Talk:Manchester Martyrs

Rescue
This article is definitely not representative of a Neutral Point of View. Using the term "rescue" to describe a jailbreak and escape of prisoners (even political prisoners, even completely innocent prisoners) is just plain biased. Derrick Chapman 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)
 * Have you looked at the dictionary definition of rescue? Parrot of Doom 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here's Wikipedia's definition--"Rescue refers to operations that usually involve the saving of life, or prevention of injury." Freeing people under legitimate arrest, isn't a rescue; it's a criminal act.  Notice the dead man.  Dictionary be damned.Derrick Chapman 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Added to the fact that it wasn't a jailbreak, as they weren't in jail. Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They were in custody, being transported. A distinction without a difference, in my opinion.  Look, I've got Irish ancestry as well as criminal ancestry.  Still, I don't harbor resentment or practice hero-worship concerning historical events that happened years before I was born.  I don't disparage the Vikings for raiding Ireland.  I was born in Georgia, but I don't adopt a pro-slavery perspective when talk of history comes up.  I'm all for people being free of oppression, but I don't glorify murderous acts toward that end.Derrick Chapman 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all interested in Wikipedia's definition of rescue; Wikipedia is by and large crap, and good articles are few and far between. The much more reliable OED defines rescue in several ways, but the most pertinent is "5. trans. Law. To recover or take back (property) by force; to liberate (a person) from legal custody by unlawful force. Also in fig. context. In later use freq. with from."  I think if you're looking for bias, you should perhaps look closer to home. Parrot of Doom 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, "rescue" or "rescuing a prisoner in custody" is the name of the common law offence that was presumably committed. See Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, page 2317. James500 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article once again demonstrates the global pro Republican bias of Wikipedia
Oh you can feel the injustice reading the tale of the poor "irish" fighting for their freedoms under the Victorian jackboot of the evil British Nazi junta led by Benjamin Disraeli et al.

Sarcasm aside...the only reason for this anomaly is because the people who care most about this history are those who have the biggest agendas. The article clearly states that the incident was known as the "Manchester Outrages" in Great Britain but for purposes of global IRA sympathisers it's now given their title, the Manchester Martyrs.

This is based on the logic that prevalence is dictated over time making the term 'martyrs' acceptable for this historical incident. A term that did not originate in the country where these events happened. A term that originated as defiance to the legal authority of another country. A term that suggest that there was a grave injustice to the event.

I do enjoy pointing out to those of an IRA-loving persuasion that they have an inherent racist opinion of the "cause". Many a good person of "irish" extraction died in the September 11 "attacks" in New York. However in the Arabic the same thing is known as "أحداث_11_سبتمبر_2001" or the "events" of September 11. Surely some mistake? How can that be an event when Americans like to say they were attacks, because many in the Middle East would say these "Islamic martyrs" were striking a blow against the Imperialistic Yankee who needs to go home etc Where do you see that in the 9/11 page lede that these were freedom fighters striking a blow against western democracies?

But instead this article strikes up with: "The Manchester Martyrs – William Philip Allen, Michael Larkin, and Michael O'Brien – were members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, an organisation dedicated to ending British rule in Ireland."

"Dedicated"? Aaaah they put their mind, body and soul into it! How sweet and selfless.....which is so utterly POV and biased it's laughable.

The name of this article was penned by those who have a Republican agenda and anti-British sentiment. It makes this article both prejudicial to the UK (and the place where the events occurred) and to whom the crime was directed? No one from the Middle East is going to demand that September 11 was only a event so why should the deaths of these criminals be given the reverence assocaited with a martyrdom?

Names do change and not by the notion of consensus, I grew up with the concept of the Indian Mutiny (it was what was taught at school without question). But now of course it is the "Indian Rebellion of 1857" or in Hindi "The first Indian freedom struggle of 1857 (१८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम)". I am sure the many thousands of Europeans and Indians that were chopped up by the rebels would not have given the event such a prosaic name. Seems that names only matter on the frequency of their utterances not their historical accuracy.

The fact that this article's name is so POV makes me think how any of it cannot be construed to be fair and without opinion. As a previous poster noted the word "rescue" suggests help/assistance is required by those in danger. The arrested men were in a police cart being taken to a British prison (was that the source of peril? POV if yes) - they were not being rescued they were being freed by their accomplices. The same way as Al Queda was not simply chopping off westerners' heads in Iraq to make the Americans leave they were "dedicated" to protecting their heritage, culture and religion!!

Sic if that's not bullshit then I salute you all, this truly is a "good article". Hoot!86.161.148.12 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You and the poster you mention seem to share a curious reluctance to consult a dictionary for the meaning of the word "rescue", and to accuse those with a better grasp of English than you yourselves appear to have as being in some way biased towards Irish Republicanism. I can assure you that nothing is further from the truth, as you would have seen if you'd taken the trouble to look through the history of this talk page instead of displaying your own subverted view of history. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of the slow of understanding here is a picture of the official commemoration of the incident, which clearly refers to it as a rescue. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the title of this article, the major work on the incident, Rose's  The Manchester Martyrs: The Story of a Fenian Tragedy, was written by a British Member of Parliament. It is not for us as editors to decide what is the "correct" title based on a certain reading of history, merely to adopt the title most commonly in circulation. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The book in question was written by hard-lefty and socialist Paul Rose. It hardly counts as impartial or objective. It might as well have been called the Massacre of the Innocents. How can it be impartial when the author has well-established links with the Republican movement? Could you imagine the furore if WWII articles on Germany were edited using sources from Der Stürmer. It's published, it's factual and it's in the public domain only problem is it's just a little intsy teensy to the far right of impartial. See where I am going? The sources used here are only judicious because they oblige a certain skew of the known facts. However I just happen to notice that just about every other article on the Troubles seems to be the same portraying the Irish as victims in a brutal struggle with the the evil overlords of the English. Yet pages and pages on Al Queda etc is clearly written to intimate that they are the evil doers not the liberators of the Muslim world. (Any editor who says otherwise is labelled a troublemaker and is usually banned). Terrorism is either universally bad and should be condemned as such or every article should be written like this one. As an epitaph to the brave freedom fighters who died for the "cause". All I am doing is pointing out the the bias and hypocrisy that inhabits the global nature of Irish Republicanism (it is not just confined to NI and Eire). Terrorism and it effects didn't stop all those Americans giving cash to Noraid in Boston and New York to buy guns and explosives to kill British troops in NI. But then when a bunch of Muslims kill white folks in America in 2001, that kind of terrorism becomes the War on Terror. Yet when it comes to Irish issues, the same activities become the work of martyrs. This isn't rocket science this is POV. LOL I have a "subverted view of history", of course calling a group of murdering 19th-century terrorists martyrs is clearly a fair and honest appraisal of their heroic actions. Maybe in keeping with such wonderful anti-logic it's about time the September 11 article was moved to "Day of the glorious deaths of the Jihadist martyrs", huh? It was known as the Manchester Outrages but it now the Manchester Martyrs, if that isn't subverting history I must be losing my marbles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.148.12 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So what would you call the article, and which sources would you use? I see nothing constructive in your rant. Parrot of Doom 08:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be having just as much trouble with the meaning of the word "martyr" as you do with the word "rescue". There is neither a positive nor a negative connotation to the word, as you seem to believe. My dictionary defines "martyr" as "a person who suffers greatly or dies for a cause, belief, etc.", what does yours have to say? Or is it your contention that these three men did not die for the cause of Irish independence? As the article makes clear, it was the rescue that was given the name "Manchester Outrages", not the events leading up to and following on from that incident, which is being covered here. As for your "hardy-lefty" charge, I doubt that even you could accuse The Daily Telegraph of being socialist, but a contemporary account says "we may hang convicted Fenians with good conscience, but we should also thoroughly redress those evils distinctly due to English policy and still supported by English power", as the article points out. I wonder if you've actually read Rose's book, or are you just damning it because you don't like socialists? Malleus Fatuorum 13:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy for the original poster in this section. Especially given this patronising answer that martyr has 'neither a positive nor a negative connotation'. See definition 2 at Merriam Webster for example, or the common features of stereotypical martydoms at martyr. If it is accepted that 'martyr' has positive connotations, then I think there should be no surprise that some people would find this title controversial.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In what way is providing a dictionary definition "patronising"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Please stop this now! Hohenloh + 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who that last comment is directed at, but let me try again with my earlier comment.

Martyr has a positive connotation. See definition 2 at Merriam Webster for example, or the common features of stereotypical martydoms at martyr. If it is accepted that 'martyr' has positive connotations, then I think there should be no surprise that some people would find this title controversial.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you infer that the second definition in that link carries a positive connotation. It states a simple fact - a martyr, in this context, is someone who sacrifices their life for some great cause they believe in.  You can support or oppose that cause but that changes nothing. Parrot of Doom 12:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As POD says, the word "martyr" carries no connotations, either positive or negative; anyone who dies for a cause they believe in is a martyr. But as matter of interest Rsm77, what word would you suggest to replace "martyr"? Or are you just here to complain?  Malleus Fatuorum 12:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I still think that 'martyr' has a positive connotation, and in fact a strong positive connotation, implying or encouraging a sympathy with the martyr's viewpoint. The given dictionary definition actually states that a martyr does something for the sake of 'principle', not a cause, which has a slightly different meaning. Also, just doing a search at today's Google news I can see two clear juxtapositions of positive and negative, 'a martyr, not a terrorist' and 'Martyr, or a villain?', and another where protesters see themselves as 'martyrs and heroes', where a similarity between the two words is implied. These are only the most obvious examples of contemporary usage I can provide you with.


 * On the other hand, I think the phrase 'are you just here to complain?' has a rather negative connotation, as if I am wasting everybody's time by pointing out that there are some people who might not agree with the title. I am not even necessarily suggesting a change. After all, an article like the Sea of Japan remains with that title for understandable reasons, despite the fact that many Korean people see it as controversial. I was perhaps hoping for an acknowledgment that it is not surprising that some people also see the title of this article as controversial. And I think regardless of the merits of the title, the argument that 'martyr' is a purely neutral term is simply a bad argument.--114.190.7.97 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't notice that I'd been logged out. The above two paragraphs were written by me.--Rsm77 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, the bottom line is that you don't like the title "Manchester Martyrs" because of your idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of the word "martyr". Despite that being the term used by all reliable sources and your inability to come up with anything better. And you wonder why I consider your contribution unhelpful? Malleus Fatuorum


 * All reliable sources? So far the only source you have provided is 'my dictionary', and you haven't even addressed properly the sources I provided (a dictionary, the Wikipedia entry, and three media sources). Under the circumstances, I don't see much point in continuing the discussion.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you do of course mean that the title, 'the Manchester Martyrs' is used by all reliable sources (I haven't actually checked this myself). Nonetheless, the fact remains that there is nothing idiosyncratic about my understanding of the definition of the word 'martyr'.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Were you born obtuse or did you have to take lessons? I am talking about the title of this article, which surely even a brain-dead cretin could see. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the use of terms like 'brain-dead cretin' adds any particular weight or credibility to your argument. It also doesn't inspire confidence that you are arguing rationally rather than emotionally.--Rsm77 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may believe what you like, but I note that you have one again failed to answer the very simple question asked of you Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read a little higher up, you will see that I write that I am not necessarily suggesting a change to the title. If you accept that the title is controversial, but believe that on balance it is the best title, then I can accept this argument as a reasonable position. In fact, I am leaning towards this opinion. If on the other hand you believe the title is entirely uncontroversial and 'martyr' is purely neutral, I think this is an unreasonable position, and I would like you to address my sources showing that 'martyr' has a positive connotation. Basically I am saying the same as I have said throughout this discussion.--Rsm77 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're becoming incoherent. What you appear to be asking for is that I accept that the title "Manchester Martyrs" is controversial and then we can move on, leaving the title as it is. That's just about as crazy as a box of frogs. I defy you to find any reliable source that does not refer to these men as the Manchester Martyrs. Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything crazy about trying to establish whether editors who watch this page are open to rational debate, and trying to encourage them to develop more sophisticated arguments for preserving the status quo. In any case, there are alternatives to changing the title, if it's decided that it is not NPOV. For example, a discussion of the merits of, or a justification of, the name 'martyr' within the text (which would not have to be longer than a sentence) is possible. I'm not sure that's quite necessary in this case. Another alternative would be to pay particular attention to ensuring the opening section is balanced. For example, I would suggest the second sentence could be changed to 'They were executed for the murder of a police officer in Manchester, England, in 1867, in events that were known in Britain at the time as the "Manchester Outrages"'. I would be interested in the thoughts of all editors who follow this page.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But your suggestion makes no sense. The Manchester Outrages was the rescue of the Fenians, not their recapture and execution. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that doesn't quite work, does it? I was intending 'in events' to be connected to 'the murder of a police officer', but as you say it tends to imply the executions are the 'events'. I will think about it some more.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I await the results of your deliberations with interest. Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

section break
I suggest a new sentence at the start of the third paragraph. 'The attack and killing came to be known in Britain at the time as the "Manchester Outrages"'. This would flow quite naturally into the next sentence about memorialising of the police sergeant. It would also contrast mainstream British opinion at that time with the common opinion in Ireland that they were 'inspirational heroes', providing balance to the paragraph.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Could the proposed addition be supported with a reference? Are you suggesting that it go into the third paragraph of the lead?-- Domer48 'fenian'  00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was suggesting the third paragraph of the lead. It says much the same as a sentence in the main body, though giving it greater prominence in the interests of balanc'e. As that sentence has a reference, I thought it would be OK to use the same source. The sentence and reference are at the end of the 'Rescue' section. I did change the wording from 'locally' to 'in Britain' which may not be considered acceptable.


 * I've just looked through the article for any other examples of mainstream British opinion, and only found that most of the British press demanded "retribution swift and stern". (Incidentally I don't think that sentence is very good - I think, at the very least, 'claiming not because the men were Irish, but because they were Fenians' should be cut as ungrammatical). I'm afraid I don't have access to a library with information concerning these events, but if it's felt necessary, when I have more time, I will try to find a suitable reference online providing the mainstream British opinion of the time.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That clearly wouldn't work chronologically, as by the time we get to the third paragraph (of the lead) the men have been executed. If you wanted to include the term "Manchester Outrages" in the lead the only place it could sensibly go is the at the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph, as in "They were executed for the murder of a police officer in Manchester, England, in 1867, during an incident that became known as the Manchester Outrages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)


 * [The above comment was posted by Malleus Fatuorum at 1:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)] I wasn't sure of what you're meant to do when a comment is unsigned, so I left it for a bit. Anyway, giving some time before editing the article seemed like a good idea. I have now changed it, as per Malleus' suggestion.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Manchester Outrages equivocates concerning the familiar summary of all the events surrounding the capture, rescue and hanging that accompanies the Manchester Martyrs tag. Moreover it conflates and and confuses as the trade union  outrages of 1867-68 referred to the Manchester brickmakers dispute  see The Other Face of Respectability: Violence in the Manchester Brickmaking Trade 1859-1870, Richard N. Price, Past and Present, No. 66 (Feb., 1975), pp. 110-132.  I suggest the phrase 'Manchester Outrages' be given less prominence in the article, if not abandoned as a phrase of historical conception and understanding. It hasn't been and isn't used locally or nationally for this series of events. To use it now is to re-write the nature of the remembering as if it was termed that way at the time or subsequently when it hasn't wasn't nor has been.  From 1867 the term martyrs was used in the two processions following the execution  reported in the Manchester Guardian 2 December 1867 and subsequently at the requiem mass each year after that in the annual processions from 1888 until the 1970's to return in the 1990's. see' Fostered to trouble the next generation', in Heritage, Memory, and the Politics of Memory by Mervyn Busteed. Davdevalle (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting the idea from that the name "Manchester Outrages" hasn't been used either locally or nationally for this series of events from, when the source quite plainly says it has? Indeed the Manchester Guardian of 23 September 1867 refers to this incident as the "Fenian Outrage", so maybe that ought to added as well. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the articles cited above, Busteed analyses all the newspapers of the time, their bias and the limitations as well as other sources. He is a political geographer at Manchester University and a reliable researcher.  Yes, the term 'outrage' at the time was used but this was a common term for many different events in this period.   To foreground 'Manchester Outrages' here is wrong.  This phrase was used to describe a series of events and was the title of an inquiry and report presented to the Trades Union Commissioners in 1868. The Price article gives specific detail of other outrages in Manchester specifically about trade unions and not fenian in cause.
 * The matter of civil unrest in Manchester in this 'period' requires a greater context than the Fenian cause of the time and is of other articles and beyond an article on the Manchester Martyrs.
 * The 'series of events' that the tag and the subject of the article on the 'Manchester Martyrs' describes is part of a context including the 'Fenian Risings' of 1860's; and the events before this and after in the story of UK history, and what would become British and Irish history. This is because of the weight of the Manchester Martyrs execution had in the next 50 years of Irish Republican actions in UK history leading to Easter 1916 and another martyrdom, although they are not known as the 'Dublin Martyrs'.  Specifically in this article the context is the failed Fenian rising at Chester; the change in IRB structure and return of USA civil war veterans; the capture of Kelly and Deasy;  the 'incident' called - smashing of the van/fenian outrage/rescue; the mass arrests; the trial;, refusal to pardon and subsequent execution.  It is this series of events that 'the Manchester Martyrs' is pertinent to and this was never known as 'the Manchester Outrages'.
 * The point at question in the talk page was the use of a generic term 'outrages' for a specific description of the series of events that the Wikipedia article refers to - The Manchester Martyrs. The series of events were not known and did not become known as 'the Manchester Outrages', that was a phrase of the time for many different problems in Manchester.  NB To use Fenian Outrage is POV as would be 'the smashing of the van' as both refer to one incident in the series of events of Manchester Martyrs and is not of itself sufficient to warrant comment in the lead.


 * These are the various reasons why Manchester Outrages in the lead needs to be removed.Davdevalle (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Command paper
This primary source is available online and could profitably be referenced somewhere in the article; not sure about the unwieldy title though: jnestorius(talk) 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added that as an external link. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Title
The term "martyrs" seems inherently non-neutral. Is there a better term available? 2601:644:101:9616:FD97:B17D:83EF:BE46 (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The term Catherine the Great is inherently non-neutral as well. Both articles use the name they are known by. There is no well-known alternative name for them, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt that this is the common name in England, where murder of policemen is generally regarded as a crime to be frowned upon rather than a heroic act which makes one a martyr. 2601:644:101:9616:6508:1FC7:CAA7:24F6 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a book by an English author, published in Manchester, which has no difficulty using "Manchester Martyrs", and doesn't offer any alternative name. And here is a book entitled The Manchester Martyrs, written by Paul Rose, an English politician, and published in London. If you have no argument other than an anti-Irish rant, I will not bother to engage with you further. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Current value of £300 reward
The Investigation section uses Template:Inflation to calculate the current value of the £300 reward: "Despite a reward of £300 (£24,000 as of 2018) offered by the authorities...", but this is misleading. Template:Inflation uses the consumer price index (from the Measuring Worth website) to calculate the current value of consumer goods such as food, clothing, cars etc., but as the template page says, it is not reliable for large sums, as £300 was in 1867. We're not looking at changes in the value of commodity prices since then, but rather at changes in the value of income or wealth. Here's what Measuring Worth has to say (you need to input a value of 300 and years 1867 and 2016 and click "Calculate"): "If you want to compare the value of a £300 0s 0d income or wealth in 1867, there are four choices. In 2016 the relative:
 * historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is £24,380.00
 * labour earnings of that income or wealth is £181,500.00
 * economic status value of that income or wealth is £240,700.00
 * economic power value of that income or wealth is £600,500.00"

With such a huge range of values, I don't think it's useful to just use the first one (the one based on the CPI). To a labourer earning £43 per year, £300 would have been the equivalent of seven years wages; hence the £181,500 is a lot more realistic. But it's probably better to take it out altogether. Scolaire (talk)
 * Thanks for the research! I'd use some vague expression, and put these alternatives in a note, or at least the first two. The last two seem dubious to me - Karl Marx was bequeathed £800 around the same time, which transformed his very dodgy economic position, but not the way that about £1.5M would today (unless he still wanted to live in centralish London of course....). Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't agree. To say "a reward of £300, which would be worth £24,000 or £180,000 today" gives no useful information whatever. All it says is that £300 was a lot of money at the time. I'm going to replace the template with a phrase saying it was a lot of money at the time. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then put the numbers in a note as I said - "a lot of money", especially unreferenced, is meaningless. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "a lot of money" is not meaningless; "either 80 times that or 600 times that, there's no way of knowing which" is meaningless. Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: use of "Inflation" template
Is it appropriate to use the Inflation template in a case where there is a very wide range of possible current values of a sum of money? Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement of the case

The article uses the Inflation template in the sentence, "Despite a reward of £300 offered by the authorities..." This uses the consumer price index (CPI) from the Measuring Worth website, but as the website itself states, the CPI is only one way of measuring current value. The website states that "If you want to compare the value of a £300 0s 0d income or wealth in 1867, there are four choices. In 2016 the relative: To put that in context, the average industrial wage in 1867 was £43, so a reward of £300 to a labourer in 1867 would have been the equivalent of seven years wages; £24,000 in 2016 would have been the equivalent of one year's wages. According to the template documentation, the template defaults to calculating the inflation of Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). Can we really say that a sum of £300 in 1867 falls under this heading? Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is £24,380.00
 * labour earnings of that income or wealth is £181,500.00
 * economic status value of that income or wealth is £240,700.00
 * economic power value of that income or wealth is £600,500.00"


 * Not appropriate. Per my statement above. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate. (notified at Template talk:Inflation) In an economic sense the adjustment is correct but it completely lacks context and is therefore misleading for the comparison it is making IMO. The CPI is primarily used to adjust the price of a specific item so you can compare the cost of that product across a period of time, so it is technically correct to say that 25k would probably go as far as £300 would in 1867, in terms of buying goods, such as a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes. However, the CPI is a very poor index for adjusting the value of money because we live in a far wealthier society today. I think the value of the reward would be better expressed as a multiple of the typical industrial wage of the time (i.e. seven years wages). Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfectly appropriate. The CPI doesn't apply to a specific item, as Betty Logan states above, rather it applies to a basket of items, and the figure of £25,000 puts the reward of what seems to the modern reader almost like pocket money into a modern context. But I would have no objection to adding that £300 was the equivalent of about seven years of average annual earnings in 1867. Eric   Corbett  16:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * CPI is calculated from a basket of items, but its most common application is to compare the cost of an item over a period of time. However, in this article it is being used to compare income and there are more appropriate indeces for doing that, such as average earnings or GDP per capita as explained at MeasuringWorth. Since the money was being offered as a reward and the primary source of income for most people is their wage, then the value of that money—as an incentive—is proportional to how long it would take to accumulate that amount of money through other means. An earnings index does not lose this link between the incentive and the contemporary value of that sum, while the CPI does. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * GDP per capita would be completely inappropriate, but I can see your logic in suggesting the alternative of a multiple of average earnings. In fact, why don't we do that now? Eric   Corbett  17:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that would be the most robust solution. Seven years wages are seven years wages, wherever you live and regardless of era. Let's wait and see what Scolaire thinks first though before implementing it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is an excellent idea! Go ahead and do it, and I'll close this RfC. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Eric   Corbett  17:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec)Somewhat appropriate The previous section discusses this issue as well. We have to do something to indicate historic values. This Rfc proposes no solutions, and the one Scolaire proposed in the section above ("I'm going to replace the template with a phrase saying it was a lot of money at the time.") is worse than almost any alternative. Years of average earnings is a decent compromise. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV throughout?
I was struggling to understand this article, I found it while studying the end of capital punishment in foreign legal systems (in this case the UK legal system). This article is literally about terrorists ambushing a police conveyance of convicted criminals, yet uses the words rescuers, and martyrs?! I literally had to read it over twice to understand what on earth the article was saying as it was so biased in it's writing I couldn't grasp how what appeared to be militant separatists who murdered an innocent man were being portrayed as 'rescuers' and not 'ambushers' and murderers. Then I remembered that Wikipedia has an ongoing pro-some-terrorist-groups bias, specifically early terrorism. It's 2020, can we clean up the act here for future students and stop being political and state the facts as they are? Terrorists are terrorists, I don't care if Wikipedia appears to like the terrorist group in question. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good points, which I myself get from looking at the article. No surprise really Irish republican articles are loaded with political bias and propaganda. Mabuska (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Another point is why does the politically biased Manchester Martyrs term get used as if it is the de facto name rather than Manchester Outrages, which has just as much right and links here? Looking at previous discussion the sources used to vindicate it appear to be of republican sympathisers so not neutral. Due to the influence of Wikipedia most sites I can see are clones of this article so are of no help. There are other sources that make use of Outrages instead, though that term is also used for other things such as 19th century trade union disputes so it wouldn't be the best disambiguation wise. As such I've altered the opening sentence to make clear that "Martyrs" is a term used by some as that is what it is. Mabuska (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What was missing was the context, a serious failing in the article! While the death of Brett was seen as an outrage in Britain, the trial and death of Allen, Larkin and O'Brien were seen as an outrage by Irish nationalists. That Brett had been killed accidentally, that five out of 30-40 attackers were singled out for prosecution, and that they were convicted on what was seen as dubious evidence all combined to turn three rank-and-file IRB men – terrorists if you like – into martyrs for the cause of Irish freedom. The purpose of the article is not to glorify fenians or fenianism, but to explain to people like 121.210.33.50 how three men who went out with seditious intent became the Manchester Martyrs, the subjects of annual commemorations and monuments throughout Ireland. I have endeavoured to do this with a few small edits, and I believe the article is still neutral. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin St. John Baptist Joule
Just an ironic twist that might get folded into the article by somebody with a broader view of the incident. The lead magistrate at the committal hearing was Benjamin S. J. B. Joule, brother of James Prescott Joule. The Joule's family brewery had been sold in 1854, but was ironically housed on New Bailey Street, directly opposite the jail. This article describes the gallows as having been constructed through the jail wall and in the direction of that street. It seems the brewery and the hangings were essentially at the same place. Mr. Joule later moved to a remote island village of Rothesay in Scotland, and some historians say this was due, at least in part, to fears from being assassinated by Fenians. 24.68.80.249 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Introductory text
is really too long and might be shortened.

ash (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)