can offer them any references to support your POV. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Anaxial (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Jdorney (talk)

....

Ok, the issue is User:Domer48 reverting to changes originally made by User:Superfopp here. last instance of Domer's reverts here. There were other issues before, but as of the last edit we are now down to two.

• First, my version, "Only a week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries had fired on a football match in Croke Park, killing fourteen civilians (thirteen spectators and one player)". Domer's version, "A week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries shot and killed 14 people, which included a player, during a football match in Croke Park".

I favour first version because, it tells how they were killed. "fired on a crowd". Second, "during a footbal match" is unclear in two ways. It implies the Auxiliaries were playing, it implies the match finished (the word during meaning 'in the course of').

• Second; My version, Cadet Cecil Guthrie (ex Royal Air Force), escaped, badly wounded from the ambush site but asked for help at a house where two IRA men were staying. They killed him with his own gun. Domer's version, "Cadet Cecil Guthrie (ex Royal Air Force), was badly wounded but escaped to a nearby house where he asked for help. However, two IRA volunteers were staying there and killed him with his own gun".

I favour first version, Firsly, because it's more accurate. Guthrie wasn't headed to the house. He stumbled across it. He was escaping from the ambush. Secondly I think putting the IRA men in the fisr sentence and leaving out "however" reads better.

Jdorney (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Domer48)

....

• First: While on the face of it, it could be considered just plain old semantics by Jdorney, but a review of the discussion shows Jdorney denying the fact that the attack took place during the game. Despite references being provided! The strength of their argument is best illustrated by Jdorney not even being able to cite themselves correctly. They say their version "Only a week before the Kilmichael ambush, the Auxiliaries had fired on a football match in Croke Park, killing fourteen civilians (thirteen spectators and one player)," is better because, it tells how they were killed. "fired on a crowd". When in fact it actually say “fired on a football match in Croke Park.” The point is, for some unknown reason, Jdorney will not accept that the game had actually started?

• second: Again, it could be simple semantics by Jdorney, since they also have the book and will have read that this house was the only one in the area of the attack, but who knows? To form an outside opinion on this you'd probably have to read through the discussion? I have a real problem though with Jdorney saying their version is "more accurate" because as I've pointed out here when they edit warred to insert information which they said was "clearly factual" only to be told that it was completly untrue.

On a final note, none of the version put forward as mine are mine. I supported the edits of another editor, and recived quite a nasty reaction for this, which may explain this request?

Third opinion by Anaxial

Although this does appear to be a debate about very little, I can see nothing wrong with Jdorney's suggested text. "Fired on a football match" certainly implies to me that the match was, in fact, underway at the time. The rest of it, having read through the discussion, I can't see anything compelling to suggest its removal. To be honest, I don't see much wrong with the other version, either (whoever may have written it), but if I must give a preference, I'll stick with Jdorney's. Anaxial (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be changing it back then. Jdorney (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Peter Hart's work

Once again, we have detailed, one-sided, selective criticism of Hart from dubious sources included, all aimed at furthering a position. Just like at Peter Hart. Just like at Dunmanway killings. Just like at those articles, I'll tackle this section in the coming days. In the meantime, I've added a NPOV template to the problem section. Rockpocket 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please back up your accusations of "one-sided, selective criticism" please. Removed the tag, until the nature of your claims are outlined. Please don't add any more tags to this article without explaining your reasons clearly. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Among the questions I asked myself after looking at your edit were: why is there a broken link to a page which presumably once sold Murphy's pamphlet?; why link to Google books?; and why wikilink irrelevant dates? As for the tag, the section reads like an effort at well-poisoning. This has already been said over at the Hart article. Those comments don't magically disappear from the record just because this is a different page. There are indeed adequate materials on the dispute, but (a) the ones cited here aren't those and (b) this is not the place to rehash the dispute in any case. The simplest solution will likely be to remove the section and start over. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised any of you are still editing here given Elonka has declared this article 1RR. Or maybe that just applied to me? Sarah777 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, do you think the controversey section is NPOV as it stands? Does it give equal weight to both sides? Is it relevant and informative? If the answer to any of tehse questions is no, then you should re-consider your edit.Jdorney (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We will need a list of the dubious sources included for this discussion. IN ADDITION TO the supporting evidence for the accusations made at the start of this tread. I agree with Angus McLellan above about not adding tags to this article without explaining the reasons for them clearly. If there is an issues with WP:NPOV explain them here clearly. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'll ask again. Is the controversey section as it stands NPOV? Does it give equal weight to both sides? This is the basis of the NPOV tag. Jdorney (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, per Angus McLellan, Re: adding tags to this article without explaining the reasons for them clearly. If the controversey section as it stands is or is not NPOV should be explained clearly. Does it give equal weight to both sides should be, explaining the reasons for them clearly. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting with the least important issue, there are sourcing problems. Questionable sources include Murphy's British Propaganda pamphlet and Ryan's writings in the Ballingeary Historical Society Journal. The second of these might be acceptable as a source on the ambush itself rather than the controversy. I say "might" because I don't see that the NLI has this journal and it certainly doesn't appear on their list of works by Meda Ryan. Continuing on, it is not unacceptable to link to copyright violations and it is generally unacceptable to add weblinks into the body of articles; they should only appear in the footnotery or external links section unless there's a very good reason for doing otherwise. WP:V and WP:EL cover this kind of thing.

As for the NPOV issue, the section itself is an egregious failure from that perspective. Controversies and varying interpretations should be addressed at the appropriate point in the article, not collected into a separate section. NPOV, that policy you love to mention, addresses this. The section after that one, on undue weight, is also worth reading carefully.

But I do agree that the {{POV section}} template shouldn't be restored. It's the wrong template. What's appropriate is {{criticism section}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrible edit Domer. We don't link to Amazon, we don't use inline external links, and we don't link dates. Per Angus we need a tag on this section. Domer, please remove these unhelpful links which contravene policy and/or MoS guidance. --John (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the controversey section as it stands is NPOV because it actively argues that Hart's account is wrong, citing all the arguments against it and none for. Moreover, it is also too long, confusing and mostly irrelevant to the subject of the article - ie the actual Kilmichael ambush. Jdorney (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Remarkably nonconstructive edit, Domer. Considering most of the changes you made were to reintroduce basic manual of style and citation errors. Did you even stop to think about this? I despair, sometimes. Rockpocket 19:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How can we fix the controversy section

Having established that there are issues here. How do we go about fixing this section? I would also reccomend radically shortening it. Jdorney (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly tackle it per Dunmanway killings. I need to do some reading first, though. Rockpocket 19:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Have at it! --John (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you did good work at Dunmanway. This is a good place to start reading; The Kilmichael Ambush - A Review of Background, Controversies and Effects, by Seamus Fox (2005), I believe you have Hart's IRA and its Enemies. I can supply info from Barry's Guerrilla Days and Ryan's Tom Barry if you like. Jdorney (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You seem very capable of objective, balanced editing, Jdorney, if you would like to have a go yourself. If you are concerned about getting involved in an edit war, you could always work on a proposal here on talk, or in a sand box. Rockpocket 21:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well before any of us do anything, we should have an idea of what we should do. First, since Hart gives a substantially different account of the ambush itself, should this be incorporated into our account of the actual ambush? This would mean basically re-writing the article from scratch.

Now if we don't do this, then the controversey section has to introduce the controversey (and Hart's version) from scratch. So if we did this, I'd just cut all the comment out. Hart says etc etc. Ryan says etc etc. However, here we're hitting a slippery slope. Should we then include the controversey over Hart's anonymous interviews?

To me this is an uninteresting debate in the context of an article about the ambush itself. But on the other hand, it's central to the media controversey here in Ireland caused by Hart's work. The problem here is that we'd end up (as now but perhaps with more balance) giving far too much space to a topic tangental to the article itself. So could I have some thoughts on thesee points before we proceed? Jdorney (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror in Ireland

It would appear according to this that the additions made by Belyii do not accurately reflect the content of the chapter in question. Obviously it should be included in the article somehow, however without claims such as Hart being vindicated and suchlike. I doubt you'd find many people in Ireland who thought it sad he died at an early age either.... Quotes requested from the source to support each and every sentence added before it gets added back please. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Eve Morrison claims in the chapter concerned to have vindicated Hart. I think that there's two issues, Hart's scholarship and Kilmichael itself. By matching the Chisholm interviews with Hart's footnotes, if I recall correctly she manages to place most of the anonymous sources he cites bar two footnotes. The dates he cites are wrong though. I assume Hart's defenders would argue this was to protect anonymity.

• Now on the second point, Kilmichael itself, my view of the chapter in 'Terror' is that there is testimony of a false surrender of sorts, albeit not exactly as Barry described it. On the other hand there is also proof that wounded and prisoners were killed in rather chaotic circumstances after teh fighting was mostly over - ie no one was sure if they'd surrendered or not, some firing was still going on, people were full of adrenaline etc. A sensitive edit would be good here. I'm not going to do it though as I've no wish to be in an edit war. I'd rather leave it the way it is. I'll help to reach consensus on talk if other editors wish though. Jdorney (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ok what the hell I'm going to do an edit based on that Eve Morrison chapter. Comments/criticism welcome. Jdorney (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you provide quotes I'll be happy to work on something with you, just the previous addition was clearly no good without me even reading the source. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done. Have at it, but lets all try to remain civil. Jdorney (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Condition of the bodies and other matters, refered to in 'The Briar of Life', by AJS Brady (d.1986), Pub'd by Original Writings, 2010

To all those interested in the wiki article on the Kilmichael Ambush, I now introduce myself.

I am a complete new-bee to contributing to wikipedia, starting with my first rather unsuccessful attempt last Sunday night. The timing of my effort on the Kilmichael article, arose from a break in my long term personal workload and being able take the opportunity of using some spare time, to research my family genealogy, while recovering from the flu last week. Needing to reference some family facts, lead me to reopening my late grandfathers book over the weekend. I then spotted the wiki article and deciding to attempt a contribution, though not regarding the more contentious subject of the condition of the bodies. On Monday I had a chance to read the Sunday papers, only to discover that a Hart/Fitzpatrick v Ryan controversy was being covered by the Irish papers.

From a point of objectivity, I consider myself a fairly neutral Irishman. My mother is from the town of Dunmanway. My grandfather George Ross was originally from Glendart, near Bantry and after emigrating to Chicago as a young man, returned to Ireland after several years and married into Main street Dunmanway. He and my grandmother lived out the remainder of their lives in the town, including during the War of Independence and the Irish Civil War. He was an old IRA intelligence officer at the time, she an active member of Cumman na mBan. He stood as a Fianna Fail candidate during the election for the second Dail Eireann. His younger brother was Gibbs Ross from Glendart, Bantry. Gibbs was Adjutant 3rd Cork Brigade during the War of Independence and was O/C 3rd and/or 5th Cork Brigades during the Civil War. His niece, my mother is still alive, and I have no intention of discussing the situation around Dunmanway during these periods.

Matters I will engage in are Kilmichael, Macroom and Béal na mBláth. My other grandfather AJS Brady, lived in Rectory across the road from Macroom Castle during these troubled times. He lived out his life in the town and passed away in 1986, but not before writing his memoirs 'The Briar of Life' These remained unpublished until my father published, in December 2010. AJS's father was the Rev AJ Brady, Church of Ireland Rector of Macroom during these wars and until his death in 1933. As such he, he was local Chaplain to the crown forces based in the town.

The Rev AJ Brady saw the condition of the naked bodies, on their return to the Castle from Kilmichael, as did a named RC Curate, though the latter was compelled to do so, by the rather annoyed auxiliaries. His eldest son AJS Brady was on hand at the time, and wrote regarding the condition of these bodies and other matters of interest in his memoirs. The exhumation of Guthrie was performed in presence of the Rev AJ Brady, and as such it is incorrect for the Wiki article to speak of a handing over of the body to the Church of Ireland authorities in Macroom. Indeed the use of the word authorities is questionable, for the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871 and as such was no longer part of the State.

It is unlikely Hart had any access to the unpublished manuscript during his research period, or indeed ever. He may however, have managed to talk with someone that had previously read the manuscript in the 1970's. I have not read Hart's work.

Please take the opportunity of reading the relevant sections of 'The Briar of Life', before continuing to write relating to matters centred in and around Macroom during these periods. Borrow it from a library, if you feel I am intentionally self-promoting. Some unpublished information is known to my family, but out sensitivity to other families in the area, will remain undisclosed. Other information regarding my Brady family will not be disclosed, and will be left for historians to uncover.

Remember that any writer or speaker, previously involved in killing another man, will have a vested interest in how history perceives him, and will tend to distort the truth either sub-consciously or by design later. Fortunately, historians can often see through such inaccuracies, by taking into account the knowledge of other citizens, who lived through these events and may even have been witnesses to incidental events, in and around the killings in question.

It would have been nice, if those previously engaged on editing the Kilmichael Article, had welcomed my effort to contribute to this wikipedia article and helped me to do things right. But it seems some are unknowingly rather possessive of the article, and would prefer to just shut out new contributions, or those that are perceived to come from families with a former Anglo-Irish background. That some wikipedians, clearly proud of their nationalist leanings, (I have since looked into their wiki profiles and edit histories) should continue to cause a modern Irishman like me to perceive oppression, as recent as today, is somewhat sad for modern Ireland. For I like to think of myself as an impartial Irishman.

I would call on all those interested in achieving impartiality and accuracy in Irish history on wikipedia to take up the challenge, beginning with the Kilmichael article. Please take a look at my efforts at contributing, now all deleted by more the knowledgeable, but still available in the edit history. Friendly contact will be welcomed, but please do let me know something about who you really are. I guess there is a private channel in wikipedia, by which you can pass your true identity. But I really don't yet know enough about the inner workings of wikipedia. I had read somewhere that one should be bold. But it seems contributing, even in a minor way, is actually quite a minefield.

To those of you doing good work, you have my thanks. I have always had an interest in history, and have currently finally gotten around, to reading Smith's History of Cork, 2nd edn. printed 1774. Such are the pleasures of this Irishman and the bounty of an historian past.

Ashton Brady Ashton.brady (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Ashton.brady (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but you were trying to put a lengthy paragraph into the centre of the article the import of which amounted to simply the fact that this memoir had been published. It was not relevant and was too long. Political bias, Anglo-Irish heritage etc has got nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you want to ammend the sentence on Guthrie go ahead. Jdorney (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The info is far too much, and should be trimmed down to a bare sentence or two. The book should only be the reference, not mentioned in the text.--Dmol (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Wind that shakes the Barley" comparison.

There is now a full paragraph in the Popular Culture, comparing the ambush to the recent film, "The Wind that shakes the Barley". Personally, having read Tom Barry's book and seen the film, I agree there is a definite similarity. But Wikipedia is not based on my, (or anyone else's) interpretation of a film. This section has been uncited for almost 5 years. I had a quick look for cites, but it's hard to find anything official and not too one-sided. Anyone seen any good cites for this.

Secondly, is the paragraph too long. It seems to be. Most Popular Culture sections only list a single sentence per item.--Dmol (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In the director's narration of the film Loach says that the ambush depicted is NOT the Kilmichael Ambush, but is intended to be representative of IRA ambushes of the time. Some elements from the scene, he goes on to say, do come from Kilmichael and Barry's book. In light of this perhaps the detailed comparison is not appropriate, and at most a mention is warranted.

--Jeffreykegler (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

The "Controversy" section of this article seems messed up and just unencyclopedic in general. Not sure what we should do it fix it. Open to discussion. Cogaidh (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The most recent edit appears to be by someone using their own published work on the subject as a source on the controversy. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PatGallacher (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)