Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)

'President of the Irish Republic'

A recent edit makes the claim that by virtue of being Head Centre IRB, Collins was also 'President of the Irish Republic'. Strictly within the internal logic of the IRB structure there may be some basis to this, but if the title is linked in the article President of the Irish Republic, the difficulty with the assertion becomes apparent. As things stand the claim is over simplistic and misleading. Comments please. RashersTierney (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant to revert the edit sooner due to unacceptable citing. I have done so now. I believe Collins actually became president of the IRB after the consitution of the IRB was changed to remove that particular clause, but would need to chekc dates. Certainly if the 1920 date in the IRB article is correct, it was after the removal. O Fenian (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The constitution was only changed after Dev started calling himself that while in America. Admittedly, the main impetus behind Dev's presumption was the suggestion of Joe McGarrity of Clan na Gael. And no, that's not OR, that's from Devoy's bio. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question - Does 1RR apply to this article per

The article Michael Collins (Irish leader), along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2007 Arbitration case, and amended by community consensus in 2008 and 2009. The current restrictions are: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. When in doubt, don't revert!

There seems to be a determined effort by one editor, by repeated undiscussed reverts, to impose a particular view wrt the IRB (and which is essentially peripheral to the main topic). RashersTierney (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The rule is 3RR, and you have no grounds for removing the information other than your own POV since I have verifiable and credible sources (Coogan and Devoy's biographer). Coogan states explicitly that under the IRB's bylaws the President of the IRB's Supreme Council is also President of the Irish Republic and Devoy's biographer corroborates that information. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Troubles lasted 1969-1998 so I fail to see how a rule directed against anything discussed for that time period is relevant to the life of a man who died in 1922. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you take a close look at "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as being included within the scope of the said arbitration case. It quite certainly falls within it, for the ARBCOM wording was: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". All users are advised to keep in mind the arbcom restriction of "WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period)". Happy editing :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As regards referencing, the disputed edits are a mess, and an issue for the proposing editor to address. For example:

Earlier while in America, Dev had begun using the title "President" while speaking across that country trying to raise funds, a move which brought him into conflict with some members of the IRB, whose constitution and bylaws declared their own president, Collins in this case, President of the Irish Republic, has this reference "Coogan, Tim Pat. The IRA: A History, p. 76".

This book by Tim Pat Coogan has been reprinted and updated multiple times. P76 of the most recent edition has no mention of the IRB. The issue in question is alluded to at p 99 but far from how its presented with this edit. No mention for example of the overly familiar (for the purpose of an encyclopaedia) 'Dev' , nor use of the pseudo-authoritative term 'bye-laws'. Unless these have been edited out from an older edition, they appear to be nothing more than editorial commentary by the applying ed. What has The Supreme Council of the IRB, ... voted unanimously to accept the Treaty, with the single notable exception of later COS of the IRA Liam Lynch. got to do with the article in question, and why was the ref'd edit

In the process Cathal Brugha remarked that Collins was not a senior military man and yet Arthur Griffith was describing him as the man who won the war. (Mackay, page 239), removed with the perfunctory edit summary; Relevance?. What has the fact of Aiken becoming Chief of Staff IRA after Collins death got to do with this article on Collins?

The 'IRB' on both sides of the Atlantic are being presented in these edits as a single unified structure, the real authority behind the revolutionary government. This, historically, is highly questionable. RashersTierney (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Brugha's statement, besides being incorrect factually is a blatant ad hominem attack which was included because the editor has an idea of Collins inconsistent with the proposition that Collins is not the devil incarnate. There is nothing substantive about it, its claims are in direct opposition to more objective statements included in the opening paragraph of the article.

My edition of Coogan's book is 1994. The IRB, of which Collins was president, was the guiding force behind both the Easter Rising and the War for Independence. The vote of its Supreme Council is directly relevant to aftermath of the Treaty.

The IRB did not exist as an organization in America, as you should know. Its first fraternal organization, the Fenian Brotherhood, ceased to exist entirely in 1880, but the IRB had switched its relationship to the Clan na Gael long before that.

Aiken's later status helps place him in history, no matter how embarassing it is to you that he once supported Satan Incarnate. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I hardly know where to begin with this. You deleted a ref'd statement attributed to Brugha because you felt he was 'unfair' to Collins? Seriously? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to 'right a perceived historical injustice'. This edit should be restored. Do you now intend rectifying your ambiguous book reference giving year, publisher etc? Considering your stated aversion to ad hominems, there seems to be less reluctance when it comes to having a go at editors who challenge your edits here. Edits that have no direct bearing on Collins are 'fluff' and should be removed as such. It was you who raised the term IRB in relation to the dispute during de Valera's US tour. Coogan names Devoy specifically. You sort it out, its your contrib. And please don't presume to lecture others on what you think they know or otherwise. RashersTierney (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The quality of referencing by this editor really needs some scrutiny, as has been already pointed out by O Fenion above. This most recent edit incorrectly changes an ISBN 10 and publisher for a book of a different title and year, albeit by the same author, and in the process annuls a correctly formatted reference. If others here are content with this sort of nonsense then so be it, but I have better things to do with my time. RashersTierney (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going a bit far here, RT -- if you go to "Book sources" and pull up both ISBNs on Google Books, they appear to be the same -- look up phrases in the preview edition, and search for them in the snippet edition, and you'll find them word-for-word. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record isbn 1879373718 and isbn 0312295111.The content may be the same (same number of pages), but it may not be, and the titles and years don't correspond. This sort of thing shouldn't have to be second-guessed, which is the purpose of including ISBNs in the first place. The edit appears to show a cavalier approach to referencing. RashersTierney (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I got the ISBN from Amazon, but it was the 1993 edition by the same publisher. The one in the article now comes from the inside page of the book itself, not that it is of any more dire importance than the pinhead angels. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Question of reward for capture

The idea that the British placed a bounty of 10,000 pounds on Collins' head is a myth. The story was invented by Collins himself, to gain support prior to the vote on the Treaty. In my opinion, this entire article is poorly written, poorly documented, and biased in the extreme.98.215.210.156 (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A Nevil Macready memo to John Anderson may actually be the source of the 'myth'. Collins himself put the sum at £4000. RashersTierney (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a bounty, but not a direct one if I recall. I believe it was for the person responsible for the killings of RIC men, which in effect was Collins but he was not named. I will look at some books later, I know it is detailed in at least one if not most. O Fenian (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

http://www.litriocht.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=4878 its Mícheál Ó Coileáin in Irish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.163 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to look at File:Anglo-Irish Treaty signatures.gif, and Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland by Coogan (page 33) confirms Míceál Ó Coileáin to be correct, amongst many other sources. O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A c with a dot over it, ċ, is a lenited constant, see Irish orthography. This was a common way of writing ch in the early 20th century Irish script. I've added a ċ, to the Irish name, because the Treaty signature page has a c with a dot over it. The source quoted by the IP, uses modern Irish spelling for his first name. Snappy (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

G. K. Chesterton

The cover blurb of a selected work of G.K. Chesterton mkes the claim the "The Napolean of Notting Hill" inspired Collins to his revolutionary ways. this sounds a rather improabale, or at least overblown claim, ut I wonder if anyone has any background on it Epeeist smudge (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pat Coogan appears to support the contention. Peter Hart dismissed it "...The Napoleon of Notting Hill (A novel by G.K Chesterton erroneously rumoured to have influenced Collins)...".. Take your pick. RashersTierney (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Someone could probably pull Collins' signature from the last page of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Many other biographies have this and Collins deserves it too, especially since it's available. --75.3.201.6 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)