Talk:Seán Russell

Untitled

I am very concerned that my fellow Irishmen are engaging in something of a "soft soap" regarding both Sean Russell and the Irish Free State's engagements with Nazism.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people in the IFS were indifferent to the world war, and only such indifference could explain how a statue of a Nazi factotum such as Russell would remain in a European capital city for almost 55 years without controversy. To use the term "naive" is POV, and an offensive one at that to those many millions who suffered so horrifically during those benighted years.

Some of the words above are very similar to those on Russell's page, and in the hopes of averting a revert war, I am anxiously soliciting opinions from the wider Wikipedia community regarding this matter.

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thanks!!

Brandubh Blathmac 03:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very concerned you're yet another sockpupper of Robert Siegel (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com) just spreading your sectarian POV about the place. Please respond at your earliest convenience! - Ali-oops^✍ 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Revision as of 12:39, 27 April 2006

Dont see why the change from "King of England" to "British King" was made. The wikipedia entry has George VI in 1937-1940 as: "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India and King of Ireland."

I've never heard the phrase 'British King'. Changing it to 'British Monarch' or 'King of the Britons' doesn't make sense either; its not how Americans phrase it, even if they are Congressmen.

I got the anecdote from Enno Stephan's book. I think I will quote what he has to say. Fluffy999 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

King

I'm going to deal with this silly issue once and for all as it seems to be clouding User:Fluffy999's ability to think straight and is keeping him awake at night.

Quote Fluffy999: "When he introduces a phrase like "King of Britain" into an article the onus is on him to explain it."

First of all. I did not use the term "King of Britain". I substituted a reference to George VI from King of England to British King. Why? the king in question's full and correct title is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There has not been a King of England since 1707.

The reason I choose British king is that the term is commonly used for British monarches. Just as we refer to the British queen, we can also refer to the British king. English is far too narrow a term for an encylopaedia - Tony Blair would never be referred to as the prime minister of England, but British prime minister is most commonplace. Providing the full UK title is too cumbersome and is avoided on Wikipedia as elsewhere. The adjective British is the most commonly used term used to denote the prominent personalities from that state. English is not.

Fluffy999's reference to a king of England in this context is simply sloppy, just as his references to the "Treaty of 1922" and the "Irish Free State" after the years 1937 are.

Fluffy - whose first edit to Wikipedia was to tell us that the "United Kingdom [was] not in existence" in 1916"[1] – needs to come down off his high horse and needs to recognise the fact that he is not infallible, has made his own share of mistakes and is rude to boot. --Damac 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There has not been a "King of England" since 1707. Since 1801 the monarch's title is "King of the United Kingdom". "British king" is an adequate substitute. "King of England" is 100% wrong. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Failing to see the point doesn't validate the change to King of Britain or British King or "whatever" backs up Damac in his flame war.

Accuracy in this matter lies in reporting how the congressmen & media of the time referenced the "Russell case". That is what is being laid out in the article- not the pedantic rights and wrongs of the title assumed by monarchs throughout history. Should I reference Eire as the Republic of Ireland despite Hoare's understanding of it as 'Eire'? According to your logic that would also make sense.

Certainly I can make mistakes, and its fine if Damac chooses to correct inaccurate spelling/punctuation to accurate, but I do stick to what I know. What speaks volumes to me that the articles on IRA/German intelligence & S-plan have laid untouched by Damac since he signed up. He has only shown interest in them after I corrected his work. Fluffy999 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit, particularly the last paragraph. What did you "correct in my work"? Show me proof of wild factual inaccuracies in the articles concerned.

You augmented what were already sound articles on a number of topics. These articles are on my watchlist, meaning I can see whenever a change is made to them. I started the articles that you decided to build on and like with all subsequent additions, I consider the merits of each one and make changes where I deem them to be appropriate. Since writing those articles - Seán Russell, Sabotage Campaign (IRA) and others, which are on my watchlist, I've had to deal with all kinds of nuts adding POV and utter crap. Had I sat back and let novices edit where they saw fit, the articles would be in a terrible state. I've always sought to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and standards by ensuring that additions to articles that I've an interest in are correct, factually and grammatically.

Fluffy999, take my advice and cool down. This is nothing personal. Don't contribute to Wikipedia if you have a problem with people correcting your mistakes.--Damac 19:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are being grossly unfair to Damac. And no, just because some constitutional ignorant fools at the time use the wrong term does not entitle an encyclopaedia to replicate such ignorance. They could make fools of themselves. We cannot do so. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, change the goal posts to suit. No problem. Considering the support he can whip up for his agenda, i'll do my best to make future contributions "Damac proof" before posting. Just don't be suprised if more of his bogus edits of serious contributions cause problems. Fluffy999 19:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can back it up with evidence, I demand that you withdraw the allegation that I have made "bogus edits of serious contributions". I've had enough of this and am seriously considering reporting you to the relevant Wikipedia authorities.--Damac 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling Damac's edits "bogus" is uncalled for. Please read WP:CIVIL before you end up getting yourself blocked from editing this site. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Threats to block me from editing wikipedia now. Well done Damac- your baiting and harassment campaign paid off! Oh, when you block me? please revert all the articles i've contributed to back to the state they were in before I completed work on them. Be Bold!

Blocking me would have the bonus of somewhat preventing Damac exercising his flair for harassment and baiting of serious contributors however. Of particular enjoyment to me where his accusations of copyright infringement and plagarism- mentioned on wikipedia:civility? Funny though how Damac's allegations, the campaign of officious & inaccurate 'editing' (really just rearranging my efforts) he unleashed, the spamming of my talk page desipte requests not to, and the constant snipes aimed at baiting & harassment seem to be perfectly acceptable. Fluffy999 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to have no interest in paying the slightest heed to the WP rules on any matter, just engaging in personalised abuse, a request will now be made for admins to intervene and deal with you and your behaviour. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Further example of Damac's campaign to bait & harass under another article I created Operation Lobster I. He/she added in redundant information to break up the flow of the article naturally Damac was careful not to be signed in when the change was made. Fluffy999 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was signed in when I made the changes, which are here. Please identify the the "redundant information" I added and specify how this broke "up the flow of the article.--Damac 21:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Damac's claims not to have used to phrase "King of Britain"

Lie. Check my Talk page where he apologises for using the Phrase "King of Britain" and admits it was wrong and I was right to remove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fluffy999 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing on that page. If you do not stop making accusations of lies, deceit, baiting, harassment and bogus edits you will be blocked from editing this site. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - I never used the term "King of Britain" in the Russell article. I used it once on the talk page inadvertently in response to your persistent demands to explain the change from King of England. You created a storm in a teacup over that change and now turn the whole argument around to deal with something written on a talk page. I may have mentioned it on the talk page but YOU WILL NOT FIND IT ON THE ARTICLE. Use the HISTORY function within Wikipedia to compare versions. It's becoming clear to me that you don't know how to do this which is resulting in this unnecessary condusion.--Damac 21:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To Brandubh Blathmac. It's a bit late since your post, but let me add this comment.

Considering the Irish struggled against enormous odds and resources against the British to win against them in the '20s, I think you can cut Sean Russell some slack. Here's a guy with a beef who was struggling to grab any weapon he could to free the last of Ireland from the British. The Nazis offered one. Yes there was evidence even then indicating what a pack of evil bastards they were. But Herr Russell was among the 90% of the world that ignored it either out of wearing rose colored lenses or the belief the communism was worse. It's likely he honestly couldn't tell based on his interaction between the British and the Germans who constituted a greater threat to liberty. He probably figured out the Germans made better sausage and left it at that. If given a summary of Nazism circa 1940-45, chances are he would have cast about elsewhere for another tool. As for the rest: King of Britain, English King, Rex Brittania - whatever and who cares? The legitamacy of every title can be contested. Gandhi, for one, seems to have settled the "Emperor of India" part.

All of this is just yet another example of dated Anglophobia and small-minded Irish xenophobia which, sadly, plagues Wikipedia. One can hardly read a biography of a notable person of Western European descent which does not claim Irish nationality for the subject. Guv2006 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He is plain George VI. Even on wikipedia. End of.78.16.104.162 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Russell and the Holocaust

There is not one jot of evidence that Russell was aware of the Holocaust, much less that he was in any way complicit with it. The quote from the allegedly "anti-fascist" group needs to be referenced, or it should be removed. In such a short article, this section seems to outweigh everything else. I have removed the following paragraph, and bring it here for discussion:

Of course, Seán Russell died in August 1940, over a year before the Wannsee conference of January 1942. Never the less, Germany under Nazi rule was overtly anti-semetic and had already implemented the racial Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935 and perpetrated the largescale Kristalnacht pogrom (9th and 10th November, 1938). Though one could, depending on one's point of view, argue as far as saying that Russell was guilty of compliance with Germany's anti-semetic laws, it is by no means possible, as evinced by the timeline of events, to state that the holocaust was a price "Russell was prepared to pay to end partition." There appears to be no question that Russell had foreknowledge of the Wannsee conference and the impending murder of "Six million Jews, thousands of political dissidents, homosexuals, Roma people, Soviet prisoners of war and the disabled".(See Wannsee conference for the evolution of extermination of the Jews as policy in Nazi Germany).

This paragraph attempts to have it both ways, and is, therefore, full of weasel words like "one could say". Yes, one can say anything they bloody well like, but in the absence of evidence, such things cannot be said in an article on Wikipedia. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the anonymous user to come here and comment on why he continues to add this unreferenced and POV material to the article, but he, so far, refused to do so. As I said above, and as I will reiterate, we cannot add speculative and unreferenced material to the article, or any kind of commentary on what Russell may or may not have known about the situation in Nazi Germany. As it stands, no evidence---not one jot---has ever been presented to indicate Russell in any way sympathized with Nazism. I would still like to see a source for the villainous, profane, and slanderous "statement" issued by the alleged "anti-fascists" who defaced Russell's memorial. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that he didn't sympathize with Nazism, overtly, but that still leaves open the question whether he had sound good judgement. I might disagree with American policy, but never to the extent of joining Al-Quaeda.86.42.208.89 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The implication of your analogy is that Russell joined the Nazis. There is no evidence whatsoever that he did so. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking support from side A in a war when you and side A are both fighting side B amounts to an unsigned alliance, but not to the extent of approving of all of side A's activities. Regarding the Holocaust, compare and contrast Russell with the Jewish group Lehi which proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany against Britain in 1941. Lehi then went on to complain that the allies didn't do enough to stop the Holocaust. We can see now that Russell was being used by the Germans but he didn't see it.86.42.207.57 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Campaign to remove his statue

"A campaign allegedly arose in the 1990s aimed at forcing Dublin City Council to remove Russell's memorial from Fairview Park[citation needed]. It is claimed that agitation against the memorial to Seán Russell has involved Kevin Myers, former Irish Times Columnist, and Fianna Fáil MEP Eoin Ryan, (formerly Dublin City Council councillor)."

Either a question was put down for discussion by the Council, or it was not. Could at least the date of the question be given, or this para must be removed as speculative.86.42.207.57 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What did Russell actually achieve for Ireland in his life to deserve a statue? The objective answer is absolutely nothing.78.16.104.162 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Mary Lou McDonald

Mary Lou McDonald was not an MEP in 2003.

84.203.1.46 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

History Ireland article

Apologies, I got two sites mixed up before. As opposed to History Ireland, I was thinking of The Irish History. However, I don't believe At this time the IRA was extremely pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic in the "Nazi Germany" section is a neutral summary of the History Ireland article. I believe a summary of that should be placed in the "Legacy" section. My concerns with the previous version are

• The IRA don't appear to have been "extremely pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic" during Russell's lifetime, or when he was in Ireland. I won't quote HI in full, but there is a sentence beginning During 1940 IRA officers approached O’Duffy, with another sentence after this. Then there is a section break, with the new section titled "Anti-Semitic propaganda". This begins That this was the case became more apparent over the next year. War News, the IRA’s main publication, became increasingly pro-Nazi in tone, even claiming active IRA involvement in the German bombing of British cities. But more chillingly it began to ape anti-Semitic arguments (my emphasis) So during the time period being talked about (1940 onward) Russell was either not in Ireland (assuming our article is accurate, and I see no reason to dispute this) or dead at this time, so it hardly seems fair to attribute authorship of "War News" to him.
• Regarding anti-Semitism within the IRA, HI states By the mid-1930s ideas about social credit and distributism, which included strong anti-Semitic elements, were current within the organisation, and Sinn Féin’s ‘Christian social’ policies also gained new supporters. I have no objection to this, but it's not about Russell.
• Specifically regarding Russell's politics, HI states An important section of the leadership was socialist, notably Peadar O’Donnell and George Gilmore. Another section—of which Russell, as the IRA’s quartermaster general, was probably the best example—were committed entirely to armed force and uninterested in political debate. A smaller group were attracted to Sinn Féin’s espousal of right-wing ‘Christian social’ policies. So Russell appears to have had no interest in left or right-wing politics, only armed struggle.
• Regarding Russell's supporters, HI states Supporters of the old IRA leadership in 1938 had accused some of Russell’s supporters, such as Peadar O’Flaherty, of ‘fascist’ leanings. They didn't accuse Russell, but his supporters such as O’Flaherty.

I think the HI article makes a reasonable summation of the Russell/Nazi connections, I believe At this time the IRA was extremely pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic is not a neutral summary of the HI article. It is cherry-picking. FDW777 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I refer again to point 3, An important section of the leadership was socialist, notably Peadar O’Donnell and George Gilmore. Another section—of which Russell, as the IRA’s quartermaster general, was probably the best example—were committed entirely to armed force and uninterested in political debate. A smaller group were attracted to Sinn Féin’s espousal of right-wing ‘Christian social’ policies. Russell had no interest in left or right-wing politics, and per point 1 it's not even referring to a period when Russell was in Ireland. FDW777 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "Jew exterminator" addition, this is completely off-topic. The passage from O'Reilly reads Veesenmayer has also been justifiably described (by Francis Stuart) as a 'Jew exterminator'. As German ambassador to Hungary in 1944, he worked alongside Adolf Eichmann to engineer the deaths of 450,000 Hungarian Jews, for which he received a 20-year sentence at the Nuremburg trials. Since Seán Russell died in 1940, the subsequent actions of Veesenmayer in 1944 have got nothing to do with Seán Russell. FDW777 (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/oh-heres-to-adolph-hitler-the-ira-and-the-nazis/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Brian Hanley

@StairySky: WP:RELIABLESOURCES makes clear that when considering a source, one should not just consider the platform the content comes from, but the author. The author of the article in the Socialist Voice is Trinity lecturer, historian and author Brian Hanley who has a specific area of expertise in IRA history. Hanley is quoted extensively in the article via other sources such as Dictionary of Irish Biography and History Ireland. There should be no reason we can cite Hanley from other sources but not from an additional source when it's already been established Hanley is a credible source of information on this topic. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It would violate WP:QUESTIONABLE as it's a political party's magazine, specifically the Communist Party's magazine. The author being a scholar or reliable wouldn't itself make the source reliable, that's why WP:SELFPUBLISHED among other policies exists. There's also an additional issue of WP:LEAD and WP:COATRACK. The lead is supposed to be "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" and so it wouldn't belong in the lede as this is not what Russell is known for, at most it would belong in the article body but not the lead. The source itself does not link the IRA's supposed ideological shift to Russell, if Russell was responsible for that then it would be warranted to be mentioned but its got nothing to do with Russell. This makes it look like a piece of WP:OR to say that RUssell was responsible for this, something the source doesn't indicate. StairySky (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It would violate WP:QUESTIONABLE as it's a political party's magazine, specifically the Communist Party's magazine. The author being a scholar or reliable wouldn't itself make the source reliable

Based on my reading of WP:RELIABLESOURCES, I don't agree. If I was citing a staff member of Socialist Voice on, say, a news item, it would be correct to to invoke WP:RELIABLESOURCES. However, because the author is an accepted expert in this field who is already cited throughout, Hanley's reliability supersedes Socialist Voice. It cannot be the case that Hanley is reliable when writing for Dictionary of Irish Biography, but not the case when writing a history piece (as opposed to an opinion piece or a news item) for SV. As I outlined in the edit summary, WP:RELIABLESOURCES very clearly states that the platform/website is not the sole deciding factor in whether something is reliable or not, and that the both reliability of the author and the piece itself should be considered as well. Therefore it is incorrect to completely dismiss the source on the grounds of the website/platform alone. Both the piece and the author are, in fact, reliable, and this overcomes concerns about the reliability of SV.

so it wouldn't belong in the lede as this is not what Russell is known for

Russell is best known for being willing to collectorate with Nazis. Russell's willingness to work with pro-Nazi members of the IRA is apart of that dimension.

The source itself does not link the IRA's supposed ideological shift to Russell, if Russell was responsible for that then it would be warranted to be mentioned but its got nothing to do with Russell.

The source states that while Russell himself may not have ascribed to Nazi ideology, he was more than willing to abide by pro-Nazi elements around him at the closest level. I'll quote briefly from the source where this is most directly pointed out:

"The reality was that Russell’s accession to leadership of the IRA marked a move to the right by the organisation. While Russell was notably uninterested in political debate, under his tutelage men with pro-Nazi views, such as James O’Donovan, gained prominence within the IRA..."

Hanley builds out the case throughout the article that Russell's willingness to work alongside IRA executive members with pro-Nazi views allowed them to hold power within the IRA. Russell's indifference to pro-Nazis within the IRA is important dimension of his own decision to collectorate with Nazi Germany, the thing he is most famous for. Russell's willingness to push out left-wing members of the IRA but not fascist ones again is a dimension to his decision to collaborate with Germany. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Both the author and the source have to be reliable for it to be permissible to use, that's why WP:SELFPUBLISHED for instance says that even if an author could be reliable if they self-publish something then this is not to be used as a source. Russell isn't known for allowing far-right elements in the IRA, that's why until you added it there was zero mention of it, so it's definitely not lead worthy at the least. Also as it stood it seemed to imply that Russell fostered these far-right elements and made a deliberate effort to repress left-wing elements which would be WP:OR. If it were to be phrased that Russell had a laizzez-faire attitude to personal views of IRA members and that he allowed a wide range of opinions, both far-left, far-right and everything in between then maybe that should be mentioned in the article body but with wording that doesn't imply he was somewhat partial to the far-right. StairySky (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUBLISHED:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

Hanley is, in fact, an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

If it were to be phrased that Russell... allowed a wide range of opinions, both far-left, far-right

I haven't seen any evidence in any source to suggest Russell indulged left-wing views within the IRA; would you care to link me to a source that states that? CeltBrowne (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Frank Ryan (Irish republican) would be an example. StairySky (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Frank Ryan would be actually be a counter-intuitive example. Ryan was one of the many left-wing members of the IRA pushed out of the organisation in 1933 by the "traditionalist" faction Russell belonged to following the creation of the Republican Congress. As Russell's article points out, Russell court-martialled Michael "Mick" Price and Peadar O'Donnell for the same offence. Court-martialling for setting up a left-wing political party is not a demonstration of a "laizzez-faire attitude to personal views", especially when we consider that the right-wing political party Córas na Poblachta was setup during Russell's command. Russell punished IRA men for creating a left-wing party, but did nothing to stop a right-wing one being created. Russell did in fact demonstrate a bias.

Just to finish the point on Ryan, Ryan hadn't been a member of the IRA effectively for seven years when he briefly encountered Russell in August 1940. Ryan was in German custody while Russell was depending on the Germans for armaments and support. Neither man was in particular position to refuse the meeting. In any event, I don't there should be any equivocation of Russell meeting Ryan for one day in Germany and the many years Russell spent working alongside the likes of Seamus O'Donovan, other IRA executive members, and Joseph McGarrity campaigning for, planning out and eventually executing the S-Plan. We cannot say from the one off meeting in Berlin that Russell worked with the far-left as much as he did the far-right, or that the meeting demonstrated a tolerance of leftwingers by Russell, that wouldn't be a correct extrapolation at all. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not about to get into a historical argument but this all seems like WP:OR to me, you seem to be WP:SYNTHESISing pieces of information. Addendum - Just to add Hanley points out Russell's willingness to work with the far-left here: "In the 1920s the IRA were looking for support from Communist Russia and he was happy with that". StairySky (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay then, let's remind ourselves what we're discussing here; You are objecting to the inclusion of the following two sentences:

During the 1930s Russell purged a number of left-wing members of the IRA and during Russell's reign as Chief of Staff, the IRA took a marked shift to the political right. During Russell's command the IRA executive became filled with supporters of the Irish fascist group Ailtirí na hAiséirghe and sympathizers for Nazi Germany.

You objected to that on the grounds of reliability, and on original research. I believe I've addressed your concerns around reliability, so let's deal with the OR concern. WP:OR and it's subsection WP:SYN states an editor cannot take Source A from Writer A and Source B from Writer B and come up with original conclusion C. I am not doing that in this edit; I am taking Source A from writer A and Source B from writer A and posting writer's A conclusion. This is Hanley's research, not mine. I'm not WP:SYNTHESISing, which is the act of taking different pieces from different authors and coming to an entirely new conclusion, I'm just pulling from Hanley throughout when it comes to the actual edit we're discussing and offering the same conclusion.

The lines I want to include discusses the political stance Russell allowed grow within the IRA itself. I'm not talking about externally to the IRA, I'm talking within it. Again, I'm drawing from Hanley directly saying "The reality was that Russell’s accession to leadership of the IRA marked a move to the right by the organisation", and then demonstrating some evidence of that. The evidence that the IRA shifted right is that members of the leadership became very enamoured with Ailtirí na hAiséirghe, Germany and Fascism/Corporatism. Hanley discusses this in depth in the "‘Oh here’s to Adolph Hitler’?" article.

Now, I feel that should address the OR concern.

At this stage, I would like one of three things to happen. The first option would be for you to say "Okay, fair enough, you took the issues I raised in good faith and walked through them, I withdraw my objection", we figuratively shake hands, and leave it there.

The second option is I phrase it another way and I include the edit as:

Russell considered himself a strictly apolitical militarist, however under Russell's reign as Chief of Staff, the IRA took a marked shift to the political right. During Russell's command the IRA executive became filled with supporters of the Irish fascist group Ailtirí na hAiséirghe and sympathizers for Nazi Germany.

Please note that I really don't want to do a back and forth on the wording of the edit. It's either a yes or no on that wording as I don't want to get into a "death by committee" situation.

The third option, which I'm comfortable doing, is either getting a third opinion on this, or make it a request for comment. Please note that 3O is non-binding, but RfC effectively is.

How would you like to proceed? CeltBrowne (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well OK I wouldn't object to the proposed rewording per se to be inserted in the body of the article. However I would agree that after that it would be only fair to mention his working with communists among other shades of opinion. I don't really like the word 'however' though for the same reason. StairySky (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as the suggested "Russell considered himself a strictly apolitical militarist" line goes, I was talking about as part of the lead section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states that the lead section should reflect the body of the article, rather than "what the person is known for". As a significant portion of the article discusses the change in nature of the IRA during their tenure, it's not out of place in the lead.

As far as the "working with Communists" thing goes, to be honest the only time Russell "worked with Communists" was the 1925 trip to the Soviet Union to buy weapons, but that was (as far as I understand it) under the orders of Moss Twomey. Twomey is somewhat the flipside of Russell, in that he too presented himself somewhat as a "militarist" who avoided politics, but the reality was that he too was partial to one side of politics, in this case the left-wing. The 1925 arms deal arguably says more about Twomey than Russell. For it's worth, Twomey's article is also in need of an overhaul and in time I may commit to writing that overhaul myself, and I can get into the 1925 arms deal there. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hanley himself said that Russell was "happy" to work with Soviet communists (per source above) and there are multiple sources that outline Russell's working with IRA communists like Ryan. Even Ryan's Wikipedia article details the collaboration, for example "[Ryan] was intimately involved in the planning of all Abwehr operations in Ireland during 1940 – 1943, particularly those involving Russell" and "He was then transported to Berlin, where he met up with Seán Russell on 4 August 1940". The IRA having some fascists in the organization is not at all what Russell is known for and its a very minor part of the article so it wouldn't warrant being in the lead. StairySky (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ryan was intimately involved in the planning of all Abwehr operations in Ireland during 1940 – 1943, particularly those involving Russell

I don't know how exactly Ryan and Russell were supposed to have planned years of operations together when their meeting on 4 August 1940 was the first time they'd met in years (Ryan hadn't been in Ireland since 1936, and hadn't been in the IRA since 1933), and then Russell promptly died 10 days later.

Look, at this stage I think at bare minimum this has to go to 3O, I can't keep going around in circles like this. Edit: I've now requested a 3O on this. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Well there are other ways to plan things other than through physical interaction, the source indicates that they planned together and we should go by what sources say. Maybe a third opinion could be helpful. StairySky (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Most all of StairySky's objections are trivial. The article body already states "Russell's leadership unquestionably saw the IRA shift to the political right and become permeated with those with pro-fascist and pro-German sentiments." so there should not be an issue with mentioning this in the lede. ––FormalDude talk 17:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This wasn't even something mentioned until added just yesterday so I'm not sure how it would be "a summary of its most important contents" given that context and the additional fact that it is merely a one-liner. This isn't at all what Russell is known for, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the subject of the article? StairySky (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC is needed. ––FormalDude talk 22:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-scholarly opinions

User:CeltBrowne As I said in my edit summary, I think it's best to leave the analysis to the scholars and experts. StairySky (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

And as I said in my edit summaries, I think you're coming up with completely arbitrary standard. I see that you're not removing Seán Cronin's viewpoint (nor should you) even though he's not more or less a journalist than Ross is. I see that you're not removing Mary Lou MacDonald's quote (nor should you) even though she's "only" a politician, just as Ross is. Why leave in a viewpoint from one politician but remove it from another?

The legacy section is filled with viewpoints from people other than historians; to apply your "only historians" bar to it would mean ripping out 90% of it. Secondly, it's not uncommon at all on Wikipedia for legacy section's to include viewpoints other than from historians. Thirdly, these viewpoints on Russell come from reliable sources, ie national level newspapers, and should not be removed lightly. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that the blockquote is from Brian Keenan of the Provisional IRA, not MLM. Regardless, the point remains; It's a viewpoint from a non-historian that you're not removing while stating the only viewpoints that should be expressed are from historians. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You really need to stop edit warring, you're not helping anything and it's much better to discuss on the talk page instead of going on a crusade.

a) Sean Cronin was in the IRA and a colleague of Russell so he has that privledged position in my view. I don't feel particularly strongly about it though so I'm not going to die on that hill.

b) Mary Lou MacDonald is the Leader of the Opposition and her comments on Russell have garnered significant attention which makes it notable. This isn't the case for others.

c) "it's not uncommon at all on Wikipedia for legacy section's to include viewpoints other than from historians." If those are significant I suppose so but Ross' one article isn't really.

I also have some issues with your other recent edits, I don't see how a blog 'Come Here to Me' is a reliable source. StairySky (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Come Here to Me is operated by and written by historian, writer and broadcaster Donal Fallon, who regularly contributes articles about history to the the Journal.ie, The Irish Independent, and the Dublin Inquirer in addition to his weekly history segment on journalist Paul Gavin's Sunday morning programme on Newstalk. Additionally he runs the Three Castles Burning Podcast, dedicated to exploring Dublin history. He's a reliable source and so his website Come Here to Me which his direct output.

Mary Lou MacDonald's viewpoint is significant because she's a high profile politician discussing the subject of the article.

Shane Ross' viewpoint is significant because he's a high profile politician (and journalist) discussing the subject of the article.

They are two equally valid viewpoints reported by two equally valid secondary sources. Please stop removing one while standing over the other.

I am going request a third opinion on this.

For anyone responding to the 3OR, I would like to include the viewpoint of former Minister and Journalist Shane Ross in the Legacy section of the article, which already includes a host of viewpoints from different people, including other politicians. The source is the New Statesman. [2] CeltBrowne (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

a) To my knowledge Fallon didn't write the post.

b) Ross is basically politically irrelevant at this point and his comments haven't received really any attention, unlike Mary Lou MacDonald's which have received quite a bit of attention. StairySky (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

a) To my knowledge Fallon didn't write the post.

Fallon did write the post; "Donal" is his username on the website, and that's the user who uploaded the article. If you click "Donal", it takes you to a userpage literally stating it's Donal Fallon and shows you a bio talking about him being a historian. This is research 101. Last time, I brushed pass the fact you didn't take the time to research anything about the Come here to me blog before removing it, shame on me, but for you to look at a second time at it and still come up with a glaring oversight...

Now that you can plainly see that you deleted reliably sourced material on faulty reasoning, the good faith thing to do would be to go back and readd it, just saying.

b) Ross is basically politically irrelevant at this point and his comments haven't received really any attention, unlike Mary Lou MacDonald's which have received quite a bit of attention.

First off, it's a monstrously subjective for you to call Ross, who was a government minister just two years ago, "politically irrelevant". I could pick that statement apart all night, but I'm not going to get derailed into how on earth you'd quantify that sentiment, because what you personally feel has no bearing on this. It only matters what reliable sources think, and reliable sources are posting regularly about Ross. It doesn't matter whether you (or I) think Ross is relevant or not, Journalists and other reliable sources do. CeltBrowne (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Are reliable sources posting regularly about Ross' views of Russell? It seems like they've got no attention or next to no attention.StairySky (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to break this down like a maths equation

You said

Ross is basically politically irrelevant at this point (A) and his comments haven't received really any attention, unlike Mary Lou MacDonald's which have received quite a bit of attention. (B)

In that sentence, you are giving two (2) separate reasons why Ross should not be included:

A. He's "political irrelevant"

B. His comments did not get sufficient "attention"

I've already said in relation to "political irrelevant" reasoning that Journalists feel Ross is political relevant. Ross regularly appears as a topic of national journalism, he was certainly all over the papers this year. That is me discounting your first point. That's separate from the attention thing.

Let me address your second reasoning, this "attention" reasoning.

Something doesn't have to be a controversy for it to appear on Wikipedia. Let's look at an example, let's look at the legacy section of Madonna's article, which is rated as a Good article. One of the first lines there is a quote from William Langley from The Daily Telegraph. The source is simply from an article Langley did synopsising Madonna's career. There doesn't need to be a separate article with the headline SHOCK AS LANGLEY SAYS MADONNA CHANGED SOCIAL HISTORY. There doesn't need to be "attention" around the commentary itself for that commentary to be included in Madonna's article. It's enough on it's own.

Langley is a writer who made an insight about Madonna in his writing output _{(his article for the Daily Telegraph)}; that's enough to warrant inclusion in Madonna's article.

Ross is a writer who made an insight about Russell in his writing output ^{(his book)}; that's enough to warrant inclusion in Russell's article.

There doesn't have to be "attention" or "controversy" around the insight for the insight to warrant inclusion. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're confusing 'attention' with 'controversy', I'm talking about the latter which is more broad. Madonna isn't really comparable because she's not a contested historical figure. If we're talking about contested historical figures then its best to stick with the scholars and experts unless non-expert opinion becomes WP:NOTABLE, as it has with MacDonald. StairySky (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

as it has with MacDonald

By what metric are you judging that McDonald is "notable" but Ross isn't? What are you using to measure their notability? CeltBrowne (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

MacDonald herself as the Leader of Opposition et al and the comments themselves in terms of coverage in reliable sources and political attention. StairySky (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

And Ross was a government minister just two years ago, he continues to be highly notable as a journalist/writer (his book being one of the most discussed in Ireland this year), his comments were reported by a reliable source, besides the fact his book itself is also a source. There is no credibility (none) in trying to claim he's not "notable", whether you like him and his comments or not. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if he is notable as a person that wouldn't translate to his viewpoint being notable enough to be included in an article that should be relying on academic/scholarly/expert sources. StairySky (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Now you're pivoting your argument. If a person's notability doesn't matter, why did you argue earlier that he shouldn't be included because he was "politically irrelevant"? What bearing on the conversion did political relevance have at all if his notability doesn't matter all ? You're literally wasting my time making me jump through meaningless hoops. I shouldn't have to say anything about "political relevance" if his notability didn't matter.

For the actual facts and details of Russell's life, his biography, yes those sections should be based on reliable sources from historians. But for the legacy section, Journalists and Politicians are the experts in what the political and cultural legacy of the subject is. Look at Margaret Thatcher#Legacy; It's not just the opinion of historians that's included, the viewpoints of politicians and journalists are used extensively to assess what Thatcher's legacy is. Are you going to argue to me that it's appropriate for politicians and journalists to be used on Thatcher's article, but not this one?

I can't keep around in circles on this, and I find it annoying an entire week has gone by since my 3OR went in and there's still no response. I don't want to have spent weeks arguing over a straightforward edit; so with that in mind I'm going to ping some other regular Irish editors to get their input on this. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say a person's supposed notability doesn't matter, I said that isn't sufficient grounds in itself for inclusion. I'm not pivoting my argument either, I'm simply saying regardless of Ross' notability or non-notability as a person that wouldn't make his comments notable per se. To be honest it sounds like you're just not understanding what I'm saying. As for Margaret Thatcher, she was a politician so the views of politicians would matter there and additionally she's had a huge cultural and political impact, unlike Russell. StairySky (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There are 10 things I could say about your last reply, but I going to bypass them because you'll suck me into being here for another month if I don't.

Show me any Wikipedia guideline/policy that says a reliable sourced comment has to have received "attention" in order for it to be used, or however you want to word what you're trying to say. Show me the guideline/policy supporting what you're trying to argue.

Because WP: Notability relates to who/what warrants a separate article, and not to "attention" around sources themselves. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that as a general rule "a reliable sourced comment has to have received "attention" in order for it to be used" though. StairySky (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Great, so that's another thing we move on from then. We've tossed out the Come Here to Me concern, we've established that Ross is notable, we're moving past out the idea that a source has to receive "attention" to be used, the only thing that leaves remaining is this "historians and experts" contention.

I've already point out that two people don't have to be in the same field for one to comment on the other. I said journalists are used in Thatcher's and Madonna's legacy sections. I could also point out that POTUS Jimmy Carter's viewpoint is Elvis Presley's legacy section, despite not being a musician. You said in response that it was appropriate for politicians to comment on Thatcher as she was a politician herself. Well, that's quite awkward to apply to Russell. What exact was his "profession"? He wasn't in a formal military. It wouldn't exactly be very balanced if the only people deemed appropriate to comment on Russell are other Irish republicans and/or members of the IRA. Additionally, It's appropriate for journalists and politicians to comment on Russell, because he had a political goal, and because his legacy affects politics today. Irish republicanism, at the end of the day, is a political movement. That's literally the opening sentence of the article on it:

Irish republicanism (Irish: poblachtánachas Éireannach) is the political movement for the unity and independence of Ireland under a republic.

Ross, as it happens, is both a journalist and politician, he's qualified on two fronts to comment.

Instead of putting Ross' comment besides the Nic Dhaibheid comment, it can be placed in the same paragraph as politicians MLM and Martin's comments. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"Great, so that's another thing we move on from then....we're moving past out the idea that a source has to receive "attention" to be used" This is an idea that you introduced, not me.

Russell wasn't a politician and he didn't leave a political legacy unlike Thatcher. It's just not right to equate a politician reflecting on the huge politico-cultural impact a fellow politician had to the situation with Russell. Russell has had no political or cultural legacy, it's not the same at all. StairySky (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The man who had 1,000+ Republicans show up to celebrate a status in his honour has no political or cultural legacy?

The man who had anti-fascists attack his memorial has no political or cultural legacy?

The man who had the leader of the country and leader of the opposition were actively discussing in 2020 has no political or cultural legacy?

Do you believe that's a very credible claim to make?

If he had no political legacy, he wouldn't galvanise these political people/groups decades after his death. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is he hasn't influenced politics in any way, he's only had politicians denounce or condone him. Now you may argue this is 'influence' but that would just be pedantic, I think you understand very well the difference between Russell and Thatcher. StairySky (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I could compare Pelé to a relatively unknown shot-putter from the UK, and someone could talk all day about how fundamentally different the sport of football and shot-putting are, how the UK and Brazil are so different, and the level of fame between the two individuals is not comparable. And those things would be true; however, the point of the comparison would be that, ultimately, both Pelé and the shot-put are sports athletes, their Wikipedia articles will be written in roughly the same format, and one would expect a sports journalist to be able to comment on either person.

When I compare Russell to Thatcher, I'm not comparing "like for like". But I am comparing two individuals in the same "realm". If we were to create a Request for Comment for either the Pelé or the Shot-putter's article, either Request for Comment would go into the Society, sports, and culture and Biographies topic categories. If we were to create a Request for Comment for either Thatcher or Russell, either Request for Comment would go into the Politics, government, and law and Biographies topic categories.

I hope you see what I'm getting at. But if not, let me make another comparison with the format of Ché Guevara's legacy section. Although it's evident throughout, the use of journalists and politicians and political activists can be particularly seen in the Che Guevara#Biographical debate subsection of his legacy section. I would hope that if you cannot see the point I'm making with Thatcher, that would be able to see it when I make it with Guevara, who was not a "politician" and was "professionally" something closer to Russell.

And just to put a fine point on what I'm saying;

journalists and politicians and political activists can and are used to discuss Thatcher's legacy

journalists and politicians and political activists can and are used to discuss Guevara's legacy

journalists and politicians and political activists can and are used to discuss Russell's legacy

Finally, you yourself were very adamant about including the line about Russell being an idol of traditionalist republicanism during the 1950s. Obviously the legacy of Thatcher and Russell are not "like for like", but the point is that they both have political legacies that continued beyond their activities, and this legacy can be discussed by journalists and politicians and the like.

I feel like we're so close here; surely this has to be the final crest of the hill we're trying to get over? It's no black mark if you say "Ok, Ok, I see what you're saying". CeltBrowne (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"But I am comparing two individuals in the same 'realm'." Except they're not in the same realm because one was a politician and the other wasn't. If you want to say both left a "political legacy" you'd be defining 'political' in such a broad way that it covers multiple 'realms' and isn't really that meaningful for the purposes of the discussion. StairySky (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Are Guevara and Russell in the same realm? CeltBrowne (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for outside input

@Bastun: @Ser!: @Spleodrach: @The Banner: @BrownHairedGirl: @Iveagh Gardens:

Hi all, sorry to pull you into this as this might not be an area of interest for you, but we need some outside input here in order to resolve a dispute, and I think that it would be really helpful if the input was coming from other Irish editors because a lot of Irish names are going to be thrown around here. I went to Wikipedia:Third opinion a week ago to ask for outside input but never got a response and I'd like to resolve this, so I've asked you because I know you're active on Irish articles.

The subject of this article is Seán Russell, Chief of Staff of the IRA during World War 2. He planned and organised the "S-Plan" aka the "Sabotage Campaign", in which targets in Northern Ireland and England were bombed. Russell later directly collaborated with Nazi Germany, going to Germany for training and supplies in 1940. He died on a chartered U-Boat that was bringing him back to Ireland.

Russell, for obvious reasons, is a controversial figure in Irish history, and this article features a legacy section. The legacy section features viewpoints from contemporaries, historians, journalists, various Irish republicans and politicians.

This week I made an edit to include the viewpoint of Shane Ross, the journalist and former minister, in this legacy section, who discussed Russell in his latest book. StairySky undid this addition and is protesting its inclusion. The legacy section already includes the viewpoints of other politicians such as Mary Lou McDonald and Micheál Martin, as well as other people who are not historians, such as a leading member of the IRA (possibly a Chief of Staff) Brian Kennan. A quote from the National Graves Association was also included in the legacy until recently when it seems to have been removed in an edit by StairySky. It is my belief that demonstrating the diversity of views about the subject is good, and that both viewpoints supporting and criticising Russell should be included.

Could you please express whether you think a quote from Shane Ross should be excluded from the legacy section or not?

For future information, please see the discussion here on the talk page further up, as well as the edit history of the article itself.

Thank you to anyone who responds and helps resolve this matter.

@Bastun, Ser!, Spleodrach, The Banner, BrownHairedGirl, Iveagh Gardens, and Wehwalt: I never signed the above paragraph, which I wrote a few days ago, which is why it never actually pinged any of you/never gave you a notification until now. The input of any one of you is still badly required in order to resolve this matter. Wehwalt, upon recommendation, I was told I should also consider pinging a recently active admin, and I hope you don't mind that. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Just after a quick look: this article needs far more sources. That is: independent, reliable, in-depth sources. The Banner talk 19:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ross is a long-standing politician, former minister, and a columnist. I can see no reason at all why his viewpoint would be excluded. (And note I'm saying this without having looked at the edit history - I've not read his book, and don't know whether he wrote favourably or unfavourably about Russell.) Further, Come Here To Me may be a blog, but it is extremely well regarded, and could certainly be referenced in this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude Ross's view here. Russell is clearly a controversial figure, and Ross is as good as any to represent the critical view. He may not be an historian, but I don't think cited commentary on historical figures need be confined to historians, particularly as their continuing legacy is also subject to commentary.

Thanks for the ping, I'll be happy to engage when I have a bit of time over the next few weeks. It might be worth putting a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland too. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm on holiday at present and not sure how much time I have to look at it. Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)