This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
No source is cited here for the lyrics, but it appears to be the version I've known it for (scary thought) something now approaching half a century. But isn't it missing the chorus? At least that's how I've always known it:
- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Shall my soul pass through Old Ireland" was written for Terence McSwiney Lord Mayor of Cork,who died on hunger strike in Brixton prison in October 1920 not Barry, although both songs were written to the same tune. 81.77.178.194 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is accepted by all modern sources that Washington was fifteen. All sources that have been updated state he was fifteen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.157.241 ( talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have referenced all the text added. Prior to this there was no referencing at all. I will reference the ages of the soldiers later, or if other editors wish to do so thats fine. -- Domer48 08:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that one of the soldiers was so young has been hidden for years by irish people from the government to republicians. I —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.100.135.172 (
talk)
09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Source: The anglo irish war, the troubles of 1913-1922 osprey publications. written by peter cottrell, edited by Proff. Robert O Neill. I suppose it wont be go enough for you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.135.172 ( talk) 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not a "fact" that the soldier (not soldiers) was so young. If it was a "fact" I would have no problem putting it in. Why did the army (British) say he was 19? Where they covering up his age? Provide the evidence you have, in the form of referenced sources. -- Domer48 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to imply ip anon that the irish people and government conspired to hide the age of a SERVING brit soldier so as to make Kevin Barry look like a hero because I dont understand the point you are trying to make. Also could you please sign your comments. BigDunc 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that if its true would say more about the civilised society that Britian was at that time that they put a 15 child in uniform in a war zone. Also in war it is not customary to ask the ages of your opponents in a gun battle, if he was in uniform and armed then he was a legitimate target.-- Padraig 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
But that doesnt change the fact he was fifteen. So now its proved why cant you lot let it stand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.135.172 ( talk) 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you write an article about the British Army using child soldiers 89.100.135.172 instead of attacking other editors. BigDunc 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) why dont you write about the children killed in the 1916 rising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.137.71 ( talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You could mention the child cillivians killed by pedo Pearce and his gang. You could also mention the use of child solidures by the republican movement through out the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.137.71 ( talk) 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is the lead paragraph.
But I think the article in general is overly adulatory, which is why the NPOV tag is there. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Barry given a state funeral, in 2001, would you consider that overly adulatory? So if you could expand on the article in general is overly adulatory, I'll try address your concerns? -- Domer48 12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If I can take your points one at a time. Re the quotation marks in the lead, as you will notice, the entire article is referenced. As to Barry being a nice lad, well from what I’ve read he was! I will try to get some newspaper articles which describe him as part of a “murder gang,” as Childers mentions in his article. As to being written from a Republican perspective, all I can think to say is, could you suggest some alternative perspectives? The alternation between English / British is again down to source. I would only add that the use of “English” were direct quotes. -- Domer48 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Those two selected quotes should be removed from the opening and put towards the end. They present the article in a POV manner, even if they are referenced opinions of a person (though I notice it doesn't say who in the article). I notice it doesn't say "Barry's was executed for being a 'traitorous murderer' [1] who 'killed noble British soldiers in an act of terrorism' [2]." Put the commentary in a separate section, don't cherry pick quotes to set up the article as a piece to praise Barry. R. fiend ( talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"his execution, which is the sole reason for his notability," read the article, there is a bit more to his notability than that. "don't cherry pick quotes to set up the article as a piece to praise," comment on the edits not the editor. If you want to add the 'traitorous murderer' and the who 'killed noble British soldiers in an act of terrorism' go ahead, just reference it. -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead is a snap shot of the article, so it contains general statements. I have hidden the references, as opposed to removing them. If they are removed, you will have a editor come along and request references. I have included authors name in the second paragraph, as suggested. As to "perspective" please suggest authors to me, or include them your self. The quotes contain valuble information on the subject, and gives context to subject. I will put them on Wikiquote also though. If you would like to edit down the quotes, in such a way, which dose not remove the context, please do so on the discussion page. We can then review it together possibly? -- Domer48 ( talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not done
Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves. However, there are certain guidelines an editor should remember about quotations within Wikipedia.
The execution of Kevin Barry was covered by a number of foreign papers, which all called for clemency. The effect was also amplified in America. This is important information and should be included. Not informing while under torture shows at the very least that he displayed courage. Taking this into consideration I have included some of this information, and incorporated the recent changes. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Saying that Golway said his execution angered people is irrelevant. I don't think that anyone denies Barry's execution angered many. If it didn't we wouldn't have an article on him; he'd be just another casualty of the War for Independence. The reference link is all that is needed. Praising someone for their courage is POV. Just state the facts: he didn't rat out his friends, and for that many consider him heroic. R. fiend ( talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added a POV template. Until the issues Fiend and myself have raised are addressed, it has to stay. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, outline your issues first, then add the template. To date, I have reponded to your concerns! If the article was not referenced, you would have a point, but not with it compleatly referenced. -- Domer48 ( talk) 09:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the opening again, and I really don't see what's wrong with it now. It's factual and neutral, and doesn't present the opinions of a particular author as facts. The rest of the article is still a bit of a mess. The over reliance on blockquotes is poor style, but at least not too POV. I also think it's overly image-heavy (why is there a picture of the college he went to? Isn't that stretching it a bit) but that is a more minor, stylistic issue. If anyone wants to change the opening discuss it here first. Here is my rational for the changes I made:
I'll look in to the ret of the article later. - R. fiend ( talk) 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Terry Golway is the city editor and columnist at The New York Observer, He also contributes to the Irish Echo, America, American Heritage, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and a number of other publications. He is also the author of Rebel: John Devoy and co-author of The Irish in America, a companion book to the award winning PBS documentary series. In addition to that, he has appeared on RTE a number of time on the (Irish State Broadcaster) Hidden History series. So "Mentioning an obscure author by name to give his opinion on an established fact is poor style." I think I have addressed that one, don't you?
R. fiend ( talk) Yourself and Stu ’Bout ye! seem to be arguing about two separate thing, and you should discuss it together. One wants the author mentioned, the other thinks it’s irrelevant. One wants statements in quotation marks the other says they don’t care what the author has to says and considers the author irrelevant.
Now as to your last comments, both of you can get Verifiable and reliably sourced information if you wish to challange this information. In short please provide alternative sources. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Read what Stu wrote again. No one ever said you needed to mention an author addressing the point of outrage over Barry's execution. Should we have "according to Terry Golway" at the beginning of every paragraph? That would make for some good writing. It was the POV quote "earned him a place in the nationalist pantheon", now removed, that should have had some sort of reference to who said it. As it's no longer there, it's irrelevant. I don't know why you thought making the footnotes disappear was supposed to help. Also, putting words in quotation marks does not neutralize POV. Putting the word "courage" in quotes makes it look like it's being mocked. What the entire article needs is less quotes. The opening section, as I have adjusted it, works better. This is not a Terry Golway essay, it's a Wikipedia article. We don't present his opinion as fact merely because he's written on the subject. R. fiend ( talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is finished! Your conduct will be reported. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
“pantheon of Irish nationalism” is used in this context “pantheon of Irish nationalism”. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You still have to explaine why you are removing referenced information, and removing “pantheon of Irish nationalism” which in this context is correctly being used, and as illustrated above, used by a number of writers in the context outlined. Policy based reasons, as comment and opinion do not conform to any policy on the article page. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors should not change referenced information to suite their opinions, and edit warring to push a POV is also counter productive. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I was copyediting the article and I wondered if the inclusion of the entire lyric of the song is really helping the article? If not I suggest removing it. -- John ( talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi User:Johndp121, would it be possible to expand on the John Ainsworth claimes, possibly including the sources he used. I feel the article could really benefit from them. I would really like to expand on the claim of the flat-nosed ammunition, as this would seriously have damaged his case, and how such a story came about. There are a couple of things that do not make sence though, "disguised as a civilian" the English did not recognise a war existed and treated all killings by the IRA as murder, (referenced in the text) weather he was in uniform or not? They suggest he was part of a "murder gang," if that were the case what the Hague Convention thought would have made no difference? I look forward to having a look at the sources, well done. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well we could start with the publishers name, ISBN number, for the John Ainsworth book? To be honest, I've never heard of it. -- Domer48 ( talk) 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of it in Mauser Model 1871 either.-- Padraig ( talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What I’m saying is, the information I add will make the information that was recently added redundant. It will show clearly that the trial was a joke from the start, a show trial. That the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other. The coroner contradicted himself, the ballistics experts contradicted each other, and they were the military witnesses. Barry did not defend himself, as he refused to recognise the legitimacy of the court. He was tried as a civilian, charged as a civilian, and yet the Judge described him as a solider. Finally in the summing up, the Judge states that weather or not he actually killed any of the soldiers, the fact that he was there, was enough to find him guilty. Now, do you want the details or not in the article. It is going to show the British Army in a very bad light, of that there is no doubt, but will it be considered POV, or are we just going with what the references say. Thing is, I can provide the sources for this, can the same be said of the one I will be contradicting? The bullets that killed the soliders were not flat-nosed bullets. That is the evidence given by the British Army officers. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the John Ainsworth reference stay?-- Domer48 ( talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
All of which is contradicted by the Irish Government:
The December 1918 General Election was to constitute an act of National self-determination by the people of Ireland. It opened the way for the establishment of Dáil Éireann and the restoration of Irish Sovereignty. There the 1916 Proclamation of the Republic was formally ratified and the declaration of Irish Independence solemnly proclaimed in January 1919.
With that declaration, the dream which through the long night of persecution has sustained the Gael; The certainty which made firm countless steps as they mounted the scaffold; the hope which for a century had made victory of each defeat-all had, in spirit, been realised. Ireland had declared herself free.
The democratic will and consent ignored; a small nation repudiated; the War of Independence ensued. Many died for the new Republic. Ten Volunteers were hanged in Mountjoy Jail. Their bodies, denied to their families for burial, and taken now from prison clay to rest in dignity and honour. Ballylaunders guards the grave of one, while nine sleep here in ground forever hallowed to Irish men and women everywhere.
So who is right, the British Army and Government, or, the Irish Government? -- Domer48 ( talk) 10:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, since these claims were introduced, I will confine myself to simply reponding to them. The information I add will make the information that was recently added redundant, but since your happy with it, we should let it stay. I will put together the information, and let the POV pushers say what they will. -- Domer48 ( talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't add POV. I add referenced information. I stick to the undisputed facts, always. Sources can be POV too. I agree. Anything you add can be edited, ye that wiki. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason a bunch of citations are commented out in the lead? At the very least, it would help if the HTML comments there gave some indication what's going on. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That’s the thing though, I don’t see this as a controversial article. It’s the editors who create that. For example, I have three different accounts given in sworn affidavits by the prosecution which contradict the evidence on the bullets. The Government employed over seventy people in the case. The book of evidence was withheld from the defence until the last moment, and given to the prosecution within days. The same person with responsibility for the book of evidence, was also the person in possession of the ammunition, which is discussed above. Now, thing is, if I start to add this information despite the verifiability and reliability of the sources, there will be POV tags, NPOV tags, sources will be challenged. Basically I’d be tied down on the article and would get little or no editing done, and on top of that I’d have OWN thrown in to boot. If you would like to have a go at summarising the quotes, and the sentiments expressed in them your more than welcome to have a go. Give me a shout if you’d like a hand.-- Domer48 ( talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That's dead sound Chris, nice one. If editors leave their feelings at the door, and just stick to what is verifiable and reliably sourced we could really push for GA at the very least? -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article. While having a song written about you is probably noteworthy, extensive quotes of song lyrics are inherently unencyclopedic. -- John ( talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the section on his writings should go, as they're basically filler. He's not a writer in any meaningful sense, and I see no reason to include bits from his homework assignments in an encyclopedia. I've seen no similar examples from other articles. As many have pointed out, and as the banner template indicates, this article is very quote heavy. Getting rid of these ones will be a help. R. fiend ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Kevin was armed with a .38 Mauser Parabellum, but to the best of my knowledge, no such weapon exists. It is however possible that the author is refering to the "incorrectly named" Luger P08. In light of this, and without an informed source, it may be better to refer to it as a semi-automatic pistol. Cheers, 'Arry Boy ( talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Pte Harold Washington was fifteen. This is accepted by all sources nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.66 ( talk) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems a discussion on this would be preferable to the current edit war. We have a source that states the soldier was fifteen. Is there a reliable source stating this is not true? If not, then that much seems settled. The question then remains, is it worth mentioning? I would certainly object to it being given undue weight, but a mere 7 words would hardly qualify as that. Is it relevant at all? Given the attention Barry's age received, pointing out that there were young people killed on both sides doesn't seem terribly out of place. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the ages of all of the victims of Bloody Sunday are provided in that article. I would at least like to see some discussion rather than this "It's relevant!!!" "No it isn't!!!!!" we're seeing now. - R. fiend ( talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
unsigned comment added by 87.198.141.22 ( talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
So stating somebody's age that has been killed is propaganda? The fact is that all modern sources agree on this. He was fifteen. How come there are no sources saying that this update of the facts is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.179 ( talk) 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to concede defeat my defeat in trying to state Pte Washington was fifteen. It is impossible for one person to publish referenced information on wikipedia when others gang up to stop it. I have decide to stop editing and will simply say a pray for the poor chap. Well Done lads. Keep up the good work of "republicans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.179 ( talk) 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So we have reliable sources stating Washington, or at east one of those killed in the raid, was 15 (and I'm going to call the BBC, at least, a reliable source). No one has provided sources disputing this. Until they do, his age seems to be determined. Now, is it relevant? Why wouldn't it be? Ages are given for all those killed Bloody Sunday, all the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer, as well as numerous other victims of violence. Whenever a party is a minor, it is inevitably mentioned. Why not here, particularly since Barry's age is a significant part of his status today? Its removal strikes me as censorship, to be honest. Though I do concede that such information would be best covered in the section on the raid, aling wth the others' ages. - R. fiend ( talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be more than willing to go along with R. fiend suggestion above, and will try to find suitable references which support the proposed text. I hope this helps? -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
For 24 hours. Don't edit war. If there's consensus for a change in text then submit an editprotected request SirFozzie ( talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well MS Alison the anon editor has just been trying to get Pte. Washington aged stated but couldnt simply because the people here with a republican agenda are bullies. There were plenty of well respected sources saying that he was fifteen but the republican bullies wouldnt accept this. Finally they have agreed to let referenced material into the article but only where they want it put in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma Washington ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
On the 7 September 1919, 14 soldiers were ambushed in Fermoy as they made their way to Wesleyan church.The opperation was planned by Liam Lynch, later to become IRA Chief of Staff, to capture their weapons. However during the ambush, one of the soldiers was killed with another three wounded. The Real Chief: Liam Lynch, Media Ryan, Mercier Press Cork 2005, ISBN 978 1 85635 460 8, pg. 36-8. Now I don't know when the first British soldier was killed, and if someone could let me know, but based on Media Ryans' book it was not 20 September 1920. I have therefore removed the recent addition to the lead. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've shifted some of the information from the 'Aftermath' section to the lead section. It seems to me that in this article we are mainly dealing with the impact of an event rather than the biography of a person and I think (or hope!) this shift makes this clear from the outset. I also think a distinction needs to be made (and I've attempted to make it) between the immediate impact of his death, which was intimately connected to the impact of the death of MacSwiney, and his subsequent reputation, built on the ballad, anecdotes about his personality and a widespread knowledge of his torture and refusal to inform. (Barry's torture was not widely reported until after his death. I spent a few very long weeks in the National Library of Ireland some time ago trawling through microfilms of newspaper-coverage of his death. His affadavit only gets real publicity in the weeks after his execution when the storm had more or less passed.) ANB ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
While I think having so much of the text of Barry's affadavit is historically interesting, its a little out of proportion to the rest of the article. Is there an argument for editing it so that only the salient points come across? I think it could be summarised quite easily. Most people do not know the details of Barry's torture so the text is certainly valuable however, the quote currently in the article could be moved to Wikisource with the appropriate link. I'd do it myself, but I'm interested in getting other people's opinions first and I also don't really know how to move things to Wikisource! This article has some great material in it but is certainly in need of some cleaning up and perhaps restructuring. ANB ( talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I'll place it up on wikisource / quote when it has been edited. You you like to place the edited version on here first and ask for opinions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this version meet with approval? Its quite a conservative edit, but I've tried to preserve the main facts:
He tried to persuade me to give the names, and I persisted in refusing. He then sent the sergeant out of the room for a bayonet. When it was brought in the sergeant was ordered by the same officer to point the bayonet at my stomach. . . The sergeant then said that he would run the bayonet into me if I did not tell. . . The same officer then said to me that if I persisted in my attitude he would turn me out to the men in the barrack square, and he supposed I knew what that meant with the men in their present temper. I said nothing. He ordered the sergeants to put me face down on the floor and twist my arm. . . When I lay on the floor, one of the sergeants knelt on my back, the other two placed one foot each on my back and left shoulder, and the man who knelt on me twisted my right arm, holding it by the wrist with one hand, while he held my hair with the other to pull back my head. The arm was twisted from the elbow joint. This continued, to the best of my judgment, for five minutes. It was very painful. . . I still persisted in refusing to answer these questions. . . A civilian came in and repeated the questions, with the same result. He informed me that if I gave all the information I knew I could get off. [1]
I've considered several options for paraphrasing. However, the affadavit itself (as I think O'Donovan notes) is probably as close to a dispassionate account of events as we can get. Let me know what you think. If its still too long we could omit the section about the bayonet and limit it to the account of the physical mistreatment rather than the threats of mistreatment. I think its important to retain the final line about he possibility that Barry might 'get off' if he informed. Its a crucial component in the construction of his reputation, particularly in the years that followed. ANB ( talk) 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
References
The introduction should mention the fact that the three soldiers Barry helped murder were as young as he was. ( 92.3.204.205 ( talk) 13:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
It's not POV at all. Barry is only famous because of his age at the time of his execution, therefore it is only right that we should mention the fact that the three soldiers he murdered were as young as he was. What would be POV would be prominently emphasising Barry's age in the intro without mentioning the vital fact that the young men he killed were the same age, in fact one was only fifteen. ( 92.3.204.205 ( talk) 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
Most people in Ireland and the rest of the world, particulalrly places that had been under British military occupation, did not even care about the deaths of a few British soldiers never mind care how old they were. The addition is POV pushing of the worst kind. 81.157.189.56 ( talk) 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hardly. Kevin Barry was a cowardly terrorist dressed in civilian clothing who murdered three young men. Since the men he murdered were as young as him this needs to be mentioned. ( 92.8.146.102 ( talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
It is your opinion, and your opinion only, that public opinion should have been affected by the age of the soldiers. Keep your opinions out of articles. 86.168.197.204 ( talk) 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The murder of the three soldiers actually caused outrage in Britain, as my history book on the conflict records. These teenagers were all conscripts and most were under the age of eighteen. Had it been known that one of the boys was only fifteen I am certain there would have been even more outrage. Ireland was not under occupation at all, it was legally joined with Britain as part of the UK. I think it is POV for the introduction to highlight Barry's age when the three boys he helped murder were as young as him and even younger. ( 92.20.44.50 ( talk) 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
An image used in this article,
File:Church Street immediately after Kevin Barry's arrest..JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Whitehead, Washington and Humphries were soldiers not police. See ref.. The notion that there were no regular army in Ireland at this time per this edit and summary is simply incorrect. RashersTierney ( talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The three teenage boys were conscripted police auxillaries. Regular soldiers were never involved in the 1919-1922 conflict in Ireland at all. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
There are numerous books on the period for a start. Collins was never up against the British army, only police auxillaries like the Black and Tans or the Auxillary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He was forced to sign the Treaty on 6 December 1921 because Lloyd George promised him a fullscale military invasion if he did not. The introduction should mention the fact that the three teenagers murdered by Barry were conscripted police auxillaries, not regular soldiers. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 18:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
The Oxford book on the British army confirms that there were no soldiers in Ireland. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
The three teenagers were conscripted police auxillaries, not soldiers. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 20:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
There weren't any British soldiers in Ireland. They were all police auxillaries. The three auxillaries killed by Kevin Barry were conscripts sent to protect loyalist and Protestant civilians from attacks by paramilitary organisations. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 12:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
|
Don't feed the trolls, especially banned ones. 2 lines of K 303 11:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Barry. 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) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are extracts from Doherty's article of 2000, which other editors may wish to incorporate into the article:
"The raid on 20 20 September, in which twenty-five I.R.A. men took part, was daring but amateurishly bungled. The troops int eh back fo the lorry were to be held up page three men, Seán O'Neill, Bob O'Flanaghan and Kevin Barry, while their comrades were to close in from the front and across the street. According to O'Neill, he, O'Flanaghan and barry approached the lorry from the rear and ordered the soldiers to drop their arms. They all did so with the exception of one man, who, discovering that he was not covered, opened fire. Firing then became general, and in the ensuing mêlée, five solider and three of the raiders were hit. The attack broke up in confusion, with rebels scattering in all directions. Barry, however, for some reason ducked under the lorry and was captured, gun in hand." (page 218).
"So as to allow the civilian Barry to be tried by court martial, he was offically regarded as belonging to the 1st Battalion, the Lancashire fusiliers. Only the first charge was proceeded with, and when asked to plead, Barry replied simply "I refuse to recognise the court." The case against them was then outlined by prosecuting counsel. On 20 September the ration lorry arrived at the baker a little after 11 a.m. The N.C.O. in charge, Sergeant banks, got down and entered the a passage leading to the bakery. Two unarmed privates also got down and the sergeant returned for them and led them into the yard of the bakery. Banks then heard shots fired outside in the street, and at the same time he and his unarmed men were confronted by a man with a revolver, who fired two shots at them. The sergeant turned into an office, where he was confronted by another man with a revolver, who stunned him with a blow of the gun. Four or five men armed with revolvers appeared in the yard at the same time and fired down the passage. Meanwhile the lorry in the street was attacked by a party of men. One man came towards the lorry from the front, firing a pistol in the air. Four other men, including Kevin Barry, approached the lorry from the rear and as they came up drew pistols and shouted: "Hands up! Hand over your arms." Without waiting further they opened fire. The accused was seen by two witnesses to fire a pistol into the lorry, and Private Washington immediately fell dead, shot through the chin. Privates Whitehead and Humphries were dangerously wounded and both died later. When the attack had been driven off, Barry was spotted under the lorry and, on being challenged by the sergeant, emerged from his hiding place and dropped his pistol. This was subsequently found to be an automatic revolver containing three live cartridges, one of which was ready to fire. A bullet found in Private Whitehead's body was of the same calibre and character as the ones discovered in the magazine of Barry's revolver, which showed evidence of having been recently fired. When asked by an officer of the Lancashire Fusiliers why he had attacked the lorry, Barry allegedly replied: "We were after the rifles." (page 231).
On the penultimate page of the article, Doherty notes that while Sir Henry Wilson and Sir Nevil Macready agreed that it was right to hang Barry to damage republican morale, "Macready, the senior military man on the ground, was much less optimistic", and quotes two pessimistic notes by him on the long-term damage Martial Law would have. M. A. Doherty was a member of the School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages, University of Westminster.
Fergananim (
talk)
14:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
At the time of Barry's arrest the article reads: " His comrades fled and he was left behind. He was then spotted and arrested by the soldiers." In fact he had hidden behind a cart after the shootings and was arrested by two of the surviving soldiers, he wasn't "left behind". 78.16.89.75 ( talk) 16:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
No source is cited here for the lyrics, but it appears to be the version I've known it for (scary thought) something now approaching half a century. But isn't it missing the chorus? At least that's how I've always known it:
- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Shall my soul pass through Old Ireland" was written for Terence McSwiney Lord Mayor of Cork,who died on hunger strike in Brixton prison in October 1920 not Barry, although both songs were written to the same tune. 81.77.178.194 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is accepted by all modern sources that Washington was fifteen. All sources that have been updated state he was fifteen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.157.241 ( talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have referenced all the text added. Prior to this there was no referencing at all. I will reference the ages of the soldiers later, or if other editors wish to do so thats fine. -- Domer48 08:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that one of the soldiers was so young has been hidden for years by irish people from the government to republicians. I —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.100.135.172 (
talk)
09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Source: The anglo irish war, the troubles of 1913-1922 osprey publications. written by peter cottrell, edited by Proff. Robert O Neill. I suppose it wont be go enough for you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.135.172 ( talk) 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not a "fact" that the soldier (not soldiers) was so young. If it was a "fact" I would have no problem putting it in. Why did the army (British) say he was 19? Where they covering up his age? Provide the evidence you have, in the form of referenced sources. -- Domer48 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to imply ip anon that the irish people and government conspired to hide the age of a SERVING brit soldier so as to make Kevin Barry look like a hero because I dont understand the point you are trying to make. Also could you please sign your comments. BigDunc 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that if its true would say more about the civilised society that Britian was at that time that they put a 15 child in uniform in a war zone. Also in war it is not customary to ask the ages of your opponents in a gun battle, if he was in uniform and armed then he was a legitimate target.-- Padraig 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
But that doesnt change the fact he was fifteen. So now its proved why cant you lot let it stand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.135.172 ( talk) 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you write an article about the British Army using child soldiers 89.100.135.172 instead of attacking other editors. BigDunc 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) why dont you write about the children killed in the 1916 rising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.137.71 ( talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You could mention the child cillivians killed by pedo Pearce and his gang. You could also mention the use of child solidures by the republican movement through out the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.137.71 ( talk) 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is the lead paragraph.
But I think the article in general is overly adulatory, which is why the NPOV tag is there. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Barry given a state funeral, in 2001, would you consider that overly adulatory? So if you could expand on the article in general is overly adulatory, I'll try address your concerns? -- Domer48 12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If I can take your points one at a time. Re the quotation marks in the lead, as you will notice, the entire article is referenced. As to Barry being a nice lad, well from what I’ve read he was! I will try to get some newspaper articles which describe him as part of a “murder gang,” as Childers mentions in his article. As to being written from a Republican perspective, all I can think to say is, could you suggest some alternative perspectives? The alternation between English / British is again down to source. I would only add that the use of “English” were direct quotes. -- Domer48 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Those two selected quotes should be removed from the opening and put towards the end. They present the article in a POV manner, even if they are referenced opinions of a person (though I notice it doesn't say who in the article). I notice it doesn't say "Barry's was executed for being a 'traitorous murderer' [1] who 'killed noble British soldiers in an act of terrorism' [2]." Put the commentary in a separate section, don't cherry pick quotes to set up the article as a piece to praise Barry. R. fiend ( talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"his execution, which is the sole reason for his notability," read the article, there is a bit more to his notability than that. "don't cherry pick quotes to set up the article as a piece to praise," comment on the edits not the editor. If you want to add the 'traitorous murderer' and the who 'killed noble British soldiers in an act of terrorism' go ahead, just reference it. -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead is a snap shot of the article, so it contains general statements. I have hidden the references, as opposed to removing them. If they are removed, you will have a editor come along and request references. I have included authors name in the second paragraph, as suggested. As to "perspective" please suggest authors to me, or include them your self. The quotes contain valuble information on the subject, and gives context to subject. I will put them on Wikiquote also though. If you would like to edit down the quotes, in such a way, which dose not remove the context, please do so on the discussion page. We can then review it together possibly? -- Domer48 ( talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not done
Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves. However, there are certain guidelines an editor should remember about quotations within Wikipedia.
The execution of Kevin Barry was covered by a number of foreign papers, which all called for clemency. The effect was also amplified in America. This is important information and should be included. Not informing while under torture shows at the very least that he displayed courage. Taking this into consideration I have included some of this information, and incorporated the recent changes. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Saying that Golway said his execution angered people is irrelevant. I don't think that anyone denies Barry's execution angered many. If it didn't we wouldn't have an article on him; he'd be just another casualty of the War for Independence. The reference link is all that is needed. Praising someone for their courage is POV. Just state the facts: he didn't rat out his friends, and for that many consider him heroic. R. fiend ( talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added a POV template. Until the issues Fiend and myself have raised are addressed, it has to stay. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, outline your issues first, then add the template. To date, I have reponded to your concerns! If the article was not referenced, you would have a point, but not with it compleatly referenced. -- Domer48 ( talk) 09:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the opening again, and I really don't see what's wrong with it now. It's factual and neutral, and doesn't present the opinions of a particular author as facts. The rest of the article is still a bit of a mess. The over reliance on blockquotes is poor style, but at least not too POV. I also think it's overly image-heavy (why is there a picture of the college he went to? Isn't that stretching it a bit) but that is a more minor, stylistic issue. If anyone wants to change the opening discuss it here first. Here is my rational for the changes I made:
I'll look in to the ret of the article later. - R. fiend ( talk) 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Terry Golway is the city editor and columnist at The New York Observer, He also contributes to the Irish Echo, America, American Heritage, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and a number of other publications. He is also the author of Rebel: John Devoy and co-author of The Irish in America, a companion book to the award winning PBS documentary series. In addition to that, he has appeared on RTE a number of time on the (Irish State Broadcaster) Hidden History series. So "Mentioning an obscure author by name to give his opinion on an established fact is poor style." I think I have addressed that one, don't you?
R. fiend ( talk) Yourself and Stu ’Bout ye! seem to be arguing about two separate thing, and you should discuss it together. One wants the author mentioned, the other thinks it’s irrelevant. One wants statements in quotation marks the other says they don’t care what the author has to says and considers the author irrelevant.
Now as to your last comments, both of you can get Verifiable and reliably sourced information if you wish to challange this information. In short please provide alternative sources. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Read what Stu wrote again. No one ever said you needed to mention an author addressing the point of outrage over Barry's execution. Should we have "according to Terry Golway" at the beginning of every paragraph? That would make for some good writing. It was the POV quote "earned him a place in the nationalist pantheon", now removed, that should have had some sort of reference to who said it. As it's no longer there, it's irrelevant. I don't know why you thought making the footnotes disappear was supposed to help. Also, putting words in quotation marks does not neutralize POV. Putting the word "courage" in quotes makes it look like it's being mocked. What the entire article needs is less quotes. The opening section, as I have adjusted it, works better. This is not a Terry Golway essay, it's a Wikipedia article. We don't present his opinion as fact merely because he's written on the subject. R. fiend ( talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is finished! Your conduct will be reported. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
“pantheon of Irish nationalism” is used in this context “pantheon of Irish nationalism”. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You still have to explaine why you are removing referenced information, and removing “pantheon of Irish nationalism” which in this context is correctly being used, and as illustrated above, used by a number of writers in the context outlined. Policy based reasons, as comment and opinion do not conform to any policy on the article page. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors should not change referenced information to suite their opinions, and edit warring to push a POV is also counter productive. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I was copyediting the article and I wondered if the inclusion of the entire lyric of the song is really helping the article? If not I suggest removing it. -- John ( talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi User:Johndp121, would it be possible to expand on the John Ainsworth claimes, possibly including the sources he used. I feel the article could really benefit from them. I would really like to expand on the claim of the flat-nosed ammunition, as this would seriously have damaged his case, and how such a story came about. There are a couple of things that do not make sence though, "disguised as a civilian" the English did not recognise a war existed and treated all killings by the IRA as murder, (referenced in the text) weather he was in uniform or not? They suggest he was part of a "murder gang," if that were the case what the Hague Convention thought would have made no difference? I look forward to having a look at the sources, well done. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well we could start with the publishers name, ISBN number, for the John Ainsworth book? To be honest, I've never heard of it. -- Domer48 ( talk) 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of it in Mauser Model 1871 either.-- Padraig ( talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What I’m saying is, the information I add will make the information that was recently added redundant. It will show clearly that the trial was a joke from the start, a show trial. That the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other. The coroner contradicted himself, the ballistics experts contradicted each other, and they were the military witnesses. Barry did not defend himself, as he refused to recognise the legitimacy of the court. He was tried as a civilian, charged as a civilian, and yet the Judge described him as a solider. Finally in the summing up, the Judge states that weather or not he actually killed any of the soldiers, the fact that he was there, was enough to find him guilty. Now, do you want the details or not in the article. It is going to show the British Army in a very bad light, of that there is no doubt, but will it be considered POV, or are we just going with what the references say. Thing is, I can provide the sources for this, can the same be said of the one I will be contradicting? The bullets that killed the soliders were not flat-nosed bullets. That is the evidence given by the British Army officers. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the John Ainsworth reference stay?-- Domer48 ( talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
All of which is contradicted by the Irish Government:
The December 1918 General Election was to constitute an act of National self-determination by the people of Ireland. It opened the way for the establishment of Dáil Éireann and the restoration of Irish Sovereignty. There the 1916 Proclamation of the Republic was formally ratified and the declaration of Irish Independence solemnly proclaimed in January 1919.
With that declaration, the dream which through the long night of persecution has sustained the Gael; The certainty which made firm countless steps as they mounted the scaffold; the hope which for a century had made victory of each defeat-all had, in spirit, been realised. Ireland had declared herself free.
The democratic will and consent ignored; a small nation repudiated; the War of Independence ensued. Many died for the new Republic. Ten Volunteers were hanged in Mountjoy Jail. Their bodies, denied to their families for burial, and taken now from prison clay to rest in dignity and honour. Ballylaunders guards the grave of one, while nine sleep here in ground forever hallowed to Irish men and women everywhere.
So who is right, the British Army and Government, or, the Irish Government? -- Domer48 ( talk) 10:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, since these claims were introduced, I will confine myself to simply reponding to them. The information I add will make the information that was recently added redundant, but since your happy with it, we should let it stay. I will put together the information, and let the POV pushers say what they will. -- Domer48 ( talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't add POV. I add referenced information. I stick to the undisputed facts, always. Sources can be POV too. I agree. Anything you add can be edited, ye that wiki. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason a bunch of citations are commented out in the lead? At the very least, it would help if the HTML comments there gave some indication what's going on. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That’s the thing though, I don’t see this as a controversial article. It’s the editors who create that. For example, I have three different accounts given in sworn affidavits by the prosecution which contradict the evidence on the bullets. The Government employed over seventy people in the case. The book of evidence was withheld from the defence until the last moment, and given to the prosecution within days. The same person with responsibility for the book of evidence, was also the person in possession of the ammunition, which is discussed above. Now, thing is, if I start to add this information despite the verifiability and reliability of the sources, there will be POV tags, NPOV tags, sources will be challenged. Basically I’d be tied down on the article and would get little or no editing done, and on top of that I’d have OWN thrown in to boot. If you would like to have a go at summarising the quotes, and the sentiments expressed in them your more than welcome to have a go. Give me a shout if you’d like a hand.-- Domer48 ( talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That's dead sound Chris, nice one. If editors leave their feelings at the door, and just stick to what is verifiable and reliably sourced we could really push for GA at the very least? -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article. While having a song written about you is probably noteworthy, extensive quotes of song lyrics are inherently unencyclopedic. -- John ( talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the section on his writings should go, as they're basically filler. He's not a writer in any meaningful sense, and I see no reason to include bits from his homework assignments in an encyclopedia. I've seen no similar examples from other articles. As many have pointed out, and as the banner template indicates, this article is very quote heavy. Getting rid of these ones will be a help. R. fiend ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Kevin was armed with a .38 Mauser Parabellum, but to the best of my knowledge, no such weapon exists. It is however possible that the author is refering to the "incorrectly named" Luger P08. In light of this, and without an informed source, it may be better to refer to it as a semi-automatic pistol. Cheers, 'Arry Boy ( talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Pte Harold Washington was fifteen. This is accepted by all sources nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.66 ( talk) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems a discussion on this would be preferable to the current edit war. We have a source that states the soldier was fifteen. Is there a reliable source stating this is not true? If not, then that much seems settled. The question then remains, is it worth mentioning? I would certainly object to it being given undue weight, but a mere 7 words would hardly qualify as that. Is it relevant at all? Given the attention Barry's age received, pointing out that there were young people killed on both sides doesn't seem terribly out of place. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the ages of all of the victims of Bloody Sunday are provided in that article. I would at least like to see some discussion rather than this "It's relevant!!!" "No it isn't!!!!!" we're seeing now. - R. fiend ( talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
unsigned comment added by 87.198.141.22 ( talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
So stating somebody's age that has been killed is propaganda? The fact is that all modern sources agree on this. He was fifteen. How come there are no sources saying that this update of the facts is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.179 ( talk) 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to concede defeat my defeat in trying to state Pte Washington was fifteen. It is impossible for one person to publish referenced information on wikipedia when others gang up to stop it. I have decide to stop editing and will simply say a pray for the poor chap. Well Done lads. Keep up the good work of "republicans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.179 ( talk) 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So we have reliable sources stating Washington, or at east one of those killed in the raid, was 15 (and I'm going to call the BBC, at least, a reliable source). No one has provided sources disputing this. Until they do, his age seems to be determined. Now, is it relevant? Why wouldn't it be? Ages are given for all those killed Bloody Sunday, all the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer, as well as numerous other victims of violence. Whenever a party is a minor, it is inevitably mentioned. Why not here, particularly since Barry's age is a significant part of his status today? Its removal strikes me as censorship, to be honest. Though I do concede that such information would be best covered in the section on the raid, aling wth the others' ages. - R. fiend ( talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be more than willing to go along with R. fiend suggestion above, and will try to find suitable references which support the proposed text. I hope this helps? -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
For 24 hours. Don't edit war. If there's consensus for a change in text then submit an editprotected request SirFozzie ( talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well MS Alison the anon editor has just been trying to get Pte. Washington aged stated but couldnt simply because the people here with a republican agenda are bullies. There were plenty of well respected sources saying that he was fifteen but the republican bullies wouldnt accept this. Finally they have agreed to let referenced material into the article but only where they want it put in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma Washington ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
On the 7 September 1919, 14 soldiers were ambushed in Fermoy as they made their way to Wesleyan church.The opperation was planned by Liam Lynch, later to become IRA Chief of Staff, to capture their weapons. However during the ambush, one of the soldiers was killed with another three wounded. The Real Chief: Liam Lynch, Media Ryan, Mercier Press Cork 2005, ISBN 978 1 85635 460 8, pg. 36-8. Now I don't know when the first British soldier was killed, and if someone could let me know, but based on Media Ryans' book it was not 20 September 1920. I have therefore removed the recent addition to the lead. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've shifted some of the information from the 'Aftermath' section to the lead section. It seems to me that in this article we are mainly dealing with the impact of an event rather than the biography of a person and I think (or hope!) this shift makes this clear from the outset. I also think a distinction needs to be made (and I've attempted to make it) between the immediate impact of his death, which was intimately connected to the impact of the death of MacSwiney, and his subsequent reputation, built on the ballad, anecdotes about his personality and a widespread knowledge of his torture and refusal to inform. (Barry's torture was not widely reported until after his death. I spent a few very long weeks in the National Library of Ireland some time ago trawling through microfilms of newspaper-coverage of his death. His affadavit only gets real publicity in the weeks after his execution when the storm had more or less passed.) ANB ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
While I think having so much of the text of Barry's affadavit is historically interesting, its a little out of proportion to the rest of the article. Is there an argument for editing it so that only the salient points come across? I think it could be summarised quite easily. Most people do not know the details of Barry's torture so the text is certainly valuable however, the quote currently in the article could be moved to Wikisource with the appropriate link. I'd do it myself, but I'm interested in getting other people's opinions first and I also don't really know how to move things to Wikisource! This article has some great material in it but is certainly in need of some cleaning up and perhaps restructuring. ANB ( talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I'll place it up on wikisource / quote when it has been edited. You you like to place the edited version on here first and ask for opinions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this version meet with approval? Its quite a conservative edit, but I've tried to preserve the main facts:
He tried to persuade me to give the names, and I persisted in refusing. He then sent the sergeant out of the room for a bayonet. When it was brought in the sergeant was ordered by the same officer to point the bayonet at my stomach. . . The sergeant then said that he would run the bayonet into me if I did not tell. . . The same officer then said to me that if I persisted in my attitude he would turn me out to the men in the barrack square, and he supposed I knew what that meant with the men in their present temper. I said nothing. He ordered the sergeants to put me face down on the floor and twist my arm. . . When I lay on the floor, one of the sergeants knelt on my back, the other two placed one foot each on my back and left shoulder, and the man who knelt on me twisted my right arm, holding it by the wrist with one hand, while he held my hair with the other to pull back my head. The arm was twisted from the elbow joint. This continued, to the best of my judgment, for five minutes. It was very painful. . . I still persisted in refusing to answer these questions. . . A civilian came in and repeated the questions, with the same result. He informed me that if I gave all the information I knew I could get off. [1]
I've considered several options for paraphrasing. However, the affadavit itself (as I think O'Donovan notes) is probably as close to a dispassionate account of events as we can get. Let me know what you think. If its still too long we could omit the section about the bayonet and limit it to the account of the physical mistreatment rather than the threats of mistreatment. I think its important to retain the final line about he possibility that Barry might 'get off' if he informed. Its a crucial component in the construction of his reputation, particularly in the years that followed. ANB ( talk) 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
References
The introduction should mention the fact that the three soldiers Barry helped murder were as young as he was. ( 92.3.204.205 ( talk) 13:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
It's not POV at all. Barry is only famous because of his age at the time of his execution, therefore it is only right that we should mention the fact that the three soldiers he murdered were as young as he was. What would be POV would be prominently emphasising Barry's age in the intro without mentioning the vital fact that the young men he killed were the same age, in fact one was only fifteen. ( 92.3.204.205 ( talk) 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
Most people in Ireland and the rest of the world, particulalrly places that had been under British military occupation, did not even care about the deaths of a few British soldiers never mind care how old they were. The addition is POV pushing of the worst kind. 81.157.189.56 ( talk) 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hardly. Kevin Barry was a cowardly terrorist dressed in civilian clothing who murdered three young men. Since the men he murdered were as young as him this needs to be mentioned. ( 92.8.146.102 ( talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
It is your opinion, and your opinion only, that public opinion should have been affected by the age of the soldiers. Keep your opinions out of articles. 86.168.197.204 ( talk) 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The murder of the three soldiers actually caused outrage in Britain, as my history book on the conflict records. These teenagers were all conscripts and most were under the age of eighteen. Had it been known that one of the boys was only fifteen I am certain there would have been even more outrage. Ireland was not under occupation at all, it was legally joined with Britain as part of the UK. I think it is POV for the introduction to highlight Barry's age when the three boys he helped murder were as young as him and even younger. ( 92.20.44.50 ( talk) 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
An image used in this article,
File:Church Street immediately after Kevin Barry's arrest..JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Whitehead, Washington and Humphries were soldiers not police. See ref.. The notion that there were no regular army in Ireland at this time per this edit and summary is simply incorrect. RashersTierney ( talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The three teenage boys were conscripted police auxillaries. Regular soldiers were never involved in the 1919-1922 conflict in Ireland at all. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
There are numerous books on the period for a start. Collins was never up against the British army, only police auxillaries like the Black and Tans or the Auxillary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He was forced to sign the Treaty on 6 December 1921 because Lloyd George promised him a fullscale military invasion if he did not. The introduction should mention the fact that the three teenagers murdered by Barry were conscripted police auxillaries, not regular soldiers. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 18:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
The Oxford book on the British army confirms that there were no soldiers in Ireland. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
The three teenagers were conscripted police auxillaries, not soldiers. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 20:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
There weren't any British soldiers in Ireland. They were all police auxillaries. The three auxillaries killed by Kevin Barry were conscripts sent to protect loyalist and Protestant civilians from attacks by paramilitary organisations. ( JeremeyMurphy ( talk) 12:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
|
Don't feed the trolls, especially banned ones. 2 lines of K 303 11:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Barry. 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) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are extracts from Doherty's article of 2000, which other editors may wish to incorporate into the article:
"The raid on 20 20 September, in which twenty-five I.R.A. men took part, was daring but amateurishly bungled. The troops int eh back fo the lorry were to be held up page three men, Seán O'Neill, Bob O'Flanaghan and Kevin Barry, while their comrades were to close in from the front and across the street. According to O'Neill, he, O'Flanaghan and barry approached the lorry from the rear and ordered the soldiers to drop their arms. They all did so with the exception of one man, who, discovering that he was not covered, opened fire. Firing then became general, and in the ensuing mêlée, five solider and three of the raiders were hit. The attack broke up in confusion, with rebels scattering in all directions. Barry, however, for some reason ducked under the lorry and was captured, gun in hand." (page 218).
"So as to allow the civilian Barry to be tried by court martial, he was offically regarded as belonging to the 1st Battalion, the Lancashire fusiliers. Only the first charge was proceeded with, and when asked to plead, Barry replied simply "I refuse to recognise the court." The case against them was then outlined by prosecuting counsel. On 20 September the ration lorry arrived at the baker a little after 11 a.m. The N.C.O. in charge, Sergeant banks, got down and entered the a passage leading to the bakery. Two unarmed privates also got down and the sergeant returned for them and led them into the yard of the bakery. Banks then heard shots fired outside in the street, and at the same time he and his unarmed men were confronted by a man with a revolver, who fired two shots at them. The sergeant turned into an office, where he was confronted by another man with a revolver, who stunned him with a blow of the gun. Four or five men armed with revolvers appeared in the yard at the same time and fired down the passage. Meanwhile the lorry in the street was attacked by a party of men. One man came towards the lorry from the front, firing a pistol in the air. Four other men, including Kevin Barry, approached the lorry from the rear and as they came up drew pistols and shouted: "Hands up! Hand over your arms." Without waiting further they opened fire. The accused was seen by two witnesses to fire a pistol into the lorry, and Private Washington immediately fell dead, shot through the chin. Privates Whitehead and Humphries were dangerously wounded and both died later. When the attack had been driven off, Barry was spotted under the lorry and, on being challenged by the sergeant, emerged from his hiding place and dropped his pistol. This was subsequently found to be an automatic revolver containing three live cartridges, one of which was ready to fire. A bullet found in Private Whitehead's body was of the same calibre and character as the ones discovered in the magazine of Barry's revolver, which showed evidence of having been recently fired. When asked by an officer of the Lancashire Fusiliers why he had attacked the lorry, Barry allegedly replied: "We were after the rifles." (page 231).
On the penultimate page of the article, Doherty notes that while Sir Henry Wilson and Sir Nevil Macready agreed that it was right to hang Barry to damage republican morale, "Macready, the senior military man on the ground, was much less optimistic", and quotes two pessimistic notes by him on the long-term damage Martial Law would have. M. A. Doherty was a member of the School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages, University of Westminster.
Fergananim (
talk)
14:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
At the time of Barry's arrest the article reads: " His comrades fled and he was left behind. He was then spotted and arrested by the soldiers." In fact he had hidden behind a cart after the shootings and was arrested by two of the surviving soldiers, he wasn't "left behind". 78.16.89.75 ( talk) 16:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)