![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This guy is a fraud. His bias against the Irish is easily seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.138.192 ( talk) 14:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that anyone who voices a revisionist view of the Irish War off Independence is personally attacked for being racist and biased? It seems that if you peddle any old story about the conflict that as long as it is pro-Republican it must be true. Plenty of Irish men and women did not support Sinn Fein or the IRA. In the 1918 General Election 476,087 people voted for Sinn Fein whilst 220,837 voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party,8,183 for other Nationalist parties whilst 297,149 voted Unionist. That means that over 526,169 (including minority parties) voted against Sinn Fein's vision of Ireland's future. In effect it was only Britain's pechant for First Past the Post elections rather than PR that allowed SF to win the majority of seats. Those are the facts. Not everyone supported SF or the IRA. Hart has the cheek to point this inconvenient fact out. The controversy surrounding the Kilmichael Ambush will probably never be fully resolved. It is likely that Barry did deliberately have all the Auxiliaries killed, after all that is the point of an ambush - anyone with the most rudimenatary military training could tell you that. War is a messy business and counter-insurgency more so. The Republicans saw the Castle regime and its supporters as an occupying power and the Unionists saw the Republicans as rebels and traitors. Victory, and vctory alone has vindicated the SF/IRA image as liberators of an oppressed nation. That is why every effort is made to whitewash IRA atrocities during the war and an equal effort degree of effort is made to amplify all British atrocities. As an Irishman I think its time we looked objectively at our own history and stopped treating it as some sort of emotional experience. It is only by recognising the good and bad on both sides that we will be able to come to terms with our past. Just because Hart hioghlighst some of the less flattering aspects of the Nationalist psyche does not mean that he is wrong. For a long time Protestants were not made welcome in the Republic and even if some of those killed in West Cork in 1922 had been British spies the key word is had been not still were. The fact is they were killed by elements of the IRA and the only concievable reason was because they did not fit in with the vision of a Catholic gaelic Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwasanaethau ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's use your own numbers to display some actual facts, rather than revisionist opinions such as yours: 705,071 voted nationalist as opposed to far less than half that many (297,149) supporting the unionist position. Any place in the world, that would be called a "landslide" rejection of the union.
Hart may or may not be an anti-Irish bigot; the evidence certainly leans in support of that conclusion.
But what is no longer disputable, based on the evidence presented, is that he is a poor historian. He either falsified his "interviews" with veterans of Kilmichael or he was taken in by tellers of tall tales; neither conclusion reflects well on his competence nor his integrity.
Likewise his choice of pejorative terms such as "ethnic cleansing" for what is by any reasonable standard an isolated instance of vengeance---based on the victims' previous conduct, not their faith---and one that was widely condemned by the Irish government, military and the Catholic church at the time.
There's little doubt that his choice of such terms--terms which he has subsequently lied (yes, _lied_, unless there's a "nicer" word for consciously telling an untruth and being caught at it?) about having used, displays bias on Hart's part.
Hart has consistently published claims that are not supported by the facts. That is the issue here; not your queasiness at the what occurs in ambushes or your eagerness to be "progressive" and embrace revisionist claims about Irish history that are not supported by a shred of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.182.161 ( talk) 11:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The atrocities that are there are few and far between regarding the IRA. They committed a few especially up north but they are countable on the fingers of one hand. There appears to be no undue minimising of IRAs actions. Rather, there seems to be a maximising of all bad things now. Especially when people like yourself seem to think that in celebrating their victory that we may have become blind to their bad actions. Having studies wars, sieges and conflicts in general I can safely say that the IRA killed an absolutely tiny proportion of non-combatants than some of the more conventional wars. But you must admit that his claims at times go very much against logic and reason. For one thing there could be no way that he had that interview with the veterans given that one was impaired and all other veterans were dead, and his claims of ethnic cleansing when the IRA killed so few non combatants are ridiculous. One bad incident such as the Dunmanway massacre (which was condemned unilaterally by the IRA the Roman Catholic Church and the Irish people) is no justification for giving a verdict of ethnic cleansing or thatit was for a vision of a Catholic Gaelic Ireland. After all, Protestants were treated fairly after the War as opposed to Catholics up North. Frankly, his methods of research his wild conclusions and his incredible assumptions lead many people, including myself to think that he is an unreliable source at best. Take my Irish Protestant word for it. 86.43.71.254 ( talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"In particular Hart in a chapter entitled 'Taking it out on the Protestants' pointed to the killing of 13 Protestants in Dunmanway ..." Hart deals with 13 so that should be the number used here. The Meda Ryan list ( and the item with names)is nowhere to be seen so that has to be mentioned if it is quoted so extensively. 81.129.245.63 ( talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is entirely unbalanced. It is not about Peter Hart and his work but about criticisms of his work which properly belong to other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.245.63 ( talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Domer - stop the vandalising and only remove parts you think are inappropriate, providing reasons in Talk. I am not an IP hopper as stated before. BT changes the number invisibly.
81.129.245.63 (
talk)
11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That is nonsense O Fenian. The vast majority of my edits survive despite your initial reversions. And references get provided.
You provide the "in-depth rationale" for reversion as you are the fault finder. Many of my changes are minor, uncontentious improvements but you can't even have them - being a patroller not an orginator. 81.153.148.246 ( talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You are not a Wiki-god. If you dispute something check out the ground yourself O fenian instead of reverting even spelling corrections in your rage.
217.43.236.187 (
talk)
00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is about Peter Hart. The quoted Irish Times letter, some 30% of the article, is another's person's extended view on one controversy in one Hart book. It is absurdly and inappropriately long, not to mention infringing tht paper's copyright. Big chunks needed to go. -- 86.147.52.238 ( talk) 22:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph for example has next to nothing to do with Peter Hart (who hardly covers Cork city in his book and all to do with a vendetta agaisnt his scholarship): "Among Cork's executed "spies", clear evidence linked some of them to the crown forces, while others were shot without any explanation. Today it is impossible to establish guilt in many cases. British records about informants are fragmented, incomplete, and often unreliable. IRA records were destroyed during the conflict for security reasons. However, surviving documentation indicates the Cork city IRA only targeted civilians it believed were passing information to the crown forces." 86.150.37.92 ( talk) 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Per above.-- Domer48 'fenian' 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not discussion Domer; that's assertion. I take it you won't engage on even the tiniest detail. 217.43.234.190 ( talk) 09:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You insist, Domer, that I discuss in Talk before removal of certain paragraphs from the Borgonovo letter in the Irish Times and then you decline to engage in the discussion. My one or opening point using a single paragraph was designed to provide an example of largely irrelevant material in the letter (as I previously stated). It was met with a restatement of your view, not discussion of the point made which was not, simply, an assertion. That's discussion. Please explain why the example paragraph, indeed the whole letter, is relevant to a discussion of Peter Hart's article? The point about copyright was made as, in my naivete, I had quoted a paragraph or so of original text in other articles and was told by you and or Domer or O Fenian that this violated Wikipedia's copyright rule. It seems a couple of lines is the outer limit, otherwise a distillation. I learnt my lesson so I ask again is the full quotation of a long letter in a newspaper from another author copyright violation? Also Hart's books are full of statistics and analyses derived from facts and such figures. Plainly they have sparked controversy and a few of his facts are disputed - many hundreds not - yet this article has lost sight of his substantive conclusions (or further questions) not least on the nature of the IRA war in the south e.g. whether an action was sectarian or had sectarian consequences despite the attackers saying otherwise. His views need to go into this article if for no reason other than balance but also for a greater reason - they are interesting, at times innovative, and humane. If spared blocking, I intend gradually to introduce them to give a rounded picture of this author and his extensive and prized scholarship. 81.158.160.101 ( talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Domer, I have made dozens of additions and a few changes in Wikipedia that have survived your and other's scrutiny but on this small number of Irish articles that you and your two colleagues guard, I am expected to bow to your absurd conditons. I don't think you can arrogate to yourself such a demanding requirement ("in-depth rationale for any change"). If administrators grant you an effective veto and immunity, as I fear may be happening, then it is the Wikipedia system, which I admire and defend, that is failing. It is this sense that a group of rule-quoting, pedantic bullies of a certain Irish political view can drive others out which has been a restraint to my full involvement for so long. 81.158.160.101 ( talk) 08:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, anonymous editor, would you please either WP:Signup for an account, or explain why you refuse to do so, despite the fact that it certainly harms both your credibility in interactions with other editors, the ease of communication with you, and indirectly your ability to learn the ins and outs of applying Wikipedia policy, which are many and complex. Thanks. Rd232 talk 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you guys familiar with the term WP:Coatrack? This article is a mess. It's an attempt to settle factual debates which Hart has written about, not a bio of Hart. Rather than try and explain in detail or get involved, I'm just going to post at WP:BLPN. Rd232 talk 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
According to you this is "obviously an attempt to argue about particular highly specific and disputed historical events." According to you "it's an attempt to settle factual debates." This sort of hyperbole helps no-one. This information presents the views and opinions of authors involved in the controversy. The most relevant policy in this context is WP:NPOV. Apart from the controversy Hart creates, what makes them notable? -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Is it your view that while we should mention that his work is controversial, we should not address any of the issues involved in the controversy? Now the controversy does not involve only a very small part of his work. It involves all of his work on the Irish Revolution, I've read them and the reviews. His latest work on Michael Collins is no different, however that has not been mentioned at all yet. I have no problem at all with trimming, and placing in a "broader context" and I'm very insistent on referencing. I hope that comes accross as being a bit more productive and constructive.-- Domer48 'fenian' 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Rd232 the issue I had was with referenced information being removed. I've added some external links if you want to review the controversies. If I can be of any help on the trimming, placing in a "broader context" and finding or providing quotes from books I'm more than willing to help. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll do a re-write of the article, and expand on the Controversy section over the coming days. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Amazingly, there is a good reason why I removed these external links during the BLP rewrite, clearly I have to explain these. Firstly, as I mentioned above. This is a biography of a living person. We describe who the person is, why they are notable and what they have done. In the case of academics, we should not be rehashing or explaining the details of academic disagreements in primary sources. That is part and parcel of any academic's work and isn't particularly notable unless it gets wider coverage in secondary sources.
So, taken together, I would also suggest they violate Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people and Wikipedia:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view. Rockpocke t 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Making treats now? Move for a topic ban? I make it a point to read all the policies that editors and admin’s direct my attention to, so trust me, I always edit according to policy. Now you saying "according to his academic competitors" "the opinion of a trio of critics" and go on about them being a cadre of Hart's critics is in my mind quite telling. So I could suggest a couple of policies you should read, but I'll simply say that censorship is not the same as WP:NPOV, when these materials are relevant to the content. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. In this case you find them objectionable. Now tell me this, were in the article does it outline the issues these respected authors and academics have with Hart's work? What are the main issues they have? I'm well aware that WP:BLP is a serious issue, and so is using it as an excuse to make treats. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to assume anything, and will simply point you to my above post. -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Are Murphy and Ryan historians any more than Meehan? He surely is not: "Mr Meehan is head of the journalism and media faculty at Griffith College Dublin, a private further and higher education institution, and he is writing a critique of Dr Hart's book as part of his own PhD thesis." In what respect is a pamphlet published by a local history society a reliable source for criticisms in a BLP? And at least one claim which is presented as if it were sourced to the THES is not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hart is a revisionist and that can be cited to Regan. Aubane Historical Society is also a publishing company and is not being cited in any of the references. The authors are being cited not the publishing company. Now I'll be using a number of sources on this article, and if they happen to be published by Aubane, that will not make any difference at all per WP:RS or WP:V. Not allowing criticism of Harts work is tantamount to a white wash. To say “A number of the claims Hart has made in his books have attracted criticism from other historians” and not be able to say what those criticisms are, is nonsensical. I’ll be adding what those criticisms are and Harts response to them. The reader can draw their own conclusions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't need consensus to add referenced text! I'll not be looking for consensus to edit this article, if you have a problem with the text I add, you can offer a policy based rational on the talk page. I'm well aware of BLP and I always edit according to policy. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Per my comments above. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus Elonka AHS is not a reliable source! Now like your other opinions, they are flawed. AHS as a publisher is not being cited at all! That is a fact! Authors are being cited.-- Domer48 'fenian' 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
On the above named section we have a number of things which are a cause of concern. I'll point to some sentences to illustrate my point.
First off his work is considered "highly controversial." Why and by who? On point two, what claims has Hart made, and what criticism has it attracted from other historians? Who are these historians? On the final point, how can we have Hart's reaction to criticism, without knowing what the criticism was and who made it? I've added back some of the text which went some way to addressing these reasonable questions above, but would like comments on how we can address these questions in more detail? Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, this is not an issue with WP:BLP at all. Its about WP:RS and WP:V. All publishers are subject to liable laws, so we are not libelling anyone.
Now as to the book by Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan, Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, Aubane Historical Society (2008), ISBN 978 1 903497 46 3. First off, Brian P Murphy is not a member of Aubane, however some of his books are published by them books such as Michael Collins, (Aubane 2004) ISBN: 1 903497 19 1, A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1, The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 0 85034 108 6, and The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland, 1920, (Aubane 2006), ISBN: 1 903497 24 8 in addition to Troubled History.
He also has books such as Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal, ISBN 9780907606772 which is published by James Duffy, (1991), and John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995). Is it the suggestion that only his book that are published by Aubane are not considered WP:RS. What about books were Brian P Murphy is cited by authors, but the books cited are published by Aubane?
Some examples of this would include Enemies of empire: new perspectives on imperialism, literature and historiography, ISBN 9781846820021 by Eóin Flannery and Angus Mitchell and published by Four Courts Press, (2007), Religion and rebellion: papers read before the 22nd Irish Conference of Historians, held at University College Dublin, 18-22 May 1995, ISBN 9781900621038, by Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning published by University College Dublin Press, (1997), and Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, ISBN 9781859183861, by David Fitzpatrick which is published by Cork University Press, (2004).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Brian P Murphy a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can be only be used depending on which publisher he uses? No, I don't think so.
As another example, what about Media Ryan, who is as far as I'm aware a member of the Aubane Historical Society, but her books are not published by them. Books such as The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN-13: 9781853710414, published by Dufour Editions (1990), Biddy Early,(2000), ISBN-13: 9781856353168, and Michael Collins and the Women who spied for Ireland (2006) ISBN 13: 9781856355131, Real Chief : The Story of Liam Lynch, ISBN-13: 9780853427643, (2005), Tom Barry: Ira Freedom Fighter, ISBN-13: 9781856354257, (2003) all published by Mercier Pr Ltd, Michael Collins and the Women in His Life, ISBN-13: 9781856351669, published by Irish Books & Media (1998), The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN: 1853710415, published by Poolbeg, (1989).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Media Ryan a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can not be used because she is a member of the Aubane Historical Society? No, I don't think so.
So to make it as simple as possible for everyone, the Aubane Historical Society is not the source being cited, its the author. We don't cite publishers. All publishers are subject to the same laws on liable.
Since the editor considered my edit a WP:BLP breech could they please inform us how so we don't (if we did at all) violate it? Could they also explain how they are going to address the very nasty violation of WP:NPOV that I noted above. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus"? in my swinging purple nutsack. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.4.202.106 (
talk)
14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think so. There is no consensus not by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite in fact. Like I said above, this is not about
WP:BLP its about
WP:RS and
WP:V. Now please address the issues I raised. --
Domer48
'fenian'
15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The sources are neither unsourced or poorly sourced. Now please address the issues I raised.-- Domer48 'fenian' 17:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about this change [2].
Is Socialist Democracy a reliable source of review and criticism here?
Jdorney ( talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Policy m
Unfortunately, this is no longer a BLP as Peter Hart passed away recently. Jdorney ( talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering if this article should 'Peter Hart (Irish historian)' (or something, I know he was actually Canadian), as there is another prominent historian named Peter Hart see here. Jdorney ( talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Peter Hart (historian). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Hart (historian). 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) 08:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This guy is a fraud. His bias against the Irish is easily seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.138.192 ( talk) 14:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that anyone who voices a revisionist view of the Irish War off Independence is personally attacked for being racist and biased? It seems that if you peddle any old story about the conflict that as long as it is pro-Republican it must be true. Plenty of Irish men and women did not support Sinn Fein or the IRA. In the 1918 General Election 476,087 people voted for Sinn Fein whilst 220,837 voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party,8,183 for other Nationalist parties whilst 297,149 voted Unionist. That means that over 526,169 (including minority parties) voted against Sinn Fein's vision of Ireland's future. In effect it was only Britain's pechant for First Past the Post elections rather than PR that allowed SF to win the majority of seats. Those are the facts. Not everyone supported SF or the IRA. Hart has the cheek to point this inconvenient fact out. The controversy surrounding the Kilmichael Ambush will probably never be fully resolved. It is likely that Barry did deliberately have all the Auxiliaries killed, after all that is the point of an ambush - anyone with the most rudimenatary military training could tell you that. War is a messy business and counter-insurgency more so. The Republicans saw the Castle regime and its supporters as an occupying power and the Unionists saw the Republicans as rebels and traitors. Victory, and vctory alone has vindicated the SF/IRA image as liberators of an oppressed nation. That is why every effort is made to whitewash IRA atrocities during the war and an equal effort degree of effort is made to amplify all British atrocities. As an Irishman I think its time we looked objectively at our own history and stopped treating it as some sort of emotional experience. It is only by recognising the good and bad on both sides that we will be able to come to terms with our past. Just because Hart hioghlighst some of the less flattering aspects of the Nationalist psyche does not mean that he is wrong. For a long time Protestants were not made welcome in the Republic and even if some of those killed in West Cork in 1922 had been British spies the key word is had been not still were. The fact is they were killed by elements of the IRA and the only concievable reason was because they did not fit in with the vision of a Catholic gaelic Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwasanaethau ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's use your own numbers to display some actual facts, rather than revisionist opinions such as yours: 705,071 voted nationalist as opposed to far less than half that many (297,149) supporting the unionist position. Any place in the world, that would be called a "landslide" rejection of the union.
Hart may or may not be an anti-Irish bigot; the evidence certainly leans in support of that conclusion.
But what is no longer disputable, based on the evidence presented, is that he is a poor historian. He either falsified his "interviews" with veterans of Kilmichael or he was taken in by tellers of tall tales; neither conclusion reflects well on his competence nor his integrity.
Likewise his choice of pejorative terms such as "ethnic cleansing" for what is by any reasonable standard an isolated instance of vengeance---based on the victims' previous conduct, not their faith---and one that was widely condemned by the Irish government, military and the Catholic church at the time.
There's little doubt that his choice of such terms--terms which he has subsequently lied (yes, _lied_, unless there's a "nicer" word for consciously telling an untruth and being caught at it?) about having used, displays bias on Hart's part.
Hart has consistently published claims that are not supported by the facts. That is the issue here; not your queasiness at the what occurs in ambushes or your eagerness to be "progressive" and embrace revisionist claims about Irish history that are not supported by a shred of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.182.161 ( talk) 11:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The atrocities that are there are few and far between regarding the IRA. They committed a few especially up north but they are countable on the fingers of one hand. There appears to be no undue minimising of IRAs actions. Rather, there seems to be a maximising of all bad things now. Especially when people like yourself seem to think that in celebrating their victory that we may have become blind to their bad actions. Having studies wars, sieges and conflicts in general I can safely say that the IRA killed an absolutely tiny proportion of non-combatants than some of the more conventional wars. But you must admit that his claims at times go very much against logic and reason. For one thing there could be no way that he had that interview with the veterans given that one was impaired and all other veterans were dead, and his claims of ethnic cleansing when the IRA killed so few non combatants are ridiculous. One bad incident such as the Dunmanway massacre (which was condemned unilaterally by the IRA the Roman Catholic Church and the Irish people) is no justification for giving a verdict of ethnic cleansing or thatit was for a vision of a Catholic Gaelic Ireland. After all, Protestants were treated fairly after the War as opposed to Catholics up North. Frankly, his methods of research his wild conclusions and his incredible assumptions lead many people, including myself to think that he is an unreliable source at best. Take my Irish Protestant word for it. 86.43.71.254 ( talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"In particular Hart in a chapter entitled 'Taking it out on the Protestants' pointed to the killing of 13 Protestants in Dunmanway ..." Hart deals with 13 so that should be the number used here. The Meda Ryan list ( and the item with names)is nowhere to be seen so that has to be mentioned if it is quoted so extensively. 81.129.245.63 ( talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is entirely unbalanced. It is not about Peter Hart and his work but about criticisms of his work which properly belong to other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.245.63 ( talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Domer - stop the vandalising and only remove parts you think are inappropriate, providing reasons in Talk. I am not an IP hopper as stated before. BT changes the number invisibly.
81.129.245.63 (
talk)
11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That is nonsense O Fenian. The vast majority of my edits survive despite your initial reversions. And references get provided.
You provide the "in-depth rationale" for reversion as you are the fault finder. Many of my changes are minor, uncontentious improvements but you can't even have them - being a patroller not an orginator. 81.153.148.246 ( talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You are not a Wiki-god. If you dispute something check out the ground yourself O fenian instead of reverting even spelling corrections in your rage.
217.43.236.187 (
talk)
00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is about Peter Hart. The quoted Irish Times letter, some 30% of the article, is another's person's extended view on one controversy in one Hart book. It is absurdly and inappropriately long, not to mention infringing tht paper's copyright. Big chunks needed to go. -- 86.147.52.238 ( talk) 22:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph for example has next to nothing to do with Peter Hart (who hardly covers Cork city in his book and all to do with a vendetta agaisnt his scholarship): "Among Cork's executed "spies", clear evidence linked some of them to the crown forces, while others were shot without any explanation. Today it is impossible to establish guilt in many cases. British records about informants are fragmented, incomplete, and often unreliable. IRA records were destroyed during the conflict for security reasons. However, surviving documentation indicates the Cork city IRA only targeted civilians it believed were passing information to the crown forces." 86.150.37.92 ( talk) 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Per above.-- Domer48 'fenian' 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not discussion Domer; that's assertion. I take it you won't engage on even the tiniest detail. 217.43.234.190 ( talk) 09:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You insist, Domer, that I discuss in Talk before removal of certain paragraphs from the Borgonovo letter in the Irish Times and then you decline to engage in the discussion. My one or opening point using a single paragraph was designed to provide an example of largely irrelevant material in the letter (as I previously stated). It was met with a restatement of your view, not discussion of the point made which was not, simply, an assertion. That's discussion. Please explain why the example paragraph, indeed the whole letter, is relevant to a discussion of Peter Hart's article? The point about copyright was made as, in my naivete, I had quoted a paragraph or so of original text in other articles and was told by you and or Domer or O Fenian that this violated Wikipedia's copyright rule. It seems a couple of lines is the outer limit, otherwise a distillation. I learnt my lesson so I ask again is the full quotation of a long letter in a newspaper from another author copyright violation? Also Hart's books are full of statistics and analyses derived from facts and such figures. Plainly they have sparked controversy and a few of his facts are disputed - many hundreds not - yet this article has lost sight of his substantive conclusions (or further questions) not least on the nature of the IRA war in the south e.g. whether an action was sectarian or had sectarian consequences despite the attackers saying otherwise. His views need to go into this article if for no reason other than balance but also for a greater reason - they are interesting, at times innovative, and humane. If spared blocking, I intend gradually to introduce them to give a rounded picture of this author and his extensive and prized scholarship. 81.158.160.101 ( talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Domer, I have made dozens of additions and a few changes in Wikipedia that have survived your and other's scrutiny but on this small number of Irish articles that you and your two colleagues guard, I am expected to bow to your absurd conditons. I don't think you can arrogate to yourself such a demanding requirement ("in-depth rationale for any change"). If administrators grant you an effective veto and immunity, as I fear may be happening, then it is the Wikipedia system, which I admire and defend, that is failing. It is this sense that a group of rule-quoting, pedantic bullies of a certain Irish political view can drive others out which has been a restraint to my full involvement for so long. 81.158.160.101 ( talk) 08:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, anonymous editor, would you please either WP:Signup for an account, or explain why you refuse to do so, despite the fact that it certainly harms both your credibility in interactions with other editors, the ease of communication with you, and indirectly your ability to learn the ins and outs of applying Wikipedia policy, which are many and complex. Thanks. Rd232 talk 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you guys familiar with the term WP:Coatrack? This article is a mess. It's an attempt to settle factual debates which Hart has written about, not a bio of Hart. Rather than try and explain in detail or get involved, I'm just going to post at WP:BLPN. Rd232 talk 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
According to you this is "obviously an attempt to argue about particular highly specific and disputed historical events." According to you "it's an attempt to settle factual debates." This sort of hyperbole helps no-one. This information presents the views and opinions of authors involved in the controversy. The most relevant policy in this context is WP:NPOV. Apart from the controversy Hart creates, what makes them notable? -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Is it your view that while we should mention that his work is controversial, we should not address any of the issues involved in the controversy? Now the controversy does not involve only a very small part of his work. It involves all of his work on the Irish Revolution, I've read them and the reviews. His latest work on Michael Collins is no different, however that has not been mentioned at all yet. I have no problem at all with trimming, and placing in a "broader context" and I'm very insistent on referencing. I hope that comes accross as being a bit more productive and constructive.-- Domer48 'fenian' 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Rd232 the issue I had was with referenced information being removed. I've added some external links if you want to review the controversies. If I can be of any help on the trimming, placing in a "broader context" and finding or providing quotes from books I'm more than willing to help. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll do a re-write of the article, and expand on the Controversy section over the coming days. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Amazingly, there is a good reason why I removed these external links during the BLP rewrite, clearly I have to explain these. Firstly, as I mentioned above. This is a biography of a living person. We describe who the person is, why they are notable and what they have done. In the case of academics, we should not be rehashing or explaining the details of academic disagreements in primary sources. That is part and parcel of any academic's work and isn't particularly notable unless it gets wider coverage in secondary sources.
So, taken together, I would also suggest they violate Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people and Wikipedia:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view. Rockpocke t 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Making treats now? Move for a topic ban? I make it a point to read all the policies that editors and admin’s direct my attention to, so trust me, I always edit according to policy. Now you saying "according to his academic competitors" "the opinion of a trio of critics" and go on about them being a cadre of Hart's critics is in my mind quite telling. So I could suggest a couple of policies you should read, but I'll simply say that censorship is not the same as WP:NPOV, when these materials are relevant to the content. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. In this case you find them objectionable. Now tell me this, were in the article does it outline the issues these respected authors and academics have with Hart's work? What are the main issues they have? I'm well aware that WP:BLP is a serious issue, and so is using it as an excuse to make treats. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to assume anything, and will simply point you to my above post. -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Are Murphy and Ryan historians any more than Meehan? He surely is not: "Mr Meehan is head of the journalism and media faculty at Griffith College Dublin, a private further and higher education institution, and he is writing a critique of Dr Hart's book as part of his own PhD thesis." In what respect is a pamphlet published by a local history society a reliable source for criticisms in a BLP? And at least one claim which is presented as if it were sourced to the THES is not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hart is a revisionist and that can be cited to Regan. Aubane Historical Society is also a publishing company and is not being cited in any of the references. The authors are being cited not the publishing company. Now I'll be using a number of sources on this article, and if they happen to be published by Aubane, that will not make any difference at all per WP:RS or WP:V. Not allowing criticism of Harts work is tantamount to a white wash. To say “A number of the claims Hart has made in his books have attracted criticism from other historians” and not be able to say what those criticisms are, is nonsensical. I’ll be adding what those criticisms are and Harts response to them. The reader can draw their own conclusions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't need consensus to add referenced text! I'll not be looking for consensus to edit this article, if you have a problem with the text I add, you can offer a policy based rational on the talk page. I'm well aware of BLP and I always edit according to policy. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Per my comments above. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus Elonka AHS is not a reliable source! Now like your other opinions, they are flawed. AHS as a publisher is not being cited at all! That is a fact! Authors are being cited.-- Domer48 'fenian' 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
On the above named section we have a number of things which are a cause of concern. I'll point to some sentences to illustrate my point.
First off his work is considered "highly controversial." Why and by who? On point two, what claims has Hart made, and what criticism has it attracted from other historians? Who are these historians? On the final point, how can we have Hart's reaction to criticism, without knowing what the criticism was and who made it? I've added back some of the text which went some way to addressing these reasonable questions above, but would like comments on how we can address these questions in more detail? Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, this is not an issue with WP:BLP at all. Its about WP:RS and WP:V. All publishers are subject to liable laws, so we are not libelling anyone.
Now as to the book by Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan, Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, Aubane Historical Society (2008), ISBN 978 1 903497 46 3. First off, Brian P Murphy is not a member of Aubane, however some of his books are published by them books such as Michael Collins, (Aubane 2004) ISBN: 1 903497 19 1, A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1, The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 0 85034 108 6, and The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland, 1920, (Aubane 2006), ISBN: 1 903497 24 8 in addition to Troubled History.
He also has books such as Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal, ISBN 9780907606772 which is published by James Duffy, (1991), and John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995). Is it the suggestion that only his book that are published by Aubane are not considered WP:RS. What about books were Brian P Murphy is cited by authors, but the books cited are published by Aubane?
Some examples of this would include Enemies of empire: new perspectives on imperialism, literature and historiography, ISBN 9781846820021 by Eóin Flannery and Angus Mitchell and published by Four Courts Press, (2007), Religion and rebellion: papers read before the 22nd Irish Conference of Historians, held at University College Dublin, 18-22 May 1995, ISBN 9781900621038, by Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning published by University College Dublin Press, (1997), and Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, ISBN 9781859183861, by David Fitzpatrick which is published by Cork University Press, (2004).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Brian P Murphy a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can be only be used depending on which publisher he uses? No, I don't think so.
As another example, what about Media Ryan, who is as far as I'm aware a member of the Aubane Historical Society, but her books are not published by them. Books such as The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN-13: 9781853710414, published by Dufour Editions (1990), Biddy Early,(2000), ISBN-13: 9781856353168, and Michael Collins and the Women who spied for Ireland (2006) ISBN 13: 9781856355131, Real Chief : The Story of Liam Lynch, ISBN-13: 9780853427643, (2005), Tom Barry: Ira Freedom Fighter, ISBN-13: 9781856354257, (2003) all published by Mercier Pr Ltd, Michael Collins and the Women in His Life, ISBN-13: 9781856351669, published by Irish Books & Media (1998), The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN: 1853710415, published by Poolbeg, (1989).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Media Ryan a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can not be used because she is a member of the Aubane Historical Society? No, I don't think so.
So to make it as simple as possible for everyone, the Aubane Historical Society is not the source being cited, its the author. We don't cite publishers. All publishers are subject to the same laws on liable.
Since the editor considered my edit a WP:BLP breech could they please inform us how so we don't (if we did at all) violate it? Could they also explain how they are going to address the very nasty violation of WP:NPOV that I noted above. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus"? in my swinging purple nutsack. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.4.202.106 (
talk)
14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think so. There is no consensus not by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite in fact. Like I said above, this is not about
WP:BLP its about
WP:RS and
WP:V. Now please address the issues I raised. --
Domer48
'fenian'
15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The sources are neither unsourced or poorly sourced. Now please address the issues I raised.-- Domer48 'fenian' 17:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about this change [2].
Is Socialist Democracy a reliable source of review and criticism here?
Jdorney ( talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Policy m
Unfortunately, this is no longer a BLP as Peter Hart passed away recently. Jdorney ( talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering if this article should 'Peter Hart (Irish historian)' (or something, I know he was actually Canadian), as there is another prominent historian named Peter Hart see here. Jdorney ( talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Peter Hart (historian). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Hart (historian). 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) 08:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)