Talk:Tim Pat Coogan

request

Could somebody give a source for recent changes, particularly gay rumours. If nobody does so in a reasonable time then I will revert. PatGallacher 17:42, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

I've done so. It was a garbage addition which isn't even based on a rumour must less fact. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

i hate coogan, hes so pro-de valera, he worked for the irish press for god sake! so with regards to his views on collins DONT listen to them, he doesnt think dev had anything to do with collins's murder, i firmly disagree! (as does a lot of ireland)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.161.197 (talk • contribs)

How anyone who has read Coogan's book on de Valera could actually think that Coogan is in any way pro-de Valera is mindboggling!!! As to the second comment, that is utter rubbish. The fact that he had nothing to do with Collins's murder is proven by records from the time and no-one except a few pananoid conspiracy theories on the fringes given even the slightest credence to the idea. Even Collins's family stated categorically that de Valera had absolutely nothing to do with the Commander-in-Chief's death. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As per Anaraug's suggestions, minor edits made. 216.194.1.38 06:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

As everyone knows, this article is the frequent target of having POV information inserted repeatedly. Obviously, this goes against Wikipedia policy. However, I feel that the article prior to such edits did not mention that there was any controversy surrounding Mr. Coogan at all, and that this was the cause for such vandalism to occur. The fact that the vandal cited a website and gave quotations is evidence that the controversy is indeed, noteable, and should be mentioned. I feel that if we describe the controversy without supporting either side, that the vandalism should at least decrease, but hopefully go away completely. I do not have expertise in the area of Irish history, but I am willing to work on this article so that it will not only be NPOV, but that also it will not make a random reader feel as if it is missing anything. I feel like the current revision is not POV, but it isn't thorough either. It would be nice for us to discuss the issue here before making drastic edits to the page. --Anaraug 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Some of his critics" -- which critics, and what are their qualifications to comment on this matter? If the only holder of this viewpoint is an indefinitely banned Wikipedia editor, then it fails WP:N. Demiurge 21:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm working on it. If you want to, change it for now until I find something better, (unless I can't). --Anaraug 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • There *are* critics of TPC out there though none come to mind at the moment. I've no major problem with Anaraug's edits as they stand. - Ali-oops^✍ 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • The only reason I like mine better is because it is less likely to be vandalized. I know that it isn't perfect, or even that good, but it is my opinion that it will get us by for a few hours/days/whatever until we can come up with something better. I'll leave it up to y'all to put it how you want for now. It was just a suggestion. --Anaraug 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ok. Browsing around some databases at my school library, I found a few book reviews. Several of them (written about several of Coogan's books) say things to the effect of "Coogan tends to overromanticize, but the pictures are great". I also found a book that may detail some complaint against Coogan, De Valera, Fianna Fail and the Irish Press by Mark O'Brien, but I haven't been able to find a free copy of it. A review of that book mentioned that the O'Brien pointed out how Coogan had supported censorship of his opponents while working to get rid of other censorship. I haven't found anything about his "Republican irredentism" or whatever. Still looking for some more recent sources.--Anaraug 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be included in "Troubles-related" topics/rules: that is the period of which Coogan is one of the leading historians. That is the reason for the passionate controversy about him.

This is the reason I edited the 2nd paragraph of this article, the nutshell description of his work, which previously began with "Coogan writes from a nationalist perspective." I think that's inaccurate, and also partisan. It's important to remember that one of the leading characteristics of Troubles-related problems, is that anti-nationlists call anyone a nationalist who is not anti-nationalist. Any chronicler, journalist, or historian who tries to give both sides equally is liable to be labelled a "Shinner" (as in Sinn Fein) by right-wing Unionists, & at the same time called a "traitor" or something unprintable by extremist dissident republicans.

The history Coogan specializes in is nothing if not complex. It's not just black & white. Many people in Ireland are liable to have relatives on both sides of any part of Troubles-related questions. I think it's less accurate to say that he "writes from a nationalist perspective" than to say that his position as one of the foremost historians of the period is unassailable.

("Nationalist" by the way means someone who believes his whole country should be independent from any government outside the country. Something which every American is expected to believe, without danger of being called any kind of "--ist"!)

He is passionate about the topic, and not without his own political outlook. However, I don't think there's another writer who goes so far to treat the material in an even-handed manner. His own outlook, as noted above, has something to offend everyone. He does not write according to anyone's idea of political correctitude, and does not submit his works for approval to any party leader. Puma prowler (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Coogan can be passionate all he wants. But he is now and has been for a while, if he wasn't always, a republican propagandist (and an increasingly triumphalistic one), using weasel wording (coyly declining to identify republicans when inconvenient to his narrative and grudgingly at best acknowledging IRA atrocities) in between his extensive footnotes, which are largely from his own interviews with unidentified or long-deceased IRA volunteers. He is not a mainstream writer, he is a hard-line republican supporter, like Robin Livingstone or Father Des Wilson. Quis separabit? 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coogan93.jpg

Image:Coogan93.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:News-1856079244b.jpg

Image:News-1856079244b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

New State

My grasp of early 20th century Irish history is rudimentary (and mainly is sourced from one of Coogan's books), but I know that Michael Collins died during the Irish Civil War which was contested by Irishmen who either supported or opposed the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Since the pro-treaty victors of the civil war were representing the Irish Free State, should "Irish Free State'" replace "new State" in this quote from the article? : "His biography of de Valera proved controversial, taking issue with the former Irish president's reputation and achievements, in favour of those of Collins, whom he regards as indispensable to the creation of the new State" 47.137.181.252 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)