Jump to content

Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 203: Line 203:
::#I can't see anything about his behaviour during the negotiations in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader)&diff=prev&oldid=832305015 this]. It's in the "Personal life" section. Did you mean to link to something else?
::#I can't see anything about his behaviour during the negotiations in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader)&diff=prev&oldid=832305015 this]. It's in the "Personal life" section. Did you mean to link to something else?
:::Hope this helps. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
:::Hope this helps. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
::::Indeed it does, and that is very clear rational, and it seems I owe you something of an apology. Sorry, you evidently know the sources are far from taking the approach from that the IP was agitating from. I was taking it from all sides this morning, though thats not good enough. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:21, 25 March 2018

Template:Vital article

Fassbender connection

Despite the quote by Michael Fassbender, there's nothing publicly available connecting his mother to Michael Collins that I'm aware of. Is Fassbender's claim sufficient to list his relationship as fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCarl (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Collins (Irish leader). 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).

  • 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) 15:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Collins (Irish leader). 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).

  • 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) 09:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collins' initial selection for death sentence

Wanted to get the opinion of editors here before adding, but Collins describes his initial selection by the British "G men" into the line for execution, but having "heard his name being called" he moved across the building to find the caller, only to be included in those who were being parolled. Tim Pat Coogan describes it well in his biography of Collins here: https://books.google.com/books?id=mZgmCwAAQBAJ

I have the written version at home and would include it as the citation. This story would seem to fit the general tone of the article and Collins' life as "hiding in plain site" while not creating a large section of unnecessary text.

If there are no objections, I'll draft up a recommended section and post it here for review.

Squatch347 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Below is my proposed addition:

Rather than: Arrested along with thousands of other participants, Collins was imprisoned at Frongoch internment camp in Wales.

I'd have: Collins was arrested, along with thousands of other participants, following the surrender. Before being transferred to Frongoch internment camp in Wales he was processed through Richmond Barracks. At this location, Collins was identified by a sorting process overseen by British Intelligence "G-Men" as someone who should be selected for harsher punishment, including execution. While waiting, he heard his name called out. In an effort to identify the speaker he moved to the other side of the building, and once there, stayed. This movement placed him in the group selected for lighter punishment and was, as Historian Tim Pat Coogan describes, "one of the luckiest escapes of his life." Coogan Citation

Squatch347 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an improvement, though "historian" does not need a capital h. Other than that, go right ahead. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, of course you are correct, thanks for the catch! Squatch347 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irish name

The initial spelling issue was rapidly resolved. Thereafter ... well, it seems that someone was having a bad day, and it all went downhill. Any further concerns about the article can be raised in a new discussion when the dust has settled, and everyone refocuses on WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collins's Irish name Mícheál has been incorrectly spelled as Míceál since December, sourced to a 2010 story in the Irish Times. I corrected it yesterday, with a ref to Meda Ryan's Michael Collins and the Women Who Spied for Ireland. I hope users will agree that WP:RS would rate a book by an acknowledged expert on the subject above an article by a couple of journalists with no known expertise. At the same time, I removed a ref sourcing the fact that Collins's middle name was not James, for the good and simple reason that there is no mention of a middle name anywhere in the article. My edit was reverted by Squatch347 with the edit summary, "User removed description of Collins. Please discuss proposed changes on the Talk Page given this page's inclusion in remediation [sic] protection". So now I'm discussing it here. Please state what "description" was removed, or why my edit was otherwise wrong.
tl;dr addition: The Irish Times story concerned a 1922 document, which was probably signed "Míċeál Ó Coileáin", which is nowadays rendered as Mícheál. The Irish Manual of Style states that the dot should be replaced with a "h". Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nothin wrong with what ya did.80.111.164.98 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree with changes. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting. Now I don't have to worry about "remediation protection", even though it's over 24 hours since my previous revert. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the spelling in December as there was no h in the source that was present at that time. Your source is superior, thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a change that fundamental, at least a few sources should have been cross-checked beforehand. This is why competence matters. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is such a comment necessary or in any way productive? You are implying I am incompetent because I conformed the spelling to the source present at the time? Incompetence is citing the ch spelling to a source which contradicted it. In any case, you are free to add to the article if you wish; the article would benefit from your competence in these matters. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a statement of fact. A significant political figure, and you, wading in, obviously lacking in pre knowledge, changed the spelling of his native name based on a single 1922 newspaper source. All I am saying is that "at least a few sources should have been cross-checked beforehand", either you consider that diligence or not. Note all the fuss created here now as a result; please be more careful. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Hrodvarsson did was absolutely right. The guideline says be bold, not "cross-check a few sources before doing anything as major as correcting an apparent spelling error based on the pre-existing cited source." "All the fuss here" was not created by that edit, but by someone else's knee-jerk revert when I fixed it. I think an apology might be in order. Scolaire (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think so. Being bold shouldn't mean dragging up decades old newspaper sources to make fundamental changes to the native names of historically significant figures. You may have different standards, both wrt reliable sources and as to how we treat drive by people under misunderstanding. Your actions here, playing both sides, are most hypocritical. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Hrodvarsson didn't "drag up" anything. The source (less than a decade old) was already there. It was there as a citation for Mícheál Ó Coileáin, but in fact it didn't say Mícheál Ó Coileáin, it said Míceál Ó Coileáin. Secondly, a one-letter edit is not a "fundamental change". If it was so fundamental, why did it take three months for anybody to notice? If it was that fundemental, why didn't you find a proper source for the correct spelling of his name years ago? Finally, I am not "playing both sides" – I was never on your side and I never had any problem with Hrodvarsson. In fact, I commend Hrodvarsson (and I "thanked" him), for bothering to explain his edit, while on the other hand I found your attitude very unpleasant. Just saying "I agree" in answer to my post does not entitle you to take the moral high ground and lecture somebody on how to edit – especially when what you say goes directly against Wikipedia guidelines. Are we to rename WP:BOLD as WP:Drive-by and say it is disruptive? I take back what I said earlier; it is not the person who reverted me, it is you that have created all the fuss. Scolaire (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, but fine, I have the measure of you now least there was any doubt before. I earlier took you on the strength of argument, seems I was wrong and an unfocused belligerence was more at play. Water under the bridge man. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The belligerence was all on your part. It was a civilised discussion before you went off half-cocked. Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, you are were looking for reassurance and validation, having come off badly as you often do on many other articles. So tell the rest to somebody that cant see through such transparent behavior. "half-cocked", yawn, some self reflection please, maybe also read "wp:comptence". Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have read through the article and edited; dear god help us all if you and Hrodvarsson are setting the standard of what wiki is capable of. It's frankly, terrible, barely connected to reality, going half cocked in several directions with scant regard to historical record, or in places, achievable human ability; swiftly claiming the British were right all along (with no evidence), or no hang on the Irish are somehow gods c. Scolaire you are giving the impression of - its all under control, I have this, but from a scan of the article, and digging into your claims of authority, could not be less impressed. I am leaving this self reinforcing disaster. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
God! Come down off your high horse, will you? It wasn't me or Hrodvarsson who wrote this article. Out of 4,500 edits, 41 were by me, nearly all of them removing crap, and 23 were by Hrodvarsson, mostly minor but some of them adding useful content. Yes, the article was terrible – that's why I never attempted a major edit. We could hardly be said to be "setting the standard", and I most certainly neither said nor suggested that it was "all under control", that I "had" it, or that I had any "claim to authority". And yes, your edits of last night improved it some, and you are to be thanked for that, but "copy-edits" that introduce words like "recordes" (later changed to "recorde") and "amature" – I'm not impressed. Taking out "The Collins family were part of an ancient clan" with an edit summary of "an ancient clan? pff", but leaving in the equally ridiculous and equally unsourced "for the 20th century, the long hidden Ó Coileáin clan of Uí Conaill Gabhra, once the most dominant sept of the Uí Fidgenti, produced Michael Collins, or Mícheál Ó Coileáin" – not impressed. But worst, for somebody that lectured another editor on the need for "at least a few sources to be cross-checked beforehand", you didn't add one single source in your 31 edits, either for what was already there or for what you added. Sure, competence is required, but that includes not looking at the mote in your brother's eye. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See below Scolaire. The more I look, the less I am impressed, blatant POV, blatent copyvio, blatent sock puppeting, etc etc. We seem to have different views of article integrity, certainly "high horse" stuff, certainly worthy of wider investigation. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the guy below. You are accusing me and Hrodvarsson of blatant POV etc etc. on the basis that if we made a few edits, we must be the vandals and the trolls, have low standards and a warped view of article integrity. Your personal attacks on me are becoming more and more unacceptable. If you continue this will be going to ANI. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already escalated. If you now suddenly have such low involvement, why have you been so shrill and hysterical on this talk. Because you have not put in real investment or due dillegince, flitter about with unfounded opinions just so you can be heard, and lack character and are just that way? Might make sense. Nonetheless, there is a major issue with this article, no matter what ye say, and it needs eyes. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass deletions of sourced information

User:Ceoil has removed a lot of sourced information from the article in what perhaps appears to be a drunken tirade. I do not see any reason not to include this so I have readded it.80.111.164.98 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being loaded and hardly based on cold historical assessment, terms such as "spirit of self-sacrifice", "Intensely hard-working", "His personal warmth and charm", which you restored, indicate a romantic flowery view, very dated, not at all today's language, and as such indicate a major copyvio problem with the article, and it should probably be opened for wider investigation. My impression so far today of it and its gaurdians; walled garden. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced using reliable sources. Wikipedia should report what reliable sources report. Who are you to decide if it is based on "cold historical assessment"?80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources cherry picked from about 1930? No you miss the point. Also, there is evident close copying going on, which seeps through in the dated language employed here. Sorry, but those are the fact. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they are cherry picked? That's a weird assumption to make. I had a look at the sources and they are from 1980, 2003 and 1990, not 1930. If you have a reliable source that contradicts the information you have deleted please present it.80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've challenged you on specific claims. Its not for me to prove a negative and find sources that say Collins was not "intensely hard-working" etc; the burden is on you to (a) defend this as a general historical consensus (b) prove that its not whole scale copyvio, not a cut and paste job from a rather dated web source. Until either of these are satisfied, I'll be reverting. Also, (c) please have the stones and integrity to use your regular username here, rather than hide behind an ip. We have the wiki-blame tool, remember. Ceoil (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who made the assertion that the sources were cherry picked. Back up that assertion.80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats not how wiki works; the burden of proof is on you. I'm one inch from opening a major investigation on Scolaire‎, who probably should be blocked, given what a surface skim has revealed here re his approach to adding "content". I'm assuming the IP is you Scolaire‎ based on DUCK, as ye have woken up at the same time, use similar <hear no evil> language, and your first response was also to discredit the messenger, in very similar word patterns. Ceoil (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see burden of proof 80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these contested segments - the first and second segments come across as grossly floury and not of encyclopedic tone at all. The third and fourth segments are also...effusive...and could be written in a more NPOV tone, that is, if they need to be there at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Items of contention

Okay folks - need to get consensus on these segments. I request that BrownHairedGirl please fully lock the article until we resolve this. And invite wider opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: if you want the page protected, please ask at WP:RFPP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the page is under sanctions and the IP has just made two reverts to Ceoil's one revert...and you're the admin watching it..you gonna look at that then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

80.111.164.98 you are already aware this page is under 1RR sanctions. Stop edit warring. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, 80.111.164.98 has been proven to be an evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked, so I don't think any further discussion is needed. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reopen some of the discussion of Ceoil's edits. Quite a few of the changes are excellent and have updated the language to a more NPOV. A few though do seem to be unwarranted. Below is a summary of the edits I think should be discussed, the rest of his edits I support as well.
[1] This is an edit that I believe both Ceoil and Scolaire have put forward, though I could be mistaken on the latter. It alters the meaning of the text here (Scolaire fully removes it) to imply that Collins himself is described at brainy, rather than that he "comes from a brainy family." This reference is sourced (though the source needs to be updated to page 106) and is warranted, imo, for a biographical entry. Family origin and characteristics cited by British intelligence officials would seem an apt addition to understanding the background and life of he individual.
[2] I'm not sure why this was removed. "WTF" doesn't give us much to go on for rationale. Tim Pat Coogan uses the same language in his biography on page 6, so I'm not sure there is a warranted rationale for removing it. I'm open to a more detailed defense though.
[3] This edit removes an entire paragraph with no accompanying explanation. That paragraph is also sourced and verified in TPC's biography as well. I'm curious as to the reason it was removed.
[4] I'm not sure this is editorializing, it was an expressed policy of the IRB to drive out the RIC so it could establish its own institutions.
[5] I initially thought this paragraph should be included, but reworded, but doing a bit more research I can't find where the source, Chrissy Osborne satisfies [6]. She appears to be a podcaster without any formal training. Fully support this paragraph's removal.
[7] How is this section specious? His plans definitely seem to have been put on place by the civil war, and it is relevant to the flow of the article as it detracts from efforts to nullify the border commission.
[8] Agree with this initial removal as it was an uncited section. However, it is present in Coogan's work on pgs 372-377. Given that proper citation, this section should probably be restored.
[9] I'm curious why you removed the section on plenipotentiaries?
[10] The first section's removal seems unwarranted, it is a sourced description of his behavior during the negotiations. Fully support the second removal for the same reason as above, overly hero-worship language and likely not a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to comment on the content on its merits. Just having a citation is not enough to include something:
  1. I've taken out the "brainy" sentence altogether. Regardless of whether it was him or his family, a comment by the British secret service (which secret service?) describing him/them as "brainy" is not sufficiently relevant.
  2. Again, a claim that he came from an ancient clan, whether or not Tim Pat said it, is unencyclopaedic. You won't find it in any other biography of Collins (by the way, the edit summary was "pff", not "wtf").
  3. Same again. His father's death-bed prophesies belong in hagiographies, not encyclopaedia articles.
  4. "In turn, though, the retreat of the RIC drove the British towards more radical and violent responses" does sound like editorialising to me. I'm not bothered one way or another about the paragraph generally, though. Maybe a more straightforward text could be re-added (though a citation would be good).
  5. Since you support removal, there's no need to comment.
  6. There is no 6.
  7. Yeah, "[Civil War] put Collins's plans for the north on hold; he was killed before he could pursue them any further" looks rather like a secondary school essay. Not needed.
  8. A bit problematical, because you linked to the current article, not a diff. Did you mean this? If so, I would support some well-researched discussion of Collins's involvement or not in the assassination, but not the restoration of the paragraph as it was.
  9. I would agree with adding back the "plenipotentiary" paragraph.
  10. I can't see anything about his behaviour during the negotiations in this. It's in the "Personal life" section. Did you mean to link to something else?
Hope this helps. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, and that is very clear rational, and it seems I owe you something of an apology. Sorry, you evidently know the sources are far from taking the approach from that the IP was agitating from. I was taking it from all sides this morning, though thats not good enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader)&oldid=832405862"