Talk:Dunmanway killings

Summary
This seems an easier issue than most such issues to resolve: (1) There is evidence and statements that some people in or connected to the IRA regarded them as informers based on what they thought was evidence. (2) This evidence would not hold up in a modern court of law as it appears to be based on a list no longer available. (3) To jump from that and assert the there was no list or evidence at all, and that the victims were merely randomly selected is speculation or WP:OR. (4) So, "suspected informers" is the closest fit to the limited evidence we have available. Nobody can be sure of what the exact truth was - or at least I cannot see how anyone could be sure. Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, very nicely put, Sarah. Rockpock  e  t  22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely right. --John (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And that's three things Sarah and I agree on!  Wonders will never cease! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Afirmative. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh! Excellent. So maybe we could appoint Rock to lighten the Hart influence a wee bit as he suggested and write a version based on the facts we seem to be agreed on. (Pretty similar to the existing version I'd imagine). Then maybe we can take this off the list of "disputes" and insist on very good sources  for any future re-interpretations? Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is that I don't have access to Ryan's book, so I'm struggling to give better coverage to her conclusions. Almost all the stuff cited to her previously was criticisms of Hart's conclusions culled from various pamphlets (which is not what we want) instead of her own conclusions (which we do want). If anyone else could come up with some sourced material that illustrates how Ryan interpreted the event, it would be most helpful. O Fenian appears to be familiar with her writing, but he has gone awol recently. Rockpock  e  t  23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Domer not familiar with that material? Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Any input he has on this matter would be welcome, of course, though we could do without revisiting the Hart is discredited arguments again. Rockpock  e  t  23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was resolved? The text covers his revisionism/alleged revisionism fairly I think. No need to reopen that issue. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work on the summary Sarah. Credit where it's due. Re Ryan she doesn't have an awful lot in the way of conclusions on the actual incident in Tom Barry, IRA Freedom Fighter. The whole chapter is more or less devoted to rebutting Hart. The closest I can find to a conclusion on the events is (158-159),


 * "Peter Hart concludes the motives were 'sectarian' rather than disloyalty to the Republican cause by informing on their fight for freedom activities. According to Peter Hart, when the men of the Cork IRA used the term 'informer' it simply meant 'enemy'...Yet all of the surnames (in the Dunmanway/Ballineen/Enniskeane district) of those shot in the closing days of April 1922, were listed as 'helpful citiizens' in the Dunmanway 'find'. But the names of two of those fatally shot are not on the list - only last names are there. In one case a son was shot when his father was not at home. An elderly man was shot instead of his brother, who ahd been wanted by the IRA and he had been, 'one of the men' who 'fingered' IRA men resulting in their arrest torture and deaths. Those who saw the document knew the anems of he 'helpful citizens' - some of whom escaped. (Only one loyalist was listed in the diary. The others were in separate dossiers)."  Jdorney (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems nobody is claiming the son and the elderly man shot, either in error or deliberately, were actually themselves informers. Thus describing all 10 simply as informers would be inaccurate. As per facts we are all agreed on? Sarah777 (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Collateral casualties aside, you won't address the point above. Informer or suspected informer are both pejorative terms as those done to death were at the time proper law-abiding citizens whose duty it was to tell the aurhorities of activities that would otherwise lead to people being killed.--Fynire (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fynire, with respect you seem to be ploughing a lonely furrow here. People on all sides seem to feel that "suspected informers" is neutral and not pejorative.  Nobody is suggesting that the dead were traitors, and nobody but you seems to be drawing that inference,  Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that lonely I suspect Scolaire.

Traitor is a better epithet than informer which is usually an epithet for low lifes. How would you like to be murdered and have it written into the historical record that you were a 'suspected rapist' or some such when the thought had never crossed your mind nor the concept imagined? This is victor's language not neutral (NPOV). And 'suspected' implies possible innocence to boot, yet few using the term have the slightest doubt you deserved your fate, suspected or otherwise. If your father or brother's name was on the bullet it is all the same in their eyes. Listen to the tone. --Fynire (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Traitor" is better than "informer"?!! Not on this planet! Sarah777 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Treason never prospers for if it does none dare call it treason but 'informers' don't become 'agents' so easily. --Fynire (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nottatall! By your own reckoning a traitor could now be regarded as a "decent law-abiding citizen" if the outcome had favoured the occupiers! Imagine had the fight for independence failed what they'd be calling the "rebels" today?! (Given that history is written by the winners). Sarah777 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling them men rather than Protestants is absurd. It is also accurate and germane so don't revert it again Sarah. Given that you changed the name of the article without discussion I don't think you can use lack of discussion as a reason. The matter has been discussed at length anyway. --Fynire (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fynire, for the record, Peter Hart also suggests that they were singled out because they were men. The killers deliberately would not shoot women ("we don't want you" they told one) but asked for the men by name. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but their sex was clearly a significant factor in their targeting. Jdorney (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be so but hardly significant unless we are writing some sort of gender-related article. I would be happy to change it to ten male Protestants, and will. --Fynire (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately as the root cause is disputed, that information is best left to later in the lead where it is currently. O Fenian (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * O Fenian - you reverted the sentence that said Meda Ryan's references were unavailable writing "removed commentary on Ryan, there is no equivalent for Hart saying "however his source is anonymous and probably fake"" This is tendentious. The remark about Ryan's sources is a quote from her. Your remark about Hart is incomparable and silly. Readers have a right to know her information is not checkable especially as it is used constantly in the article. Leave it be. Nobody else objects so you are on your own. --Fynire (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is your commentary/observation on Ryan which is not being applied equally to all sources used. Hart relies on anonymous interviews that are completely uncheckable, at least one of which was not an interview with a Kilmichael veteran. The source for Hart interviewing anonymous people is Hart himself, what is the difference? Hart's sources are uncheckable, since Hart won't tell anyone who his sources are! O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Still needs work
This article still needs substantial work. Most of the more glaring POV problems have been dealt with, but there are still a few remaining.


 * The most glaring is in what should be the main section of the article - "Killings in Dunmanway, Balneen, Ennsikeane and Clonakilty". This section needs to be re-written. First of all, after each of the dead mentioned is a kind of character assassination -"this one was an informer", that one was "preying on the children's innocence". Taken straight from Meda Ryan. It's ok to have this interpretation in the article, but giving right after the killings is giving it undue weight and ascribing a motive for the killings which is disputed.


 * Secondly, aside from the POV angle, the article is too long and clumsy. The problem here is that competing editors have, in the absence of discussion, been adding more and more referenced facts. This is a bit out of control now - so that article is lopsided. Basically the content in the background section is ok, but the presentation is not. It needs to be condensed right down so it's a clear and concise intro to someone who doesn't know anything about the subject.

Thoughts please. Jdorney (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that they were informers should be mentioned regardless whether is before or after each name is mentioned. Giving undue weight and ascribing a motive for the killings other than they were informers should not be given undue weight because of the lack of supporting evidence. I see nothing wrong with adding more referenced facts as long as its informative and relevant. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - should we give explicit reference where the facts indicate that the person shot was not an informer? Like: "Though the old man was not the informer they came looking for they shot him anyway" type of thing? Sarah777 (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be; "They were shot." Next paragraph. "This one was alleged to have been an informer. This may have been the reason he was shot". Jdorney (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a verifiable claim that all 10 were alleged informers? Sarah777 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Not moved. No consensus on any better name. There is some consensus that "killings" is not strongly POV, and by weight of discussion there is strong evidence that other options do have some POV. I am making no judgment on previous move actions (neither of the move itself nor of the procedural issues surrounding it). DMacks (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those contributing to this requested move discussion are respectfully reminded that it is a discussion, not a vote. Evidence and considered arguments outweigh unsupported assertions. Good reasons to move the article would include things like "so-and-so said whatever-it-was at the time" and "so-and-so says whatever-it-is here in this book". Good reasons not to move would be similar. Sniping at other editors helps not at all. And if it should be the case that other pages are badly named it will be better to rename them rather than this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway killings → Dunmanway murders
 * Dunmanway killings - the name of this article was originally The Dunmanway Massacre. The name was changed by a cabal of pro-republican editors without any authorization as far as I can tell. (Did they request making the move here as I was advised to do?) I am willing to compromise as far as The Dunmanway murders, which is justified in the text of the article itself by none other than Arthur Griffith himself. There is also a serious double standard, which can only be cured by a disinterested administrator, as the other "killings" at the same historical time are referred to as McMahon Murders and the Arnon Street Massacre, for instance. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion is needed at Talk:Dunmanway killings.  Grsz 11  03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the name of this article was originally The Dunmanway Massacre. The name was changed by a cabal of pro-republican editors without any authorization as far as I can tell. (Did they request making the move here as I was advised to do?) I am willing to compromise as far as The Dunmanway murders, which is justified in the text of the article itself by none other than Arthur Griffith himself. There is also a serious double standard, which can only be cured by a disinterested administrator, as the other "killings" at the same historical time are referred to as McMahon Murders and the Arnon Street Massacre, for instance. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Either name is fine with me. Jdorney (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OpposeI oppose this move from the present NPOV nameCathar11 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that any name of the article is the correct one? I see abuse and attempts to own the article, but no reasoning. A quote from a politican is little compared to how sources name the event. O Fenian (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why, Cathar11, don't you oppose such POV articles as McMahon Murders and the Arnon Street Massacre? I am going to submit them for name moves as well, just to let you know. There is supposed to be parity of esteem!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Stop commenting on contributors. Throwing stones is not a good enough guideline for content. Either discuss the sources and meanings of killing, murder, and massacre or finish discussing. In my view, massacre is usually used to describe killing in number in a single event esp. of those for who there is no "excuse". Use of murder is often frowned upon again when matters of "excuse" are alleged. Look Rms, they managed to pick off the commanding officer on the approach. That's pretty resourceful! The world you are poking your head into was a nightmare. The one you live in, do you have scented shampoo? The one you live in is a bed of roses as is the one I live in. Comment on content and not contributors. Throw stones in a pond. Base input on reliable sources and solid definitions, not your new stone throwing manual which you made up one day. If you hadn't noticed, the stones have all but stopped being thrown. That's righet! Stone throwing is not a sufficient reason to move this article request denied ~ R.T.G 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoa. "Look Rms, they managed to pick off the commanding officer on the approach. That's pretty resourceful!". Who did? The three men who disappeared or the eleven (ten fatally) who were shot over a period of two days. Also, "request denied": are you an administrator closing this debate or are you just expressing an opinion. I suspect the latter in which case you are no one to be saying request denied in an effort to stifle commentary.
 * "The world you are poking your head into was a nightmare." - I agree, presuming you are referring to the plight of Protestants and Unionists in most of the 26 counties; I guess that's why the 12% to 16% of the population they once constituted stands at 2% or so, not including failed refugee seekers and recent British transplants. Does that status of near extinction apply to nationalists in Northern Ireland?
 * I have no idea who you are and your userpage is empty, so I am sure that you are not an administrator and not in any position to be denying requests. You clearly make no effort at objectivity, so neither have I. Just because you accuse me, ad nauseum, of "throwing stones", doesn't mean that this unauthorized, sneaky move on October 28 by User:Sarah777 should be allowed to stand. I have no intention of debating the meaning of words in a dictionary. Words can be meant to mean more than one thing by whomever is talking and listening. For example, were the various Bloody Sundays massacres, ambushes, killings, murders, collateral damage? Or were they all of those things at the same time? An encyclopaedia is supposed to be objective and should not refer to incidents of bloodshed by differing standards (killing, murder, massacre(!)), based on subjective, visceral feelings and folklore. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, obviously. The name "massacre" was blatant WP:OR and breach of WP:NPOV. The use of "murders" is not only possibly inaccurate but again a breach of WP:NPOV. Policy ( and WP:COMMONNAME) makes clear that we use neutral terms unless there is a well verified name in near universal use. I suggest you look at the criteria for inclusion of an articles in "List of events named massacres". Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And the proposer of this move to restore the article to a POV title might note that I moved it, alone. And he might also note that I am a single individual, not a "republican cabal". Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah - a) if the use of "murders" "is not only possibly inaccurate but again a breach of WP:NPOV", then why is it OK with McMahon Murders?
 * b) The List of events named massacres is necessarily subjective and finite. Certain agenda-driven groups on Wikipedia, such as the pro-IRA cabal, have proved very adept at forcing their will and their agenda. One of Wikipedia's sad weaknesses. Whoever screams loudest and longest wins out, all too often. And as far as your having "moved it, alone", let me tell you that if I had been onwiki and spotted it I would have instantaneously reverted your unauthorized, sneaky, sleazy action. Now, because of others' lack of vigilance, I have to deal with it as a fait accompli. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) I have no idea whether McMahon Murders is correct or not - it depends on whether it meets the naming criteria I referred you to.
 * (2) The criteria at List of events named massacres are not the least bit subjective. They are terrible, but they follow a clear set of rules.
 * (3) You would not have "instantaneously reverted" my action, because unless you are an Administrator you would have been unable to do so.
 * (4)The attempted "Fait accompli" was the original naming of the article using such a contra-policy title.
 * (5) That move didn't require authorization as policy overwhelmingly supports the move I made.
 * (6) My action was neither sneaky nor sleazy. If you continue commenting on me in this vein I may form a negative opinion of you.
 * Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not going to respond any further on this page, Sarah, although I have a response I very much want to post. With my luck I'll get blocked, something you are quite familiar with yourself, so, I am sure you understand. Suffice to say I have reviewed the record of transactions on October 28, 2009 regarding this page Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * JD's move was a "copy & paste" move - this is not the procedure for moving articles on Wiki. Whether I'd sympathize with you for the blocks would rather depend on whether the blocks were merited. In my case none of them were. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record talk on October move Jdorney (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although I criticized Sarah's move at the time on procedural grounds, I agree with the actual move. --John (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and also per NPOV. BigDunc  11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mooretwin (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Dunmanway Massacre has been the name for a number of years and accepted until Sarah777 chose unilaterally to change it because she was checked for describing isolated murders of Catholics in Belfast as massacres. It is meaningful for a number of key reasons: the number of dead was unusually high and they were picked out; they were all southern Protestants again unusual especially in a war we were told was non-sectarian; and there are other more minor 'massacres' on Wikipedia. --Fynire (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fynire is correct that the article was created in 2006 as The Dunmanway Massacre and not changed until Sarah's unilateral action three years later. Quite amazing that given the extreme attention paid to articles in this field/category. I would point out that the following external sources refer to the Dunmanway "killings" as "The Dunmanway Massacre", however my main point is that the editors on this page are, for the most part, divided viscerally, not rationally. Some refuse to accept that even authorized actions by the Provisional IRA against "informers" are still murders, since there is nothing approaching Geneva Convention-like regulations in guerrilla warfare. As O Fenian -- whatever happened to the proscription against provocative usernames on Wikipedia, by the way; maybe I should change my name to Nazibullah or Binladen -- points out "Where is the evidence that any name of the article is the correct one?" If that is the case then there should be no problem finding a compromise, except that those who are ideologues (on either side of the fence) do not compromise, by nature. And it is the responsibility of disinterested admins to ensure that articles are properly named by encyclopaedic standards, not Irish republican folklore which declares, for example, that Greysteel was a massacre but not Enniskillen. To enshrine ideological folkloric naming conventions and honorifics on Wikipedia diminishes Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia and that is what upsets me. I have been advised by an admin. of long-standing that I have been calling people names or been insulting to them. Aside from referring to Sarah as part of the pro-republican "cabal", I am unaware of having done so, but I apologize so that those who are open-minded and want the best for Wikipedia will not discount the possibility of having cordial relations with me. There are those for whom that was discounted long ago, but that needn't include everyone who disagrees with me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rms125a. I am an admin who is completely neutral on the ethnic divide thing, although I am very well informed and experienced in the whole thing in real life and here. I too hate the sectarian bickering on both "sides"; I believe nationalisms on Wiki to be really damaging, divisive and dangerous to the project. We've certainly had our troubles (pun fully intended) in this area. However, since the Arbcom case there's a been a better level of admin support and we are now on the verge of real progress. A lot of this is down to the selfless work of User:Elonka. We must all be especially careful to rely on reliable sources on these contentious issues, avoid wiki-lawyering, grandstanding, ethnic or imperialist needling, forum-shopping, and cleave to our neutral point of view. Thanks for starting the ball rolling with some sources. --John (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, John, we all are against "sectarian" and "nationalist" bickering I'm sure. The point you seem to keep missing is that your "neutrality" is someone else's "nationalism". Thus we get the editor above saying " Some refuse to accept that even authorized actions by the Provisional IRA against "informers" are still murders" - as if calling them "murders" is a simple statement of fact. When it is a matter of opinion. The only facts we have is that they were killed and the UK legal system regards them as "murder". Which is an artificial concept. It is equally a fact that the British Army in NI are/were "occupation forces" but we wouldn't be allowed describe them as 'occupiers' in Wiki articles. Though I could find dozens of references for that. And I might add that we should revert any attempts to use political branding of articles (as per Dunmanway "Massacre") where the title isn't the common and well-known term for the incident. Without any "procedure" except adherence to policy. (And if you check the archives you'll find I questioned this title years ago - it was when I realised part of the agenda here was to create a political handle by WP:OR that change became necessary. Sarah777 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Rms is self-depicting (and John apparently agreeing) that he is in some way "above" the sectarian/nationalist 'bickering'. Apart from his remarks about the nature of murder above the fact that he'd consider "Nazibullah" a provocative name is a bit of a giveaway. Those of us more in touch with the fundamentals of WP:NPOV (as written, not as enforced) might think "GW Bush" or Netanyahu might be much better examples of provocative handles that OFenian or Nazibullah. But as we are all claiming to be the true neutrals here, may I add my claim. I can understand, whereas John apparently cannot, that what we have here isn't bickering between two sides in a sectarian dispute (the classical imperialist claim, from Ireland to Iraq!); but rather those upholding WP:NPOV against the onslaught of systemic Anglo-bias. Sarah777 (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And finally, might I record my respectful but strong disagreement with John's depiction of the efforts of Elonka in relation to "troubles related" issues. Sarah777 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Both 'Dunmanway killings' and 'Dunmanway massacre' are used (see my post in the 'External support?' section below for references to the latter).  I don't see a clear WP:COMMONNAME winner, so see no benefit in flipping around between titles.  However, I would note that this is not the first time that User:Sarah777 has unilaterally moved a controversial article to a new title without going through WP:RM first.  Sarah, you should know better. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as ..killings is too weak a descriptive & the move wasn't discussed. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. So you think "killings" is to weak? Too week to describe...eh....killings! Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go easy on me, I'm a Canadian. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Elk or Moose? Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither, I'm human. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I thought it was proposed to move back to Dunmanway massacre, my blunder. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and also per NPOV. No sources to support alternative. -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

External support?
Anyway, to get to the meat of this issue. Rms cites 5 "external sources" which refer to the killings as "massacres":
 * I would point out that the following external sources refer to the Dunmanway "killings" as "The Dunmanway Massacre" 


 * The first is Loyalist newspaper which refers to the "treachery" of the "inhabitants" (aka the Irish).
 * The second is a copy of the Wiki article.
 * The third is a dead link.
 * The fourth is another copy of the Wiki article (see what I mean by creationism through WP:OR!)
 * The fifth link appears to have been removed.


 * So, we are left with the equivalent of a single headline in An Phoblacht to support the political title.
 * Sarah777 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, on the first reference used, it is actually an article about the Kilmichael Ambush and nothing to do with this article at all. The source of information in the New York Times article was the "official" account issued by Dublin Castle at the time of the attack in the form of a press release. This report can now be found in The Irish Rebellion in the 6th Division Area (Strickland Papers, p32, Imperial War Museum) and the "official" report into British Army intelligence in Ireland recorded in A Record of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1920-1921 (Jeudwine Papers, 72/82/2, Imperial War Museum). To say its reliability is questionable is an understatement but we do have sources to support the view that it was pure propaganda.

I’d suggest you ignore the personal attacks contained in the posts above and just deal with what we can cite and reference. So there has been no references provided to support the title "The Dunmanway Massacre". -- Domer48 'fenian'  10:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about these ones:
 * http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/April%201922%20-%2026-28%20-%20dunmanway_massacre.htm Dublin City University
 * http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/southernunis.htm reprint of a book review from New Statesman
 * http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/exorcising-the-dark-bloody--secrets-of-ira--in-west-cork-1903733.html Article by Eoghan Harris. Ironically, also mentioning this page...
 * http://www.irelandbyways.com/ireland-routes/byroute-3/byroute-3-co-cork/8/ "The Dunmanway Massacre is the name given to the killing of 12 men in the spring of 1922, all of whom were Protestants."
 * http://www.corkfpc.com/ltbscork.html
 * So it does seem to be in reasonably common usage. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note our NPOV champion, Sarah777, seems to be discounting a "Loyalist newspaper" as a reliable source (presumably because its promoting Imperialist British POV?), while in the same post, Sarah accepts that a Republican newspaper is a reliable source (presumably because its promoting an Irish Republican POV). Not in the least bit biased, our Sarah. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bastun you are using Peter Hart, Eoghan Harris an e-learning lecturer from DCU and a non notable website registered to Francis Barrett in Spain who quotes this article and another non notable website registered to the Cork Free Presbyterian Church the first 2 you wouldn't expect anything else and the others I could bang up a couple of websites myself that would hold as much weight as they do. BigDunc  11:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree Dunc, a bit more infor.


 * 1) . Fox according to Reliable sources/Noticeboard is not a relilable source.
 * 2) . The Reform Movement are looking for Ireland to re-join the British Common Wealth and considered to be revisionist. At the very least it is a questionable source or considered only with caution. Now I notice that they use the term without explanation but do cite Peter Hart.
 * 3) . Eoghan Harris a member of The Reform Movement is discussing the wiki article.
 * 4) . Irelandbyways.com is citing Wiki
 * 5) . LET THE BIBLE SPEAK MAGAZINE from the Free Presbyterian Church. We could check it out at Reliable sources/Noticeboard?

So all in all, very questionable sources. This would not support the view that it would be in reasonably common usage.-- Domer48 'fenian'  11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would caution editors not to respond to the comments directed at them by editors. It is a poor attempt to deflect the discussion and should be ignored. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't realise the DCU one was a personal site hosted by them rather than the college itself. As regards the others, though - personally, I've no time for and am no supporter of Harris or the Reform Movement, but dismissing them as you are because of the views they espouse appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Similarly, why wouldn't a magazine of a recognised church be a legitimate source?  The counter-argument that could be used on countless pages (not that I will!) is that An Phoblacht, for example, espouse or espoused extremist Republican views and therefore shouldn't be counted.  The bottom line, I think, is that both terms are used by different sources.  Personally, I've no strong feelings about which is used as the article title, which is reflected in my neutral vote above. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Bastun, I have no strong opinions about the name. There is a wider issue here though of people to trying to eliminate the use of sources that they don't like or agree with. A source with a political bias can be used but with the qualification that their bias is acknowledged. Jdorney (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying dismiss the sources but they have to get taken with a grain of salt the same way AP is taken on this site. BigDunc  13:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Dunc. Could you get one of your pals in An Phoblacht to use the term "Dunmanway killings" several times in some articles attacking the neo-Unionists? It seems those type of refs will henceforth be "reliable references" per Bastun, JD and Eoghan Harris (under whatever name he's trolling here). Move it Dunc. I have a list - OK? Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would again caution editors not to respond to comments which attempt to personalise the discussion. Editors who attempt to turn talk pages into battlefields should be ignored. No editor has said we dismiss the sources above and to suggest otherwise is disruptive. Now no source has been provided to support the view that "The Dunmanway Massacre" would be in reasonably common usage. Therefore using WP:NPOV we should use the current title. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) BigDunc: Which is fair enough. What seems to be the issue is how the grain of salt is applied ;-)
 * Domer, above you dismiss Irelandbyways.com as "citing WP" - it doesn't, it just links to this article. It even disagrees on the number of dead and gives information not present here. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alas as we see from several of the preceding comments immediately following my last comment, there are those who have no interest in compromise, because the true ideologue cannot, by nature compromise. I have not stated that I am above the visceral nature of these endless squirmishes and my sympathies should be clear. I have also decided that rather than update my talk page whenever I interrupt my leave of absence I will follow the tactic of a (former?) editor and just edit and then threaten, hollowly, to leave whenever I don't get my way, cursing and spewing venom and being welcomed back with open arms. (Well, I won't do the latter part, because I am a better person.) If Greysteel was a massacre then so were the La Mon, the Bayardo's bar attack, in which two female civilians were machine gunned on the street, and, of course, Enniskillen, which is generally known as the Remembrance Day Massacre (a term discounted by fiat apparently). None of those are labeled on Wikipedia as "massacres". Sarah above states ... as if calling them "murders" is a simple statement of fact. When it is a matter of opinion. The only facts we have is that they were killed and the UK legal system regards them as "murder". Which is an artificial concept. Ah yes, murder as an artifical concept. Well, British law has determined that Pat Finucane was murdered and the Guildford Four were framed, so I guess those legal rulings should be rubbished. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would still like to know whatever happended to Wikipedia's original proscription on provocative and/or disturbing usernames (such as O Fenian). I guess it is enforced selectively. If I wished to change my username to Najibullah or Binladin, I strongly suspect I would not be allowed to do so. Yet again, a double standard. Were bombing Clerkenwell or murdering D'Arcy McGee for expressing his opinions or trying to blow up London Bridge morally superior to the World Trade Center bombings or the almost daily bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan? Aside from the difference in the scope of casualties, the answer is no. Terrorism is terrorism and begets terrorism. By the way, although I can not claim to be an admirer, the following is Arthur Griffith (more than a mere politician)'s comments re Dunmanway "[The national government] does not know and cannot know as the National Government, any distinction of class or creed. In its name I express the horror of the Irish nation at the Dunmanway murders."


 * No one present at that Dáil disputed his terminology. If that was good enough for them it should be good enough for us, and I move that this article's name be changed to the Dunmanway Murders according to the basic definition of "murder" in any dictionary. The victims at Dunmanway's lives were not worth less than those of the McMahons or Arnon Street and Wikipedia should not accomodate those who would have anyone think otherwise. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain how a report published 2 December 1920 can be used to source the name of an event which did not occur until 1922? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I addressed that above a chara! LOL. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rms I think you need to calm down a little your post above goes on about usernames which have nothing to do with this move and you are using incorrect sources to back up your point, maybe chill out and look again at this issue other stuff exists you know and it is not a reason for anything.  BigDunc  15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I'm not seeing a convincing collection of sources that establish either title as common usage. But we have to call it something, and the current title is perfectly acceptable. My feeling the the amount of effort spent arguing over titles on Wikipedia is a tremendous waste of time, given we have redirects at alternative titles. Please go and write some content rather than use this as an excuse to continue personal disputes. Rockpock  e  t  18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to Rock - "Dunmanway killings" requires no support as it is clearly WP:NPOV; they were definitely killed. Don't imply equivalence; that is the same blindness to your own POV that John displays. It is the term "massacre" that needs to be justified as the WP:COMMONNAME. The rather limp efforts by Bastun etc to establish this indicate that there is no such common name for the events; just an on-going campaign by people of a particular political outlook to use Wiki to establish one. And note to Bastun: should I encounter any other such blatant attempts at POV labeling as this again, you will see another example of termination with extreme prejudice. Sarah777 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to Sarah. Since you are now so familiar with our (re)naming policies, remember them next time you decide to circumvent WP:RM and impose your own preference with a unilateral move. That way we can avoid these retrospective, recriminatory discussions.  Rockpock  e  t  23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be things within the article that could be improved. That is the important thing. Why doesn't Rms try to add a section of various media reaction to the incidents where it might not be covered? That would be something that often happens. To add some dignity and justice to each personality, as Rms seems to be requesting, a series of individual articles could possibly be created rather than just increasing the weight of the title for political impact. The idea that some massive injustice can be seen on this article, without apparently checking the content of it, is hardly substantiating. Concentrating on the fact and completion of the article is what every article needs, adding more "cruel" and "brutal" words for impact alone is editorial artwork which is of questionable use to us if not approached neutrally. Feelings that are not neutral do not sway the need for neutrality, they increase it, duh! It is inconsqequential if this upsets anyone - those executed in Dunmanway were considered with little dispute to be spys and combatants all bar a possible one so comparing those incidents to Enniskillen, McMahon murders and Arnon street killings is reaching poor taste at the best of faith. Beleiving that murders are sometimes thought of as tea partys is not something that Wikipedia should be able to help us with, deal with that, it does not prevent an editor revealing the history that is important to them only from colouring it in the manner, at times, that pleases them. Checking the article piece by piece for accuracy and completion is much more important and equally more likely to be acted on. I would roll out support for improving the article just for the sake of it but complaining that we are not guided in our distaste for the incident, a category of incidents I already have distaste for, really doesn't do it for me. I do not see any playing down of brutality or massive injustice caused by this article and similarly I should not expect to see any playing up either lest I start to distrust its nature. To add the reactions of various media where it is missing, do that. It is a moving story in a series of moving stories. To move people by design, I am sorry, it is best not to. If the article truly interests you and you think you can improve it, start doing or discussing that also. The sources do not indicate a widely accepted title and NPOV has the high ground. ~ R.T.G 20:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The but is that the naming of articles such as this (and their content too) is a battleground between two very small but deeply-entrenched sets of ideologically-driven single-minded editors who determinedly set out to erase from wikipedia materual supportive of the perspectives with which they disagree. Each side takes the same approach, albeit in applied in polar-opposite direction: killings of people on "our side" were "murder" or "massacre", but killings by our side were either "killing" or legitimate "execution", and the results in each particular case depend more on who turns up than on any consistent approach. Each side uses bloc-voting and huge combinations of WP:SYN and WP:OR to "disprove" (and therefore downgrade) sources from perspectives with which they disagree, and emits howls of anguished outrage when the "other" side does the same thing. The argument about "spies" illustrates the dilemma perfectly: from a Republican perspective, those giving info into the Crown forces were spies for a foreign army waging war against the lawfully-established government of Ireland, but from another perspective the informers were responsible citizens giving information to the forces of the law. Neither perspective is "right" or "correct" or "neutral", and neither is stupid or mendacious or wrong; both are coherent views capable of being held in good faith by intelligent, well-informed and honest people ... but both sides here set out to treat the other perspective as contemptibly partisan. Renaming articles such as this to something meaningless and self-evidently silly serves as a prominent warning to readers that the text of the article they are about to read is not the product of the NPOV which wikipedia advertises as one of its fundamental principles, but rather the product of a long-running dispute between two sets of editors who believe that NPOV is what they believe, and everyone else is biased. In any other project seeking neutrality, they would all have been shown the door long ago ... but since they haven't been, the partisan products of their propaganda campaigns should be labelled appropriately. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Dunmanway Xfgshjxddekkdkwcdkldlflff" (or something else equally meaningless). Like Rockpocket, I don't see enough sources to establish either title as common usage, and in the absence of a definitive answer, I believe that NPOV requires us to use the neutral term "killings", but .... but but but.

I would again caution editors not to respond to comments which attempt to personalise the discussion. Editors who attempt to turn talk pages into battlefields should be ignored. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Domer, but please read what I wrote. I am not trying "to turn talk pages into battlefields", quite the contrary. I am commentmg on the deplorable fact that this talk page has for a long time been a battlefield between two sets of determined POV-warriors. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you think Domer was trying BHG. But if I may be so forward as to summarize your comment above: "We should stick to policy and use neutral words like "killing" rather than loaded words like massacre". The rest was basically waffle in the name of balance. Am I right? Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer was trying a deflection gambit, though not very effecively.
 * And no Sarah, you're not right. My point is that in normal circumstances, neutral words such as "killing" should be used ... but that when an article is of one of a series which have been abused by partisans who apply NPOV selectively (i.e. only when it suits their purposes), the article should be given a meaningless name to reflect the nonsense that that has gone on in its construction.
 * I would be equally happy for the article to be given a name which says this explicitly, such as Dodgy article on events near Dunmanway created during yet another exercise by the tendentiously censoring POV-warriors who turn so many Ireland-related articles into a battleground of partisan obstructionism. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reads like a John/Rock style cop-out to me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the cop-out is amongst those who don't want to mention the elephant in the room of months (or is it years?) of partisan wars-of-attrition over this article, which have made it a no go zone for editors who haven't signed up in blood to one or other of the two warring camps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to add, good informants are honoured as spys. Unless a person was spying on those they considered "their own", applying some sort of shame to that doesn't apply. If a new militia seizes power in your area and you walk into the middle of them to shoot the leader dead you must be quite brave and certainly don't want misguided alteration to portray you as a poor misfortunate. That would negate all that you stood and died for. I had something a bit more angry to say but that's why NPOV is important, angry nonesense shouldn't come into it. ~ R.T.G 23:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a neat little distortion of who did the walking. The article refers to the "the fatal shooting of IRA commandant Michael O'Neill by a local loyalist whose house was being raided on 26 April" (ref New York Times).  But hey, why let any of the agreed facts get in the way of using articles like this as a coatrack for a POV? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are saying the deceased would be proud to be called informers? I agree. Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More of the pointless POV which makes editing these articles such a tedious battleground. If you're right, there will be testimony from their families to that effect, but that'll need references. Without the references, that's just POV speculation about one of many possible explanations of the reason people passed info to the RIC. (Off the top of my head, other possible reasons include blackmail, personal ties, a lesser-of-two-evils choice ... all of these speculative explanations are  just as plausible/implausible as the unreferenced simplistic certainties trotted out by editors who claim to be following NPOV). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I guarentee ya'll, no matter what the article ends up being named, the Earth will continue to revolve around the sun. Therefore, let's stay cool & enjoy the ride. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does that template stop people from modifying the discussion? I thought you weren't allowed to modify discussions anyway. ~ R.T.G 09:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It only tells you not to modify, it does not technically enforce it. DMacks (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit of a flaw in the system if we can't tell pre from post template offerings. I was going to reply (robustly) to Rock and BHG but there seems to be no point at this stage. I'll merely repeat that this isn't a sectarian tit-for-tat issue; this is the defence of WP:NPOV against the systematic pro-British bias in the MSM in relation to Irish matters concerning what we used to call The National Question. This is THE problem and it is the same problem that causes much of the drama on other "nationalist" disputes across Wiki. To my mind at least three reasonable Admin editors have demonstrated an inability to grasp this. I guess it's like trying to describe the colour blue to someone blind from birth. And then there's Bastun! Sarah777 (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * However, when claiming a pro-British bias, could there not also be a claim of pro-Irish bias in these types of discussions? I'd argue that the potential of there being both, creates a balanced discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay is on the right track here, but I'd go further: the ongoing efforts by some editors to squeeze complex situations into a simplistic choice between "pro-British" or "pro-Irish" boxes is precisely what creates the sterile time-wasting battlegrounds on these talk pages. For a start there were not just two sides in Dunmanway, but three main sets of forces: British, pro-Treaty Irish, and Anti-Treaty Irish. That simple fact alone demolishes the crude sloganising about a "pro-British POV" being the only hazard here, but the big problem here is that some editors persist in viewing this incident (and many others like it) as if all the characters in the story fit neatly into one or other of those boxes. Quite apart from the fact that pro- and anti-Treaty elements were not fixed, rigid groupings like clearly-coloured armies in some diagram of a pitched battle, the central question in these events is to what extent the individuals at the centre of this story identified with any of the forces in question. People who are not directly engaged in a conflict frequently have confused, divided or uncertain loyalties ... yet we have two polarised groups of editors trying to reduce the dead people to nice simple cardboard cut-outs of one hue or the other. The simplistic narratives offered by our two sets of POV-pushing editors are that they were either a) all innocent civilians murdered by out-of-control elements, or b) ideologically-driven spies legitimately executed like any other spies in wartime.

There seems to be only major undisputed fact here: that the killings took place. Nearly all the other crucial elements are based on incomplete or unreliable evidence:
 * With the exception of the shooting of the IRA officer shot whilst commandeering the car, the accounts of how the killings happened are vague and second-hand (or even third-hand)
 * there are scant details of the crucial bit of evidence, viz. contents of the list of informers. The critical questions of what sort of information was passed on, for how long, and by whom -- all unanswered.
 * There are allegations of an organised loyalist cell in the area, but nothing in the article which expands the scope or significance of that potentially central issue. What exactly did this loyalist group do? Which of the dead were part of it, and what were their roles in it?

These massive uncertainties underly the historiographical dispute in the secondary sources. Yet despite that, we have an editor here insisting (without reliable sources to support the claim) that "the deceased would be proud to be called informers", and then insisting seven days later that she is engaged in "the defence of WP:NPOV against the systematic pro-British bias". The notion NPOV consists of parading simolistic certainties on one side or the other stacks up about as well as a tower made out of freshly-boiled spaghetti. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "I guess it's like trying to describe the colour blue to someone blind from birth. And then there's Bastun!" Aye, there is me.  Someone who has voted 'neutral' in the above RM debate, even though it was moved out-of-process by you, Sarah.  And in the past I've posted to delete some articles on non-notable IRA members, and voted to retain others I believed were clearly notable.  I've reported people such as you and Vintagekits to the appropriate noticeboards when I've though it's been warranted - and I've spoken out against bans for you and he when I thought they weren't warranted.  I think your problem with me may be I don't quite fit any of your predefined stereotypes.  Hence the odd snide comments.  Oh well.  As I mentioned on your own talk page fairly recently, Oscar Wilde was right...  By the way - any response to my earlier point and Rockpocket's above about you not moving controversial articles outside of the RM process?  A simple "Yup, I won't do it again" would suffice... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are the files now?
Where are the "captured British military intelligence files" now?86.42.210.90 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Diffs
I am not sure if @Gob Lofa intended to delete the sourced text that was deleted (see ), so I restored. If it's deletable just explain why in the edit summary. Quis separabit? 23:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. It's a straw man. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Gob Lofa: I removed part and did a lot of rewording. See what you think and fix as you see fit. Yours, Quis separabit?  00:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather leave the reference to the list out of the lede, since the same source seems to go on to say the list never existed. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunmanway killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607140701/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192204280003.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192204280003.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunmanway killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130904222214/http://westcorktimes.com/home/?p=15898 to http://westcorktimes.com/home/?p=15898

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Executed/killed?
The article currently says that "Three other men were kidnapped and executed" and "the killings were carried out by the IRA even if it is not clear who precisely ordered their execution". The use of the words 'executed' and 'execution' may imply that the men in question had committed crimes or were being punished. I suggest that saying "Three other men were kidnapped and killed" and "the killings were carried out by the IRA even if it is not clear who precisely ordered them" would be more neutral. Alekksandr (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not really disputed that the killings were punishment. StairySky (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)