Talk:John Devoy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Devoy and Indian Nationalism[edit]

The ref. in the main article regarding this alleged link needs more precise referencing and a general tidy up. It is part of a larger topic (alleged direct links between Indian Nationalists- Irish Nationalists - German Government, amounting to a three-way conspiracy) that requires further verification. Talk:Hindu–German Conspiracy
RashersTierney (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's seemed to me for some time that a Hindu-German Conspiracy enthusiast has taken to expanding the scope of that topic to its breaking point, making it appear that people and institutions with a very marginal connection are much more significant to it than is really the case. This seems to be a case in point. Having read Devoy's Recollections and Golway's biography, I can't recall a single mention of this conspiracy in either work. I don't have access to the former, but looking at the index of Golway I see nothing about the Hindu-German Conspiracy, India, the Ghadar Party, or anything relevant under the heading of Germany. I'm hesitant to remove a cited statement, but if this alleged involvement wasn't significant enough to warrant mention in a 300+ page book, I hardly see how it is relevant enough for a single-page article. -R. fiend (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at 'Recollections' myself. If I recall correctly, there were three references to India, but none that would substantiate a major conspiracy. 'Recollections' was an edited collection of correspondence, which may not have considered the significance of the issue in question. I'm sceptical but inclined not to dismiss the possibility entirely. I do agree that considerable effort has gone into some questionable, and largely unchallenged assertions. RashersTierney (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)For Recollections here read Devoy's Postbag. Recollections is more sparse on the Indian connection. RashersTierney (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I mentioned some questions about this Hindu-German business encroaching on Irish Republican articles on another talk page somewhere, but don't think anyone ever addressed it. The template at the bottom seems of questionable relevance in this article and many others. I'm tempted to think the Irish business, apparently only remotely related, should be removed from it; it's too big as is. I notice that Casement is on it too, and looking at my Casement biography (Brian Inglis) I see nothing I mentioned above listed there either. I don't think the connection is any more than a footnote in both sagas. -R. fiend (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Davitt, a Fenian with an 'Internationalist' outlook, seemed the most likely candidate to have forged links with Nationalists from other parts of the Empire, but having trawled through his considerable published works, evidence of 'common cause' with Indian Nationalism , (apart from his rejected proposal to have a London based Indian run for an Irish parliamentary seat), much less a conspiracy with Ghadar, has eluded me.RashersTierney (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the association with the Ghadar movement is substantially referenced it should be removed. The determination of a single editor to promote a particular view, no matter how determined, is a distortion and distraction.RashersTierney (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to agree. Furthermore I think the template should be purged of the Irish republican entries, and removed from these pages. -R. fiend (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean While 'Irish Republicanism' appears an overly broad net, it seems to catch only particular fish, ie those that reflect well on contemporary 'Irish Republicanism'. The more problematic ones eg JJ Walsh,and other less 'comfortable' matters never seem to get caught.I think 'categories' are less helpful when there is a political dimension as editors with agendas often use them as a means of defining a particular article, rather than simply describing it . I've been trying to get a handle on WP re Categories. Definitely 'categories' is an area where rampant POV goes unchallenged.RashersTierney (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Legion service[edit]

Since he was only in Algeria for a year... was he a deserter?. I ask because the typical term of service in the Legion is 5 years... Cheers V. Joe (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of his departure from the Legion, his biographer Golway says the following - "He was discharged under the signature of his commanding officer, although later chroniclers of the period suggested that he deserted." (Irish Rebel - Terry Golway - p43)It would appear that he was therefore legally discharged, if under somewhat atypical circumstances. RashersTierney (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that doesn't exactly clear up the mystery, but its better to know a little than nothing. Sounds like a clear "maybe." Thanks V. Joe (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Devoy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Devoy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Devoy&oldid=1206954418"