![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Dunmanway killings be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
This article still needs substantial work. Most of the more glaring POV problems have been dealt with, but there are still a few remaining.
Thoughts please. Jdorney ( talk) 11:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
Dunmanway killings → Dunmanway murders
OpposeI oppose this move from the present NPOV name Cathar11 ( talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, to get to the meat of this issue. Rms cites 5 "external sources" which refer to the killings as "massacres":
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)
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)
Agree Dunc, a bit more infor.
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)
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. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"[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."
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. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:44, 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)
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. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:32, 5 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)
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)
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:
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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Where are the "captured British military intelligence files" now? 86.42.210.90 ( talk) 17:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if @Gob Lofa intended to delete the sourced text that was deleted (see [12]), so I restored. If it's deletable just explain why in the edit summary. Quis separabit? 23:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Dunmanway killings be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
This article still needs substantial work. Most of the more glaring POV problems have been dealt with, but there are still a few remaining.
Thoughts please. Jdorney ( talk) 11:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
Dunmanway killings → Dunmanway murders
OpposeI oppose this move from the present NPOV name Cathar11 ( talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, to get to the meat of this issue. Rms cites 5 "external sources" which refer to the killings as "massacres":
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)
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)
Agree Dunc, a bit more infor.
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)
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. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"[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."
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. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:44, 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)
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. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:32, 5 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)
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)
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:
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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Where are the "captured British military intelligence files" now? 86.42.210.90 ( talk) 17:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if @Gob Lofa intended to delete the sourced text that was deleted (see [12]), so I restored. If it's deletable just explain why in the edit summary. Quis separabit? 23:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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)