Talk:John Mitchel

Referencing Article
Hello, Smackbot, I have attempted to use a Reference, the first in the ones you requested. The article referred to was Titled the “Railway article.” This is mentioned in quite a number of books on both Mitchel and Young Ireland. How can I illustrate this in the reference? The dispute between Charles Gavan Duffy and Mitchel was a completely different matter, but did not lead to a prosecution. I did not want to start carving up other peoples work, i.e., how the sentence links to issues in one. Could you give me your thoughts on this before I proceed to addressing the rest? Regards Domer48


 * I have added new material and I would like some help with both referencing and editing. I would like to see earlier edits reversed on the Early Life section, and in addition, the references which were helpfully added removed as they are incorrect. While everyone is entitled to edit at will, and add sections, notice of changes, due to errors on my part would be very helpful, advise on how I can address the problems and resolve them would be priceless. Much appreciated Domer48

I sorted out the references, what I did was simply taking away the reference that were there, and pasted in a new one. If some one could simply put a template on this page such as. . The formula did not come out on the page. To get what I am saying, look at this notice in the edit view. at the end. You put your information in the middle of these. Would that be right? It will automatically add reference numbers. One more thing could you let me know a little more about adding quotes. The one’s I add in relation to Mitchel’s character I thought were very useful. They could have been expanded upon, and opposing opinions facilitated. Domer


 * Put in some references, just testing it out. Will be much more detailed once I get the hang of it. Just waiting for, Smackbot to get back to me on a request I have.

Hi Domer. In the Young Ireland and John Mitchel articles, the points in the text that say "citation needed" require references to be put in. Using the above information provided by Tyrenius, you should put in your sources. Regards. Logoistic 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Domer, Smackbot is just a bot account, i.e. it was programmed to go aroudn performing certain tasks on Wikipedia. It won't respond to you. I will help you with the referencing. Logoistic 20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've checked your most recent edits to this article, and you seem to be getting the hang of referencing. If you could put page numbers in, that would be better. Regards. Logoistic 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Logoistic Will do Thanks Domer

Education Information.
This information comes from William Dillon’s Biography. If I could have some help with the reference format I will add everything else that is needed. Domer48

Co Derry Co Londonderry
Please do not change references to County Londonderry to County Derry, it is considered POV vandalism and will be reverted. There is no such official county as County Derry, only a County Londonderry. See WP:IMOS. Ben W Bell  talk  13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ulster is one of the four Irish Provinces. It has Nine Counties. Its Council Offices are called "Derry City Council." The majority of the population use the term Derry, only the Unionist section of the community using the alternative.

To foist you interpretation on this issue is one that is all too familiar. In the interest of fairness I am happy to include the qualification that to the Unionist Community the term Londonderry is normally used.Domer48

On Wikipedia we call it County Londonderry as that is the official term for the county. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, and if you are interested in pursuing a point of view then it is unfortunately not the place for it. There never has been a county called Derry, only one called County Londonderry. Also the council offices called "Derry City Council" relate to a city in Northern Ireland, officially called Londonderry by it's charter but accepted on Wikipedia to be called Derry (as you will see from it's relevant article). I am not the one trying to foist an interpretation on this matter, but you are by changing the accepted and official term to one that represents your personal POV. On Wikipedia the decisions accepted by the community is to call the city Derry, as that is what the city itself calls itself, and the county Londonderry. See WP:IMOS. Ben W Bell  talk  15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you pointed to the fact that Wikipedia is a “neutral” encyclopaedia, and thank you for directing me to WP:IMOS. To think that Wikipedia has a “Manual of Style for Ireland-related articles.” I will read it with interest.

In the interests then of maintaining our shared sense of being “neutral,” on Wikipedia, neutral meaning of course, “unbiased,” “impartial,” “non-aligned,” “disinterested,” “dispassionate,” “middle-of-the-road,” “not taking sides,” and “on the fence,” that my latest edit will cover all of the above.Domer48

Hello there again. I notice that you appear to be doing every possible editing trick you can pull off to avoid mentioning County Londonderry in this article. This is generally considered sneaky and disruptive editing designed to push your own POV. As has been pointed out before this is a neutral encyclopaedia and the WP:IMOS is a document that was agreed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. We appreciate your good edits and you obviously have much to contribute to the encyclopaedia, however such editing as your complete avoidance of accepted consensus manual of style edits are considered disruptive editing. Please stop it. Ben W Bell  talk  08:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Domer a chara, there is an argeement on wiki that Derry = City, Londonderry = County. I dont like it, you dont like it, THEY dont like it but it stop day in day out murder and edit warring on 100's of articles and lets us focus on improving them artiles instead. If you need help or advice just drop me a line on my talk page. slán.--Vintagekits 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintage thank to again for interest. If you could, would it be possible to link this discussion page to the John Mitchel page. I think it would be very informative, and interesting to those who may visit the page. It would also avoid other users making the same mistakes I have made. I don’t have a problem with using the term Londonderry, were it is appropriate, but in all the literature, I have read on the subject, the term is never used. All I want to do is place a the disposal of other users is as much information on the subject as possible. I have started to reference my edits, on the advice of all who contributed to the article. I think one of the most useful people to contribute to this article will be Ben W Bell, because he his pushing me to get it right. Like I said, could you link this materiel, or possible put it on the John Mitchel page, other users will defiantly benefit, and we can avoid all this in the future.Best regards, Domer


 * Ben W Bell, first an d foremost, I apologise for my lack of experience in relation to my edits. Through my inexperience, I appear to have got your back up, on a subject that you obviously view as very important to you, i.e. Londonderry. I see by your web page the you are proud to be Northern Irish, I respect that, that is your point of view, and you are entitled to have it. In any reference that I should use contains the term Londonderry, I will not hesitate to use it. I thought the link for Derry being changed to Londonderry, was very good. But you have changed a reference, i.e. attributed to P.S. O’Hegarty which doses not exist.  P.S. O’Hegarty, never referred to “Londonderry.” I know you are not accusing me of being sneaky or disruptive, but through my own admission i.e. lack of experience, I could hardly be accused of using “every editing trick in the book.” I have put together a couple of quotes, in relation to this subject matter. There are a couple of more, though they omit all mention of both Derry and Londonderry, if you would like me to put them forward? Since any edits on this page will revolve around the biography by William Dillon, which is seen by almost every book written on the subject as being the authority on the subject, since it is quoted in almost all, surely the consensus should be to use the term defined. Regardless of the outcome, your “prompting,” has encouraged to produce the best page I possibly can. Regards and thanks,  Domer

Book titles are on the John Mitchel Page.

1.“I have said that the Rev. Mr. Mitchel was stationed at Dungiven, in the county of Derry, at the time of his marriage with Miss Haslett. Here, on November 3, 1815, John Mitchel, the subject of the present memoir, was born.” William Dillon Pg. 8

2.“JOHN MITCHEL was born at the Manse, Camnish, near Dungiven, in the county of Derry, Ireland on the 3rd of November 1815.” P. A. Sillard. Pg. 1

3.“He was born near Dungiven, in County Derry, Northern Ireland, on November 3, 1815. He died in Newry, in County Down, Northern Ireland, sixty years later.” Seamus MacCall Pg. ix Introduction

4.“Mitchel was born at Camish, near Dungiven, County Derry, on the 3rd November, 1815, …” T.F Sullivan Pg. 133

5.“…was born, on November 3, 1815, at Dungiven in Derry, where his father was a Presbyterian clergyman.” Brian O’Higgins, Pg. 22
 * Its doesnt matter bud, mental forget about it on wiki Derry = City and Londonderry = County. Its a fair enough agreement that nobody likes but must agree to stop us from acres of wikispace and years of wikiediting ove.--Vintagekits 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, I feel that I owe you a bit of an apology, I have come onto you a little strongly in my criticism of your edits and it really wasn't fair of me to do so. I just get a little annoyed with having to change County Derry to County Londonderry by a lot of strongly POV nationalist editors, and then also change modern mentions of Londonderry to the correct Derry by strongly POV unionists. I sit in the middle and try and keep a balance of neutrality between both sides and it results in me be labelled by both sides as a member of the other. We on Wikipedia do appreciate your edits, you are a strong editor with much to contribute, for me to come down on you so strongly on this one point was a tad unfair of me and I hope you accept my apologies for it. Ben W Bell  talk  07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Add a disputed page banner
Could any member tell me about how to post a disputed article Banner,on this page? Considering the subject, I think he would have appreciated it. If the page is going to be edited, it would be nice to see the reasons why. That way we can debate, discuss and decide, how to get round the problems, in the process of which we all learn something new. Domer48
 * Hi, Domer. I have tried to improve the article in terms of following Wiki policies. What is it that you dispute? This is a better way to deal with the issue than simply posting "disputed" banners at the top of these pages. Regards. Logoistic 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion, that the subject is one that can give rise to disputes. John Mitchel was to some a very controversial individual. As you can see, even the sections of his life such as Early Life, have caused trouble? A lot down to my inexperience I admit. Could you imagine what it is going to be like when we add the section on his involvement in the Nation newspaper, the split with Repeal Association, his relationship with James Fintan Lalor, the formation of the Irish Confederation, the subsequent dispute within it and that is all before we even reach his “trial” (now there is a subject), and his life in both America and Paris. At the very least, a banner would inform those not familiar with the subject to approach with caution. It would also have the effect for those who are familiar, to raise an eyebrow, and smile, and say “What’s new.” I will go along with what ever you think yourself on the banner, you know more than me on the subject. Regards Domer48

John Mitchel
Domer. I've recently removed a lot of the information you added about John Mitchel's familly, as it really isn't notable. Please read: notability. I think maybe you could get away with passing references (maybe a sentance or too), but Mitchel's father is hardly notable enough to devote entire sections to his life. Again, you seem to have a load of information, which is great for Wikipedia, we just need to make sure that we get the most from it! Keep up the work. Logoistic 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Logoistic I would refer to the “John Mitchel” article as of the 18:48, 24 January 2007. In it Mitchel’s father is described as a “radical” Presbyterian. This statement was not referenced, and none was sought. Therefore, it could only be described as a POV. This was not highlighted either.  I would use this quote by William Dillon, Mitchel’s biographer, to illustrate the point of including this information. “Acts and circumstances which in the case of others might be deemed trivial [Mitchel’s Father], and which are trivial, looked at from a certain point of view, become important as marking the course of development, and helping us to form a more correct estimate of a character [John Mitchel] worth studying.”  I have referred to the section on “notability,” and consider the information acceptable. I have also referenced, “peacock terms” and “weasel words,” used in the past as reasons for deletion.  They do not apply. Could you please revert edit? As this is a long term project, the material used, has both purpose and validity, could you accept and consider this in the future. Regards, Domer48
 * Domer. Firstly, even if his father was significant in the development of his life, giving a whole paragraph describing the life of his father is not. Secondly, I do feel that you have used peacock terms and weasel words (more the former). If you still do not agree after reading the polcies, then a second opinion from a more experienced admin (I'm thinking Tyrenius!) might be in order, if you want. Logoistic 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

New Sections
I have added additional information on his early life, and restored an edited version of the section entitled family. I have divided some of the material into additional sections, and will expand them all in stages. I have used a referencing technique which was shown to me on the Daniel O’Connell article, which works much better. I would like the neutrality tag removed, and section tags (re citation need) placed above sections which are not referenced. Regards --Domer48 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style changes
Last night I made a bunch of edits to bring this in line with the Wikipedia Manual of style, including: Ground Zero | t 11:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) dates are to be formatted as "April 27, 2007" or "27 April 2007", and not in other styles -- see WP:DATE;
 * 2) headings should follow sentence case, not title case, i.e., ==This is a heading==, not ==This Is A Heading== ;
 * 3) I have reduced overlinking by removing repeated links, e.g., The Nation -- see WP:CONTEXT and WP:LINK -- see WP:MSH;
 * 4) magazine and book titles are italicised, and magazine articles and short stories go in double quotation marks -- see WP:MOS;
 * 5) punctuation is placed outside of quotation mark unless it forms part of what is being is being quoted, e.g., not "Newspaper Article Title," but "Newspaper Article Title". -- See WP:MOS.

public voice
Public voice - what does it mean. I've found no explanation to this in internet. Is it common expression? my vocabularies can't help me.--Deviloper (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

John Mitchel and slavery
Thought this link might be useful. Fergananim (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/a-letter-to-john-mitchel-d6a4644d6c1b

Might I suggest that the sentence reading: "He equated the Confederacy with Ireland, as both were agricultural economies tied into an unjust union."

be changed to:

"He equated the Confederacy with Ireland, claiming that both were agricultural economies tied into an unjust union."

I think the current wording implies this is a fact, whereas the change would help emphasise that this was Mitchel's position. Any objections to me making the change? Or suggestions for a better wording?

Educationhousejavert (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020
Either say he's from Derry, Ireland or say Londonderry, Northern Ireland. Now, because he was a renowned Irish representative for the Irish cause, we say Derry, Ireland and NOT londonderry. Thank you 77.205.19.251 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --allthefoxes (Talk) 19:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020
Change County Londonderry to County Derry. Though ‘Londonderry’ is used by Unionists as the name of the city of Derry (which has little standing historically) it has never had any standing as the name of the county. 78.152.220.213 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:LONDONDERRY RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Mitchel, slavery and racism
It is interesting, but not surprising, that coverage of Mitchel's activities in the United States is one-sided and skewed in favor of the nationalist historical narrative.

One section even goes so far as to say that Mitchel's views on slavery, race, anti-Reconstruction and Southern secession were "at odds with Irish America". While it is true that some Irish Americans publicly rejected Mitchel's stance on these issues, historians generally agree that the majority of this community, or at least those politically active members, held all of these views throughout the mid-late 19th C.

In the "pro-Slavery Confederate" section, editors attributed the following line to Liam Hogan:

"Provoked by the nativist hostility they encountered in the United States, Mitchel was to further distance his countrymen from the African American by elevating them within the white race."

It is not entirely clear what this is supposed to mean, but if the assertion is that nativist hostility provoked an anti-black reaction within the Irish-American community and that Irish Americans attempted to earn their acceptance by engaging in anti-black racism (as many historically ignorant people like to claim), then this, too, is unsound.

First, anti-immigrant nativism was a highly localized phenomenon: it was most intense in big Northeastern port cities where Republican views on abolitionism and black emancipation were the prevailing sentiment (also note that only a minority of Irish immigrants were permanently settled in these cities). Rather than being accepted into the majority white community, anti-black racism and Southern sympathies among Irish Americans provoked an even greater nativist backlash and functioned as an obstacle to assimilation.

Secondly, Liam Hogan does not hold the view that anti-black racism among 19th Century Irish Americans was provoked by nativists. Hogan has actually dedicated a significant amount of his research to demonstrating that, when it came to racial thinking, Ireland was firmly within the general stream of Western European consciousness, and that negative opinions of black people among Irish immigrants were likely carried across the Atlantic. If you aren't aware of this, then you aren't familiar with Hogan's work.

Hogan's Medium article cited here makes the point that,

"It is evident that many influential members of this generation of Irish Nationalists, while not as extreme as Mitchel, were also not of a Liberal persuasion and had little to no sympathy with abolitionism. Some were overtly racist."

This was actually one of the main points of Hogan's piece, but it's been left out of this article and its place we find several insinuations that Mitchel was some type of outlier among the nationalists of his day. While Mitchel's views were undeniably extreme, rivaling George Fitzhugh's thoughts on the subject (although Fitzhugh at one point suggested that some whites be enslaved, so perhaps not that extreme), Mitchel's opinion of slavery and his Southern sympathies were by no means rare in nationalist communities on both sides of the Atlantic. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

REPLY. The biographic article does not take it upon itself explore attitudes toward slavery in "nationalist communities on both sides of the Atlantic", but I am not sure that Hogan's main points on the matter are contradicted. The article notes that while Duffy and others censured Mitchel they also found O'Connell's unbending abolitionism inopportune (for the sake of American funding and support they wished he'd shut up). The wording of the following may be poor: "Provoked by the nativist hostility they encountered in the United States, Mitchel was to further distance his countrymen from the African American by elevating them within the white race. In 1858 he told an audience in New York that "nearly all the great men which Europe has produced have been Celts". What it is trying to suggest is not that racist/pro-slavery sentiment among Irish immigrants was provoked the nativism they may have encountered, but rather that Mitchel was provoked by nativist reactions to Irish immigration (just as he was by Carlyle's analogies between the Irish and freed West Indians) into emphasising Irish "whiteness" and indeed their superiority to other white peoples.

Again, the article doesn't directly take up the issue of whether Mitchel in his racism was an "outlier" among Irish nationalists, but I suppose it does suggest that he was something of an outlier among American Confederates given that he was calling for the actual resumption of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and had begun to propose that Andrew Jackson and Lee were sellouts to the cause. It was an issue on which he was certainly a zealot.ManfredHugh (talk)