Talk:Peter Hart (historian)

Bias

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)

Wild conclusions

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)

Killing of 13 Protestants

"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)

Article is entirely unbalanced

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)

I consider the majority of your edits to be inappropriate. Please provide an in-depth rationale for any change you would like to make prior to making it, then should there be any which have any merit they can be discussed. O Fenian (talk) 16:45, 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)

So, you have no intention of discussing your proposed edits? O Fenian (talk) 22:49, 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)

The information is notable, subject specific and relevant. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:41, 26 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)

"Assertion." Please read your post again. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:58, 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)

I consider the majority of your edits to be inappropriate. Please provide an in-depth rationale for any change you would like to make prior to making it, then should there be any which have any merit they can be discussed.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:40, 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)

Coatrack

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)

Please WP:NOTABILITY. What makes this author notable? Controversy! Interviewing dead people is a rare talent among historians. So the author uses controversy to generate publicity, and you suggest we should not mention it in the article? Take away the controversy and what are you left with? You suggest that “It's an attempt to settle factual debates which Hart has written about...” which is not true at all. This information does not attempt to settle anything, it simply presents the information. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This sort of hyperbole helps no-one: "you suggest we should not mention it in the article?" - I did no such thing. However the "Controversy" is quite obviously an attempt to argue about particular highly specific and disputed historical events, in an amount of detail which may be appropriate in articles on those topics but not here. Also, WP:Notability starts with "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article.". The most relevant policy in this context is WP:NPOV and WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Rd232 ^talk 15:18, 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)

Erm, please listen to what I say. Notability is relevant for whether Peter Hart merits an article. It has nothing to say about the content of that article, which should be a balanced biography, not a critique of (a very small part of?) his work. The first two sections are not too bad, but the third needs radical revision. And it all could with better sourcing and trimming, and placing in a broader context of Hart's work. Rd232 ^talk 16:17, 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)

OK, if you want to address these issues, you can start by (a) trimming each issue to one paragraph and (b) restructuring the article so that it's structured around his major works, not around the controversies (eg, book by book, not problem by problem). Also, more sources on these things being "controversial" would be good (media coverage, academic debate), rather than just "he said something" + "others criticised him". Rd232 ^talk 19:22, 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)

As I said, I really don't want to get involved with the detail. I've given the general comments which would apply to any bio in this situation, and posted at WP:BLPN, and I'll leave it at that, citing WP:Deadline. I'll note again that it should be possible to (a) handle these issues with greater brevity and equal clarity, and with a better structure, around the books in which these issues occur (b) transfer some details to the relevant topic articles, rather than this bio. And I'll reiterate that a letter to a newspaper, even by an academic, is not a good source, and should not be reproduced in detail even if it's cited. PS One of the links you added, [1], would be a good start for summarising The Controversy qua public controversy, as opposed to qua academic debate. Somebody should put some of that in the article. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)