Talk:Harry Boland

Dates

...in June, he was assassinated at the Skerries Grand Hotel.

I have seen May, June, July, and August 1922 all given as dates for Boland's death. Can anyone point me to an authoritative source? Thanks. -- Picapica 2 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)

It can't have been May, at any rate, since Boland spoke in a debate on the last day of the 2nd Dáil on 8 June 1922! -- Picapica 11:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Not Assasinated?

Proof that it was not assasination, is provided by fact that he survived for 43hours after the incident. Where was he shot? This 43 hour thing does not prove anything only that he was not shot in a vital organ.

According to "In Great Haste: The Letters of Michael Collins and Kitty Kiernan" (Leon O Broin), he was shot in the stomach while attempting to escape the National Army. Further, according to "Michael Collins: A Biography" Page 388 (Tim Pat Coogan), he was shot deliberately - if inexpertly and in some confusion. None of the texts I have reviewed suggest he was actually "assasinated" however. The general concencus seems to be that: yes he was set upon by the FreeStaters, and yes he was killed as a result, but none confirm the actual intent was to assasinate (as opposed to say - an arrest attempt that went wrong). Are there any sources which could be referenced to confirm the "assasination" comment in the article? If not, it might be worthwhile tempering the language slightly. Guliolopez 12:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI - According to most sources, the incident in the hotel occured on the 31st of July, and he died 2 days later (2 AUG) in St Vincent's hospital. If no other sources are confirmed, will likely revisit suggested dates also.History says that Harry Boland was not assasinated that night as the Free Staters did not set out deilberatly to kill him.

It is unclear as to whether it was deliberate or not, but there was a serious time between him being shot and being brought to hospital when he was left in the freestaters' van. It's possible that this was deliberate to ensure he wouldn't survive. Donnacha (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It was during the Civil War, so technically during a war there are no assassinations but only casualties of war. Targeted perhaps, but assassinated no.Snappy (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Last Words

In 1998, Military History magazine reported in an article about the movie "Michael Collins" that Boland's last words were, as quoted in the film, "Have they got Mick Collins yet?"

That was another dramatazation by Jordan and the film is not a historically accurate one (FearSneachta 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

Skirmish

Dictionary.com: "Military . a fight between small bodies of troops, especially advanced or outlying detachments of opposing armies." Harry was in bed in his hotel room and at no point returned fire. It is totally incorrect to say it was a skirmish. There is no dispute around the fact that the troops entered his hotel room at night, the historical uncertainty is whether he was deliberately shot because of who he was or simply injured trying to escape. The further uncertainty is whether or not the delay in bringing him to hospital was deliberate. Donnacha (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Harry Boland (politician) → Harry Boland – This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Harry Boland and has been since the page was created in 2004. The length of the article compared to the other 2 already disambiguated articles shows this is primary. The article was moved without discussion Fob.schools (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support The original move went without discussion or rationale. The politician is clearly the primary topic. The Banner talk 19:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Against Harry Boland (politician) is just one of three Harry Boland's. He is no more important, notable or significant than the other two. It is standard practice where two or more articles share the same name/title for a disambiguation page to be set up. I have set up hundreds of disambiguation pages in similar situations without objections. I see no reason to have lengthy discussions and debates over relatively minor changes. Another editor, @Necrothesp:, set up the new Talk:Harry Boland, @Spleodrach: expanded the disambiguation page and other editors including @Rodw: repaired the links. The implication by Fob.schools that this move has no consensus is therefore untrue. Djln Djln (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I merely moved them to chronological order. That does not equate to any sort of endorsement. There certainly needs to be a disambiguation page as we have three people by that name, but that doesn't mean one isn't primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

<edit conflict>That other editors fix broken links and the like doesnt necessarily mean they agree with the move. Lets leave them to indicate their support or not. It is common and good practice to leave an informative edit summary on such a move. None was left. Of course the original primary topic is THE primary topic. Just look at the quality of the articles, or try a google search or a google news search, and neither of the other merit a single hit. He was a significant historical figure in Irish republican and GAA circles in the early 20th century thro to his death. Fob.schools (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully Harry Boland (politician) is little more than a footnote in Irish history. Outside of Ireland, how many people have heard of him ? Even within Ireland he is a minor figure.

And do you have evidence of that? The Banner talk 19:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Compared to Éamon de Valera and Michael Collins (Irish leader) he is a nobody as shown by article size. Incidentally Collins is disambiguated and he is far more notable than Boland. Djln Djln (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

But the point you seem to be missing is that we are not comparing to Dev or to the Big Fella. We are comparing him to his basketball playing nephew (whose notability is inherited to some extent from The original primary topic), and an Australian trade unionist. It doesnt matter whether Dev and/or Collins are disambiguated. They have no relevance to this discussion. Have you actually read WP:D and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Do you understand why there should be a primary topic? Collins is one of more than 30 similarly named articles. There are actually 2 very notable subjects - the astronaut and the Big Fella himself, who would warrant being the primary topic and because of that there isnt one. 10:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The politician appears to be the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Plus the other two are barely notable. --Red King (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Against - There is a clear need for disambiguation. The argument that the moved happened without discussion is irrelevant, as Djln was correct without the need for discussion, per WP:BOLD. The only thing to discuss is notability. Spleodrach (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion aside, the edit warranted an explanatory edit summary. On the issue of notability What Links here and access stats DO suggest a serious level of notability, including peak daily views in excess of 3kFob.schools (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Harry Boland (politician)'s notability cannot be decided by his "What links here" number. He is on a template which artificially inflates this number. He is not mentioned in the majority of the articles he is linked to. Djln Djln (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is actually on 4 templates, and yes, they affect the impact of WLH on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but not necessarily solely in the way you suggest. The fact that an article is part of 4 separate templates actually enhances the subjects claim to be the primary subject. Yes it does reduce the WLH quantities slightly. But the analysis I have done shows that the effect is not significant. The politician is still an order of magnitude ahead of the other two, and the his closest rival - the basketball player - derives much of his notability from the fact that he is the politician's nephew. Fob.schools (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom and stats linked by Fob.schools. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Observation I suspect that and Fob.schools and The Banner are the same person using two different profiles. You can read the messages left on my talk page and judge for yourself. Djln Djln (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you that desperate to have it your way that you have to resort to personal attacks? But if you like it, please file a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The Banner talk 16:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not desperate at all. I am not bothered in the slightest how this vote goes. I just think other editors should be fully aware of your behaviour. I have not made any personal attacks in this discussion. That is your area of expertise. Funny how you know exactly the procedure for reporting someone using multiple accounts. Thanks for the links. Djln Djln (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Im just astonished that someone who claims he has been here 15 years has never heard of WP:SPI.Fob.schools (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have had to deal with a sockpuppet in the past. I don't know and/or remember every single Wiki guideline like some editors who are happy to name them at the drop of a hat. I have a life. Funny how you are tag teaming me with personal attacks. That is one of the classic signs of a sockpocket . Djln Djln (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sockpocket? The term is sockPUPPET actually. You may see rebuttal and challenge as a personal attack, but its not. Suggesting an editor or 2 are sockpuppets, without any evidence, is . Fob.schools (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the spellcheck. You're clearly the expert when it comes to sockpuppets. Djln Djln (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:THREAD too! Fob.schools (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a small support for this based on age, but I can't see any strong reason re prominence otherwise. I'd leave them all disambuggered. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The politician appears to be the primary topic and his article has been in Wikipedia since 2004 without disambiguation. The move to Harry Boland (politician) by Djin on 11 November is obviously controversial and should be reversed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the primary topic. On Google Books, the results for "harry boland" "IRA" are all about this man (we'll call him "the politician"); the results for "harry boland" "basketball" are mostly about the politician; the results for "harry boland" "trade union" are mostly about the politician; the results for "harry boland" "australia" are mostly about the politician; the results for "harry boland" "shearer" are a mixed bag: I get two that are unambiguously about Harry Boland the shearer, three about Irish republicanism (therefore probably mentioning the politician) and the remainder that don't seem related to anything. In other words, there is a ton of coverage in reliable sources (books) for the politician – whatever your search term – and a trickle for the others. Also per page views: this graphic shows the difference better than the one linked to by Fob.schools, because it leaves out the spike on 25 August 2019. The politician has a range of 30–300 views, compared to 0-20 for the basketball player and 0-4 (mostly zero) for the trade unionist. Also on article size: nearly 12,000 bytes for this article vs 2,500 for each of the other two. Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I deplore the practice of labelling users as sockpuppets just because they express the same opinions. And it is beyond ridiculous to label users as sockpuppets because they are aware of sockpuppet policy! Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Free State" army reference technically incorrect

The reference to "Free State Army" and "Free State Army Officers" in the section of Boland's death is wrong. The Free State did not come into being until 6th December 1922, months after Boland's death. The correct term for the period before December 1922 is "National Army" or "Regulars".FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)