Talk:Kevin Barry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


No source is cited here for the lyrics, but it appears to be the version I've known it for (scary thought) something now approaching half a century. But isn't it missing the chorus? At least that's how I've always known it:

Shoot me like an Irish soldier,
Do not hang me like a dog;
For I fought for Ireland's freedom
On that dark September morn,
All around that little bakery,
Where we fought them hand to hand.
Shoot me like an Irish soldier
For I fought to free Ireland.

- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lacking response, I'll add it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Shall my soul pass through Old Ireland" was written for Terence McSwiney Lord Mayor of Cork,who died on hunger strike in Brixton prison in October 1920 not Barry, although both songs were written to the same tune. 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The song was in Angela’s Ashes, wasn't it? Maybe worth mentioning, but possibly a bit too trivial. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


It is accepted by all modern sources that Washington was fifteen. All sources that have been updated state he was fifteen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have referenced all the text added. Prior to this there was no referencing at all. I will reference the ages of the soldiers later, or if other editors wish to do so thats fine. --Domer48 08:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a number of references which have the soldiers ages ranging from 19-23. I also have one for 15. There is a lot more to be said in relation to this, so I'm not sure how to proceed? I have put some information onto this section, and removed the age for the time being until others have had a chance to discuss this. The importance of Basil Clarke should not be under estimated. I would quote the following paragraph: In the Irish Times (29 January 1992)there was an apology by Kevin Myers "for stating that Terence MacSwiney had planned to kill the Bishop of Cork. When Myers became aware that this allegation had been fabricated by Clarke, he apologised for not detecting “the insidious concoctions of the black propagandist…" Clearly the work of Basil Clarke in the years 1920-192 1 had the capacity not only to influence the events of that time but also to shape the historical narrative in our time." Clearly it is not a cut and dry issue, and I would welcome some feedback. --Domer48 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one of the soldiers was so young has been hidden for years by irish people from the government to republicians. I —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Source: The anglo irish war, the troubles of 1913-1922 osprey publications. written by peter cottrell, edited by Proff. Robert O Neill. I suppose it wont be go enough for you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains no matter what age the british soldier was is that he joined the army and took up arms and went to another country as an occupying force and was killed on active service. It remained hidden because the British army have a history of ignoring the victims of the conflicts they are involved in just look at the Falklands veterans. -- 11:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "fact" that the soldier (not soldiers) was so young. If it was a "fact" I would have no problem putting it in. Why did the army (British) say he was 19? Where they covering up his age? Provide the evidence you have, in the form of referenced sources. --Domer48 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have referenced all sections now. It is my intension to go through it all again using the only full-length biography of Kevin Barry written by Donal O'Donovan titled Kevin Barry and his Time. This will also mean adding additional information. All the newspapers used are available from both the National Libary of Ireland, and the Gilbert Libary Pearse Street, Dublin. --Domer48 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply ip anon that the irish people and government conspired to hide the age of a SERVING brit soldier so as to make Kevin Barry look like a hero because I dont understand the point you are trying to make. Also could you please sign your comments. BigDunc 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

are you going to leave in the fact that one of the soldiers was fifteen. A professor of history from oxford says its true. If not you are just cowards which of course make you true republicans. From Dunmanway to Kingsmill the truth will out. The harder you try to bury the truth the more certain it will out.--unsigned comment by

I would say that if its true would say more about the civilised society that Britian was at that time that they put a 15 child in uniform in a war zone. Also in war it is not customary to ask the ages of your opponents in a gun battle, if he was in uniform and armed then he was a legitimate target.--Padraig 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But that doesnt change the fact he was fifteen. So now its proved why cant you lot let it stand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you finished your rant now please remember not to attack other editors like this they only show the rest of the editors on this that you are incapable of WP:NPOV. BigDunc 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you write an article about the British Army using child soldiers instead of attacking other editors. BigDunc 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) why dont you write about the children killed in the 1916 rising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) you have been warned already about personal attacks you will not be warned again! I have outlined the issue, and have asked for opinions on it. I do not want to see personal attacks again!--Domer48 08:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
By the British or the Irish which would you prefer Loads of refs regarding the British using child soldiers in Army and also the use of children in the Fine British navy. BigDunc (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You could mention the child cillivians killed by pedo Pearce and his gang. You could also mention the use of child solidures by the republican movement through out the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


The main problem is the lead paragraph.

  • His execution was to further outrage public opinion in Ireland and throughout the world. His courage in refusing to inform on his comrades while under torture earned him a place in the nationalist pantheon, [3] [2] and was to become one of the most celebrated of Republican martyrs.

But I think the article in general is overly adulatory, which is why the NPOV tag is there. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is referenced. If you like I can put some of the lead in direct quotes. --Domer48 11:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Barry given a state funeral, in 2001, would you consider that overly adulatory? So if you could expand on the article in general is overly adulatory, I'll try address your concerns? --Domer48 12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise these were direct quotes until you added the speech marks today, which obviously changes things. The two quotes should also be attributed, ie "x stated that this 'earned him a place in the nationalist pantheon'". This is important as the reader should know who made the statement, and lets them determine the source's bias, if any. Of course being given a state funeral isn't overly adulatory, that's not what I'm talking about. A lot of the article seems to be about what a nice guy he was. It's fine to state this, but when it takes up so much of the content it kinda gives undue weight to it. Particularly in the execution section. Do the sources state anything else about the British reaction? The end of the amush section gives some balance when it talks about the soldiers' ages, but I think it could do with some more. Basically, from my reading the article is written from almost an entirely Republican perspective at the minute. And I stress from my reading, as I'm known to be completely wrong at least once a day :) Stu ’Bout ye! 13:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, the article mentions "the English" and "the British". This should be English/British authorities/army/government etc, rather than just British. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I can take your points one at a time. Re the quotation marks in the lead, as you will notice, the entire article is referenced. As to Barry being a nice lad, well from what I’ve read he was! I will try to get some newspaper articles which describe him as part of a “murder gang,” as Childers mentions in his article. As to being written from a Republican perspective, all I can think to say is, could you suggest some alternative perspectives? The alternation between English / British is again down to source. I would only add that the use of “English” were direct quotes. --Domer48 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Those two selected quotes should be removed from the opening and put towards the end. They present the article in a POV manner, even if they are referenced opinions of a person (though I notice it doesn't say who in the article). I notice it doesn't say "Barry's was executed for being a 'traitorous murderer' [1] who 'killed noble British soldiers in an act of terrorism' [2]." Put the commentary in a separate section, don't cherry pick quotes to set up the article as a piece to praise Barry. R. fiend (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article as a whole, it's become a wordy mess. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a full biography. The reliance on block quotes reminds me of the bad writing at Conservapedia. Much of the overly detailed background information has nothing to do with his execution, which is the sole reason for his notability. We might as well tell what his favorite food was. The whole thing could use a good overhaul. R. fiend (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"his execution, which is the sole reason for his notability," read the article, there is a bit more to his notability than that. "don't cherry pick quotes to set up the article as a piece to praise," comment on the edits not the editor. If you want to add the 'traitorous murderer' and the who 'killed noble British soldiers in an act of terrorism' go ahead, just reference it. --Domer48 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all yor points Fiend. Domer, he is commenting on the article, not you. As for your perspective question above, it should be written from a neutral one, rather than a republican one.
The quotes in the lead should be moved to a reaction section. The several quotations should either be shortened or moved to Wikiquote, as per WP:QUOTE. Stu ’Bout ye! 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "don't cherry pick quotes to set up the article as a piece to praise Barry." Is a comment on the editor, not the article.
  • As for "your perspective" question above"it should be written from a neutral one, rather than a republican one." Now are we saying the sources are Republican or the editor? --Domer48 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead is a snap shot of the article, so it contains general statements. I have hidden the references, as opposed to removing them. If they are removed, you will have a editor come along and request references. I have included authors name in the second paragraph, as suggested. As to "perspective" please suggest authors to me, or include them your self. The quotes contain valuble information on the subject, and gives context to subject. I will put them on Wikiquote also though. If you would like to edit down the quotes, in such a way, which dose not remove the context, please do so on the discussion page. We can then review it together possibly? --Domer48 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the link suggested here "The quotes in the lead should be moved to a reaction section. The several quotations should either be shortened or moved to Wikiquote, as per WP:QUOTE. Stubacca," and I got this?

X mark.svg Not done

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves. However, there are certain guidelines an editor should remember about quotations within Wikipedia.

I think the quotes fit the bill, but it would be a hard one to discuss if it has been rejected? --Domer48 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


The execution of Kevin Barry was covered by a number of foreign papers, which all called for clemency. The effect was also amplified in America. This is important information and should be included. Not informing while under torture shows at the very least that he displayed courage. Taking this into consideration I have included some of this information, and incorporated the recent changes. --Domer48 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

R. fiend talk please read the discussion before you rush in to remove what you consider to be POV. Now if you want me to place the word courage in comma's just say so. Edit summaries like this are not acceptable, and will not be encouraged, please assume good faith and use the discussion page. --Domer48 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Golway said his execution angered people is irrelevant. I don't think that anyone denies Barry's execution angered many. If it didn't we wouldn't have an article on him; he'd be just another casualty of the War for Independence. The reference link is all that is needed. Praising someone for their courage is POV. Just state the facts: he didn't rat out his friends, and for that many consider him heroic. R. fiend (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, lose the attitude, is dose not wash with editors anymore! I strongly suggest you read up on talk page guidlines, and assume good faith. This article is now referenced, and as such are both Verifiable and reliably sourced . If you wish to challange this information, please provide alternative sources. --Domer48 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a POV template. Until the issues Fiend and myself have raised are addressed, it has to stay. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, outline your issues first, then add the template. To date, I have reponded to your concerns! If the article was not referenced, you would have a point, but not with it compleatly referenced. --Domer48 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have. As has Fiend. They have not been addressed Domer. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the opening again, and I really don't see what's wrong with it now. It's factual and neutral, and doesn't present the opinions of a particular author as facts. The rest of the article is still a bit of a mess. The over reliance on blockquotes is poor style, but at least not too POV. I also think it's overly image-heavy (why is there a picture of the college he went to? Isn't that stretching it a bit) but that is a more minor, stylistic issue. If anyone wants to change the opening discuss it here first. Here is my rational for the changes I made:

  1. Mentioning an obscure author by name to give his opinion on an established fact is poor style. It is unnecessary.
  2. Praising someone's courage is POV. The fact is he did not inform, and has been praised for that. It is not our job to celebrate bravery.
  3. Calling him one of Ireland's most celebrated martyrs seems a bit of a stretch. I guess there a cite for it, but as I don't have the book it's from, I can't check it, and I imagine it's just what some author said. Is he really up there with Connolly, Pearse, and the other 1916 martyrs? Collins, MacSweeny, Sands? That he has a popular song written about him seems to me the main reason he's more well-known than some like like Francis Sheehy-Skeefington (no, I can't back that up, but it's not going into the article either). Calling him "a celebrated martyr" gets the point across without having to try to give him some sort of ranking in the martyr hierarchy.

I'll look in to the ret of the article later. -R. fiend (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I don't think anyone denies that Barry's execution angered many in Ireland (certainly the Republicans used it for their purposes), but I'd like a cite for the rest of the world caring. Was it really noticed anywhere except maybe among the Irish population of America? I'd like something better than "Terry Golway says". -R. fiend (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Terry Golway is the city editor and columnist at The New York Observer, He also contributes to the Irish Echo, America, American Heritage, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and a number of other publications. He is also the author of Rebel: John Devoy and co-author of The Irish in America, a companion book to the award winning PBS documentary series. In addition to that, he has appeared on RTE a number of time on the (Irish State Broadcaster) Hidden History series. So "Mentioning an obscure author by name to give his opinion on an established fact is poor style." I think I have addressed that one, don't you?

R. fiend (talk) Yourself and Stu ’Bout ye! seem to be arguing about two separate thing, and you should discuss it together. One wants the author mentioned, the other thinks it’s irrelevant. One wants statements in quotation marks the other says they don’t care what the author has to says and considers the author irrelevant.

Now as to your last comments, both of you can get Verifiable and reliably sourced information if you wish to challange this information. In short please provide alternative sources. --Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Read what Stu wrote again. No one ever said you needed to mention an author addressing the point of outrage over Barry's execution. Should we have "according to Terry Golway" at the beginning of every paragraph? That would make for some good writing. It was the POV quote "earned him a place in the nationalist pantheon", now removed, that should have had some sort of reference to who said it. As it's no longer there, it's irrelevant. I don't know why you thought making the footnotes disappear was supposed to help. Also, putting words in quotation marks does not neutralize POV. Putting the word "courage" in quotes makes it look like it's being mocked. What the entire article needs is less quotes. The opening section, as I have adjusted it, works better. This is not a Terry Golway essay, it's a Wikipedia article. We don't present his opinion as fact merely because he's written on the subject. R. fiend (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is finished! Your conduct will be reported. --Domer48 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. Glad this needless discussion is over. I accept your surrender. -R. fiend (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

“pantheon of Irish nationalism” is used in this context “pantheon of Irish nationalism”. --Domer48 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "As a result of his death by hanging, Barry’s status as a historical figure was immediate," supposed to mean something? I insert "Celebrated" for the time being, but you will have to explaine why you are removing referenced information, and removing “pantheon of Irish nationalism” which in this context is correctly being used. --Domer48 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"Celebrated" is fine. I'm not married to any particular phrasing, but the article does not need tons of selected quotes from other authors littered throughout each paragraph, and metaphors and other colorful language should be avoided in an encyclopedia article as much as possible. Excessive quotes "disrupt the writing" and tend to "appear less than professional", turning paragraphs into "a scrapbook of others musings" rather than "an originally composed work" for an "open-content encyclopedia". -R. fiend (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You still have to explaine why you are removing referenced information, and removing “pantheon of Irish nationalism” which in this context is correctly being used, and as illustrated above, used by a number of writers in the context outlined. Policy based reasons, as comment and opinion do not conform to any policy on the article page. --Domer48 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not "removing" information, it's rephrasing it, which is what one does when writing original material derived from other sources. It's turning overly colorful language into a factual statement. Yes, more than one person has used the metaphor of "pantheon" to describe Irish martyrdom (in addition to your several google books hits, I get 7 regular google hits for that term, at least one of which is derived from this very article). That doesn't matter, the issue remains that too much of this article is snippets of quotes from other writers, strung together to form the semblance of an article. I'd like this article to get to the point where we can remove the ugly template, and trimming the intro of quotes is a large part of that. There is still more to be done. -R. fiend (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Referenced information[edit]

Editors should not change referenced information to suite their opinions, and edit warring to push a POV is also counter productive. --Domer48 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


I was copyediting the article and I wondered if the inclusion of the entire lyric of the song is really helping the article? If not I suggest removing it. --John (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

nah!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be better as a link to Wikisource with the lyrics. Also, can it be demonstrated that those lyrics are in the public domain?--Isotope23 talk 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I too thought of that. As it seems inappropriately long for a Wikipedia article and there are copyright concerns, I'll remove it unless there are any compelling reasons to keep it. --John (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd keep a few lines. Ones that sum it up well. That's allowed regardless of the copyright issue, and it won't make the article any longer than need be. -R. fiend (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering the age of the song from around 1921/22 I doubt any copyright still exists on it, the song is readly available from a number websites so I don't think that is a issue. If it could be moved to Wikisource it could then be linked to.--Padraig (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know Irish copyright law, but I'd suspect you are probably correct... and it isn't likely someone who wrote folk lyrics 90ish years ago is going to be hitting the foundation with a lawsuit. I wouldn't take the fact that it is reprinted as evidence though; I could point out songs written > 1 year ago that are clearly still copywritten but have full lyric text printed on the internets without any clear permission...--Isotope23 talk 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe keep the first stanza and source it out to a site with the full list of lyrics, or add it to Wikisource and link it from the article.--Isotope23 talk 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. In the meantime I have trimmed it to the last verse and removed two of the images; four grave/monument/plaque photos seemed excessive. --John (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Johndp121 contrabutions[edit]

Hi User:Johndp121, would it be possible to expand on the John Ainsworth claimes, possibly including the sources he used. I feel the article could really benefit from them. I would really like to expand on the claim of the flat-nosed ammunition, as this would seriously have damaged his case, and how such a story came about. There are a couple of things that do not make sence though, "disguised as a civilian" the English did not recognise a war existed and treated all killings by the IRA as murder, (referenced in the text) weather he was in uniform or not? They suggest he was part of a "murder gang," if that were the case what the Hague Convention thought would have made no difference? I look forward to having a look at the sources, well done. --Domer48 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If the source he used cannot be found/sourced to support the claims, the claim should be removed from the article.--Padraig (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we could start with the publishers name, ISBN number, for the John Ainsworth book? To be honest, I've never heard of it. --Domer48 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, he only made two edits to this article and no others, onless someone can source this then the claims should be removed.--Padraig (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
While I have no strong opinion on this matter, I don't think the contribution history of the editor is terribly important, nor did he make the source up [1]. -R. fiend (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest he made the source up, but the link only provides a abstact of the article, so unless one is a subscriber to this particular journal it is impossible to see what sources the author used to support the claim made in the abstract about flathead bullets being in Barrys aledged gun, I also fail to see the point made about him not wearing a uniform at the time, the IRA didn't wear uniforms at that time as they where engaged in guerilla warfare.--Padraig (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is always a problem, as there are countless times when an editor cites a source which can't be easily verified by another casual reader. How many times does someone cite a book, which, unless you happen to have the same book on your shelf, is not easily checked. As for the uniform question, well, that is hardly unique to this situation. The British could, and did, use such distinctions to treat prisoners as murderers rather than as enemy soldiers, so it is fair to mention that this is what they did. It happens today, as we have all clearly seen.
About ammunition: I think I recall there being some question about the legality of the ammunition unloaded at Howth in 1914. They had to use whatever they could get, and could hardly afford to pay much heed to whether they had dum dum bullets or not. I'm not here to condemn nor condone anything, and when discussing any sort of insurrection, it makes little sense to dwell on the "legality" of the situation, though it may well be worth a mention. -R. fiend (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There were allegations made by British Observers during the Easter Rising of the use of Dumdum or exploding cartridges, this this came about due to the use of some early Mauser rifles (M1871) which were a single shot weapon firing a 11mm round propelled by a slow-burning blackpowder which was very loud on discharge. See: Easter Rising 1916, p23, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 978-1-84603-067-3.--Padraig (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, but that's not what I was thinking of. It's been many years, but I believe I recall reading Pearse's letters and him mentioning to whomever he was writing that the ammunition brought by the Asgard was banned by international law, it being exploding or expanding or something. If I remember correctly, he was actually mistaken (he never had any formal military training); the bullets were antiquated (from the Franco-Prussian War perhaps?), but not technically banned. I'm not entirely sure why I'm even bothering to mention this, as it's a bit off topic. I guess it's just interesting, and demonstrates how there is a certain level of uncertainty about many such details, even among those who were principally involved. -R. fiend (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually the book I mentioned above does say that Pearse objected to the use of the ammunition by the volunteers, as being both antiquated and contrary to the Hague Conventions.--Padraig (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so my memory isn't so bad after all. Does your book mention if the ammo actually was contrary to the Hague convention, or if Pearse was just under the impression it was? -R. fiend (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It dosen't say if it was or not, just that Pearse objected to it for those reasons.--Padraig (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of it in Mauser Model 1871 either.--Padraig (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't be; the issue is the ammunition, not the rifles. Anyway, if Pearse voiced objection to the ammunition in 1914, but no one made a fuss when it was actually used 2 years later, we can probably assume it was a misunderstanding on Pearse's part. -R. fiend (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
So the John Ainsworth Book, is actually an article. Now to details:
"in circumstances where both ballistic evidence and eye–witness testimony proved his culpability beyond any doubt. While these were factors that could and should have been used to challenge Sinn Fein’s propaganda initiatives, the British failed to mount any semblance of a counter–propaganda campaign. The reasons for and the consequences of this mute response on the British side are issues explored in considering how Kevin Barry became and still remains a figure of legend among Irish nationalists." John Ainsworth
I would like to address this with referenced information from a number of books. I can illustrate that it is bull, using witness statements (British Army), ballistic evidence, and show he was not found guilty beyond any doubt. That he was in fact, found guilty from the momment of his arrest, before any trial and that the British launched a major counter–propaganda campaign to support this effort. I understand by doing this, the cry of POV will ring in my ears, probably start an edit war and the usual circus. So the question is, will editors support my efforts to address these points, as being in the intrest of balance, and not some sort of POV effort. --Domer48 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have sources that support that then they should be included.--Padraig (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be slightly hesitant to have this article become an overly detailed essay that attempts to put anyone on trial, or exonerate anyone. What exactly is "bull"? There's no doubt he was "guilty" in that he took part in a raid that resulted in the deaths of British officers; the article states that in no uncertain terms. He wasn't wearing a uniform, so if the British wanted to treat it as any common murder they could, and did. Sinn Fein used his execution for propaganda. Nothing wrong with this; they'd be foolish not to. The main matter of contention seems to be whether he used flat-nosed bullets. I don't think too big point should be made about this either way. The killing of a soldier was the issue, not what type of bullet was used.
The main thing I would be opposed to is inserting more quotes into the article. It's mostly quotes as is, which isn't the best writing style. -R. fiend (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What I’m saying is, the information I add will make the information that was recently added redundant. It will show clearly that the trial was a joke from the start, a show trial. That the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other. The coroner contradicted himself, the ballistics experts contradicted each other, and they were the military witnesses. Barry did not defend himself, as he refused to recognise the legitimacy of the court. He was tried as a civilian, charged as a civilian, and yet the Judge described him as a solider. Finally in the summing up, the Judge states that weather or not he actually killed any of the soldiers, the fact that he was there, was enough to find him guilty. Now, do you want the details or not in the article. It is going to show the British Army in a very bad light, of that there is no doubt, but will it be considered POV, or are we just going with what the references say. Thing is, I can provide the sources for this, can the same be said of the one I will be contradicting? The bullets that killed the soliders were not flat-nosed bullets. That is the evidence given by the British Army officers. --Domer48 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd step lightly. One of my biggest criticisms of Wikipedia is that too often it tries to bite off more than it can chew, trying to become the first and last word on a subject, which it was not meant to do. This is an encyclopedia, not a treatise, book, or argument. I'd be wary of making an argument one way or another. I don't think there can be any doubt that Barry was guilty, whether or not he personally shot anyone. It's like the old story that if you arrive at a bank with bankrobbers, stand there while they rob the bank, and leave with them, you're guilty of robbing the bank, whether you drew a gun and demanded cash or not. Same thing here. He was an active participant in a raid which killed British soldiers, and regardless of whether a bullet from his gun actually caused anyone's death, he takes some of the blame, and he knew that from the start. If it could be proved beyond doubt that he never fired his weapon, it could be a mitigating circumstance, but it would not exonerate him. (It would be a much different thing if he had been a bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, picked up the the British when they couldn't get their hands on the actual perpetrators, but no one is arguing this is the case, are they?) And if Barry refused to defend himself, well, that's really his problem. He knew such a tactic could hardly help his case; it was his choice. People could argue all day about whether it was a sound policy on the Brits to treat such actions as murders rather than as combat deaths, but it doesn't matter, they did what they did. Was hanging him heavy-handed? Maybe. But it is not the place for the Kevin Barry Wikipedia article to condemn the practices of the British Military.
I'd also be hesitant to use references as a way to try to circumvent POV. Just because something is referenced, that does not mean that it is NPOV, or even true. Hell, I could point out a reference stating that Pearse was never a member of the IRB. It's still completely false. In any case, an encyclopedia should attempt to be clear and concise, as well as fair. Going into specifics of words used by the judge at trial, what bullets he may or may not have used, or whether it can be conclusively established that a bullet fired by him caused anyone's death, can overshadow the relevance of the subject at hand. Just cover the facts fairly and accurately. If debate over the type of ammunition is going to overwhelm the article, just leave it out. In the grand scheme of things it really isn't important. -R. fiend (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the John Ainsworth reference stay?--Domer48 (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take:
  • At this time a propaganda campaign was mounted by Sinn Fein. Barry received orders on 28 October from his brigade commander, Richard McKee, "to make a sworn affidavit concerning his torture in the North Dublin Union." Arrangements were made to deliver this through Barry's sister, Kathy, to Desmond Fitzgerald, director of propoganda for Sinn Fein, "with the object of having it published in the World press, and particularly in the English papers, on Saturday 30th October. This seems legit. If someone has evidence that this is not true it should be presented on the talk page and worked out here. It does not seem to state or imply that Barry was to invent torture that did not occur, only that what he had undergone should be publicized with a first-hand account.
  • On 28 October, the Irish Bulletin, a news-sheet produced by Dail Eireann's Department of Publicity... I know nothing of the Irish Bulletin, but assuming it was produced by Dail Eireann, it is fair to acknowledge that, for full disclosure.
  • John Ainsworth has pointed out though that Barry had been captured by the British not as a uniformed soldier but disguised as a civilian and in possession of flat-nosed ammunition. The first part warrants inclusion. It is important in understanding the response of the British to point out that the lack of a uniform allowed them to refuse to treat combatants as POWs, but rather as murderers, if they chose. It could be balanced by acknowledging that guerilla soldiers, as a rule, did not wear uniforms, so this is hardly out of the ordinary. Nevertheless, guerilla fighters are usually not treated the way uniformed soldiers are, so the response is not surprising.
The second part is getting tricky, as it appears to be a contentious point. I think the further notes on dum dum bullets is getting significantly out of the scope of the article. The inventors (Captain 'Bertie' Clay of the Royal Artillery) discovered that by drilling a hole in the bullet, that it would expand on impact, maximising the amount of damage to the "unfortunate individual" who was targeted. A recent adaptation is the hollow-point bullet, which has a pit in the nose of the bullet maximising damage on impact, this has nothing to do with Barry, and is an unnecessary tangent. The next sentence is a little more relevant: Under international law, dum-dum bullets are banned from military use but are used by police forces around the world, because they suggest they decrease the chances of causing collateral damage to innocent passers-by. This at least suggests justification for the use of these bullets, but still seems a bit irrelevant. If he did use the bullets, it is hardly the role of Wikipedia to defend his use of them as a way to decrease the risk to passers-by, unless it can be substantiated that the IRA used them specifically for this purpose. Maybe they were used because thats all they could get their hands on. Maybe they weren't used at all. We seem to b getting way too bogged down in unnecessary details here. It's probably best not to get into the bullets at all; the issue is the soldiers' deaths, not the shape of the bullet that killed them. -R. fiend (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All of which is contradicted by the Irish Government:

The December 1918 General Election was to constitute an act of National self-determination by the people of Ireland. It opened the way for the establishment of Dáil Éireann and the restoration of Irish Sovereignty. There the 1916 Proclamation of the Republic was formally ratified and the declaration of Irish Independence solemnly proclaimed in January 1919.

With that declaration, the dream which through the long night of persecution has sustained the Gael; The certainty which made firm countless steps as they mounted the scaffold; the hope which for a century had made victory of each defeat-all had, in spirit, been realised. Ireland had declared herself free.

The democratic will and consent ignored; a small nation repudiated; the War of Independence ensued. Many died for the new Republic. Ten Volunteers were hanged in Mountjoy Jail. Their bodies, denied to their families for burial, and taken now from prison clay to rest in dignity and honour. Ballylaunders guards the grave of one, while nine sleep here in ground forever hallowed to Irish men and women everywhere.

So who is right, the British Army and Government, or, the Irish Government? --Domer48 (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting quote (who said it?), but nothing to do with Barry. You base your stance on the Brits having no authority in Ireland after the 1918 election. Obviously, that was highly disputed; nations are not created quite so easily. It is also not especially relevant to the topic at hand. What exactly is in dispute?
That he took part in the raid? No.
That he killed anyone? Hardly matters; he was involved and people were killed. No government would exonerate him in those circumstances.
That the Brits had the authority to prosecute him? Some would say no, but the Brits would certainly dispute that. Many governments hold power in much more illegitimate ways, but they still hold the practical power, and exercise it legally.
That he used flat-nosed bullets? You appear to be taking what I call the Mumia Abu Jamal defense there (based on supporters of Mumia I have encountered who simultaneously argue that he did not kill anyone, but was justified in doing so), denying his use of the bullets but editing to article argue for their justification. Which is it? As I said, the matter of the bullets is a minor point.
The details of Sinn Fein's use of Barry's death for propaganda purposes? (Bear in mind that while "propaganda" has some negative connotations, it is an apt description here, and should not be taken as an attack.) If it's untrue, refute it.
That the Irish Bulletin was published by Dail Eireann? Again, if untrue, refute it. It should be a pretty straightforward fact.
The important thing is to stay on topic. Too many digressions will harm the article. -R. fiend (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, since these claims were introduced, I will confine myself to simply reponding to them. The information I add will make the information that was recently added redundant, but since your happy with it, we should let it stay. I will put together the information, and let the POV pushers say what they will. --Domer48 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some things to keep in mind:
  1. The article is already overly bogged down with quotes and somewhat irrelevant information on his early life. Changes should be away from that direction.
  2. POV is POV, whether it's your POV or someone else's. The article should stick to the undisputed facts as much as possible. Sources can be POV too.
  3. Redundancies are not good, and should not be introduced.
  4. Remember anything you add can be edited by anyone else.
-R. fiend (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't add POV. I add referenced information. I stick to the undisputed facts, always. Sources can be POV too. I agree. Anything you add can be edited, ye that wiki. --Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Any particular reason a bunch of citations are commented out in the lead? At the very least, it would help if the HTML comments there gave some indication what's going on. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read these parts of the discussion, NPOV and Intro, should give you an idea. Should it be disputed again, I will add them back. --Domer48 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
References are not for the benefit of doubters who nose through the page source. Either a ref is a reliable and pertinent source and belongs in the article, or it isn't and doesn't. I'm un-commenting these. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason there is so many direct quotes is because if you you try to include the content contained in the quote and put it in your own words, it will be challanged. You will be asked for more references, the content will be removed, reverted, the whole nine yards. Well that has been my experiance? --Domer48 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Controversial subjects attract a lot of scrutiny. That's just something inherent to Wikipedia. If the quotes can be traced to accurate sources, then they can be put in citation tags themselves. Have a look at {{cite book}} for the parameters it accepts. If the article is to improve it must attempt to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style as closely as it can, and excessive use of direct quotation in place of well-referenced prose is a red flag. This article (in its current form) is still very young, and has lots of room to grow and obtain Good Article status in future. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That’s the thing though, I don’t see this as a controversial article. It’s the editors who create that. For example, I have three different accounts given in sworn affidavits by the prosecution which contradict the evidence on the bullets. The Government employed over seventy people in the case. The book of evidence was withheld from the defence until the last moment, and given to the prosecution within days. The same person with responsibility for the book of evidence, was also the person in possession of the ammunition, which is discussed above. Now, thing is, if I start to add this information despite the verifiability and reliability of the sources, there will be POV tags, NPOV tags, sources will be challenged. Basically I’d be tied down on the article and would get little or no editing done, and on top of that I’d have OWN thrown in to boot. If you would like to have a go at summarising the quotes, and the sentiments expressed in them your more than welcome to have a go. Give me a shout if you’d like a hand.--Domer48 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have said "controversial" so much as "that bring up strong feelings in people". I've got the page watchlisted; I can't promise anything, but I'll try to help with the copyediting. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's dead sound Chris, nice one. If editors leave their feelings at the door, and just stick to what is verifiable and reliably sourced we could really push for GA at the very least? --Domer48 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight trim[edit]

Interesting article. While having a song written about you is probably noteworthy, extensive quotes of song lyrics are inherently unencyclopedic. --John (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


I think the section on his writings should go, as they're basically filler. He's not a writer in any meaningful sense, and I see no reason to include bits from his homework assignments in an encyclopedia. I've seen no similar examples from other articles. As many have pointed out, and as the banner template indicates, this article is very quote heavy. Getting rid of these ones will be a help. R. fiend (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean no one objects? If that's he case, I'll go ahead and remove the section. R. fiend (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I support the removal of this material. Unless he was notable as a writer we do not need more than a brief mention of his writing, if that. --John (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

.38 Mauser Parabellum[edit]

The article states that Kevin was armed with a .38 Mauser Parabellum, but to the best of my knowledge, no such weapon exists. It is however possible that the author is refering to the "incorrectly named" Luger P08. In light of this, and without an informed source, it may be better to refer to it as a semi-automatic pistol. Cheers, 'Arry Boy (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about weapons, but here is a link which might help, [2]. It appears that there is a weapon called a Mauser Parabellum. I simply quoted from the source. If you know about weapons, maybe we could work out which one it is? --Domer48 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Domer48. Yes, they are Parabellum-Pistoles Luger P08. The I.R.A. would also have had Webley Revolver's, swiped from the Tans & the R.I.C! They also had Mauser C96's, but they are big hand guns and not easy to conceal like the P08. Hope this helps. All the best, 'Arry Boy (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Chestnut[edit]

Pte Harold Washington was fifteen. This is accepted by all sources nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No its not! Besides its not relevant, its not Barry’s fault if the British used child soldiers. We also have a source which documents the correspondence between the propagandists in the military trying to exploit their ages to counter the propaganda from Republicans. --Domer48'fenian' 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems a discussion on this would be preferable to the current edit war. We have a source that states the soldier was fifteen. Is there a reliable source stating this is not true? If not, then that much seems settled. The question then remains, is it worth mentioning? I would certainly object to it being given undue weight, but a mere 7 words would hardly qualify as that. Is it relevant at all? Given the attention Barry's age received, pointing out that there were young people killed on both sides doesn't seem terribly out of place. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the ages of all of the victims of Bloody Sunday are provided in that article. I would at least like to see some discussion rather than this "It's relevant!!!" "No it isn't!!!!!" we're seeing now. -R. fiend (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is dealth with in the article. Did the army recrute 15 year olds? Show me a source which says he was 15 according to the army and the press, and then it might be worth discussing. --Domer48'fenian' 08:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. We have a secondary source using primary sources to illustrate how British military intelligence attempted to use a soldier’s age to undermine the propaganda being used by Republicans in the case of Barry’s age.
  2. In the written correspondence of the military propagandists it clearly indicates their intension to use the soldiers fictional age, in this endeavour.
  3. In the absence of primary or secondary sources to support the inclusion of British military propaganda, or to present it as fact devoid of context is in my opinion POV. --Domer48'fenian' 11:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The following sources state that Pte. Harold Washington was fifteen.
  • ^ Peter Cottrell (2006). The anglo irish war, the troubles of 1913-1922. Oxford: osprey publications. ISBN:1846030234.

unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically all update respected sources state he was fifteen. The statement "its not Barry’s fault if the British used child soldiers" is irrelevant. Pte Washington age should be stated as fifteen as all updated sources state he was fifteen. It is a simple fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we're halfway there. There are other sources saying he was 15 (well, the BBC article says somebody who was killed was 15). How is this significant to the article? What about Domer48's concerns about propaganda? Why are we better served by the sentence alone instead of a paragraph with context about British military intelligence's use of age? —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So stating somebody's age that has been killed is propaganda? The fact is that all modern sources agree on this. He was fifteen. How come there are no sources saying that this update of the facts is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Procedural note: just BOLDly proposed a new version stating that it was widely known Washington lied about his age and that the army "turned a blind eye" to the practice in the wake of WW I. I struck this at first because the new interpretation had not been discussed here and because "widely known" implied multiple/most sources agreeing on it. On a read of the sources, I found the text was copyvio from the page listed above. —C.Fred (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
Just also like to point out that is not a WP:RS. BigDuncTalk 12:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to concede defeat my defeat in trying to state Pte Washington was fifteen. It is impossible for one person to publish referenced information on wikipedia when others gang up to stop it. I have decide to stop editing and will simply say a pray for the poor chap. Well Done lads. Keep up the good work of "republicans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So we have reliable sources stating Washington, or at east one of those killed in the raid, was 15 (and I'm going to call the BBC, at least, a reliable source). No one has provided sources disputing this. Until they do, his age seems to be determined. Now, is it relevant? Why wouldn't it be? Ages are given for all those killed Bloody Sunday, all the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer, as well as numerous other victims of violence. Whenever a party is a minor, it is inevitably mentioned. Why not here, particularly since Barry's age is a significant part of his status today? Its removal strikes me as censorship, to be honest. Though I do concede that such information would be best covered in the section on the raid, aling wth the others' ages. -R. fiend (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see ages mentioned at Bloody Sunday (1920), at least not in general. I may have missed a minor. If you can point one out, your mention-of-minors point is highly valid. If Barry's age is that huge a part of his status, then I see the merits of mentioning. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just point out the age of the soldiers is covered in this section with an official report. Also I think R.Fiend is talking about Bloody Sunday (1972). Which I dont see the relevence of adding as other stuff exists BigDuncTalk 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm looking at this text in the article right now:
Macready informed General Sir Henry Wilson on the day that sentence was pronounced “of the three men who were killed by him (Barry) and his friends two were 19 and one 20 — official age so probably they were younger... so if you want propaganda there you are.”[7]
Is that where the age should be mentioned? Possible additions, with a citation at the end of the sentence, obviously:
  • Later research revealed that Washington was 15 years old.
  • One of the victims was 15 years old.
The Macready quote tells me that they didn't know at the time that Washington was 15. If it was discovered later, then it's a fact, but it should be presented in the context of a fact later learned and not known at the time. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between a civilian who is shot, and someone who has willingly chosen to fight for King and country which is what this soldier was doing. BigDuncTalk 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference, but a fifteen year old is a fifteen year old. There is a brief paragraph on the ages of those involved, and if reliable sources say one of the soldiers was 15, and believe it is worth special mention, why not include it in the article? Because it wasn't mentioned at the time? Why throw out the advantage of further research done since the incident? We don't do that with anything else. What's the problem with tacking on to the end of that paragraph (following " if you want propaganda there you are."): "It was later discovered that one of the victims was apparently as young as 15 years old." NPOV, accurate, no undue weight, and with an "apparently" to leave room for the unlikely possibility that his age is bogus. Objections? -R. fiend (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable I would have no objection. BigDuncTalk 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Just some observations that may be helpful. Major Reginald Ingram Marians OBE was selected by Gen. Macready to be head of Press Section of the General Staff. On 20 October Marians informed Basil Clarke head of the Department of Publicity (established in August 1920), that Pte. Washington was only 19. Macready informed General Sir Henry Wilson on 31 October that the official age of the soldiers at the time were that two were 19 and one was 20. Now that is the official version of the army at the time, and has not been directly challenged citing contemporary sources. I have no problem at all with saying Washington was 15 at the time, only that it is placed in the context in which it was used. Did the army know that he was 15 at the time and is it relevant to the article? Another point that should be mentioned is Barry was only charged with the death of Matthew Whitehead, charges for the deaths of Washington and Humphries were dropped because the bullets used in their cases were .45 and all the witnesses agreed Barry had a .38. So the relevance of Washington’s age must be in the context of the propaganda war being fought at the time. The question is, is this relevant to this article? In my opinion it is, and should be included, and that Washington’s age of 15 needs to be mentioned in that context. --Domer48'fenian' 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to go along with R. fiend suggestion above, and will try to find suitable references which support the proposed text. I hope this helps? --Domer48'fenian' 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


For 24 hours. Don't edit war. If there's consensus for a change in text then submit an editprotected request SirFozzie (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment; I'm seeing a number of editors, usually opposed (like Domer and R.Fiend), and these people seem to be in agreement and have put in a bunchload of work into getting this article into a shape that all can agree on. Excellent work, guys. Then I see an anon editor who just hops IP addresses and spends months reverting to their revision which is clearly against consensus. Just sayin' ... - Alison 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well MS Alison the anon editor has just been trying to get Pte. Washington aged stated but couldnt simply because the people here with a republican agenda are bullies. There were plenty of well respected sources saying that he was fifteen but the republican bullies wouldnt accept this. Finally they have agreed to let referenced material into the article but only where they want it put in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma Washington (talkcontribs) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


On the 7 September 1919, 14 soldiers were ambushed in Fermoy as they made their way to Wesleyan church.The opperation was planned by Liam Lynch, later to become IRA Chief of Staff, to capture their weapons. However during the ambush, one of the soldiers was killed with another three wounded. The Real Chief: Liam Lynch, Media Ryan, Mercier Press Cork 2005, ISBN 978 1 85635 460 8, pg. 36-8. Now I don't know when the first British soldier was killed, and if someone could let me know, but based on Media Ryans' book it was not 20 September 1920. I have therefore removed the recent addition to the lead. --Domer48'fenian' 14:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've shifted some of the information from the 'Aftermath' section to the lead section. It seems to me that in this article we are mainly dealing with the impact of an event rather than the biography of a person and I think (or hope!) this shift makes this clear from the outset. I also think a distinction needs to be made (and I've attempted to make it) between the immediate impact of his death, which was intimately connected to the impact of the death of MacSwiney, and his subsequent reputation, built on the ballad, anecdotes about his personality and a widespread knowledge of his torture and refusal to inform. (Barry's torture was not widely reported until after his death. I spent a few very long weeks in the National Library of Ireland some time ago trawling through microfilms of newspaper-coverage of his death. His affadavit only gets real publicity in the weeks after his execution when the storm had more or less passed.) ANB (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


While I think having so much of the text of Barry's affadavit is historically interesting, its a little out of proportion to the rest of the article. Is there an argument for editing it so that only the salient points come across? I think it could be summarised quite easily. Most people do not know the details of Barry's torture so the text is certainly valuable however, the quote currently in the article could be moved to Wikisource with the appropriate link. I'd do it myself, but I'm interested in getting other people's opinions first and I also don't really know how to move things to Wikisource! This article has some great material in it but is certainly in need of some cleaning up and perhaps restructuring. ANB (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article has been overly laden with quotes for some time. It's been substantially improved from its worst point in that regard, but this suggestion would further improve the article, in my opinion. -R. fiend (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'll place it up on wikisource / quote when it has been edited. You you like to place the edited version on here first and ask for opinions. --Domer48'fenian' 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this version meet with approval? Its quite a conservative edit, but I've tried to preserve the main facts:

He tried to persuade me to give the names, and I persisted in refusing. He then sent the sergeant out of the room for a bayonet. When it was brought in the sergeant was ordered by the same officer to point the bayonet at my stomach. . . The sergeant then said that he would run the bayonet into me if I did not tell. . . The same officer then said to me that if I persisted in my attitude he would turn me out to the men in the barrack square, and he supposed I knew what that meant with the men in their present temper. I said nothing. He ordered the sergeants to put me face down on the floor and twist my arm. . . When I lay on the floor, one of the sergeants knelt on my back, the other two placed one foot each on my back and left shoulder, and the man who knelt on me twisted my right arm, holding it by the wrist with one hand, while he held my hair with the other to pull back my head. The arm was twisted from the elbow joint. This continued, to the best of my judgment, for five minutes. It was very painful. . . I still persisted in refusing to answer these questions. . . A civilian came in and repeated the questions, with the same result. He informed me that if I gave all the information I knew I could get off. [1]

I've considered several options for paraphrasing. However, the affadavit itself (as I think O'Donovan notes) is probably as close to a dispassionate account of events as we can get. Let me know what you think. If its still too long we could omit the section about the bayonet and limit it to the account of the physical mistreatment rather than the threats of mistreatment. I think its important to retain the final line about he possibility that Barry might 'get off' if he informed. Its a crucial component in the construction of his reputation, particularly in the years that followed. ANB (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. --Domer48'fenian' 19:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for the revert. I saw an IP removing content and assumed it was vandalism. I will revert myself, if someone has not already done so. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ This affidavit was written by Sean 0 hUadhaigh, solicitor; witnessed by Myles Keogh, Justice of the Peace and was signed by Kevin Barry. The original is now in the National Museum.


The introduction should mention the fact that the three soldiers Barry helped murder were as young as he was. ( (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Please stop adding POV. 2 lines of K303 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not POV at all. Barry is only famous because of his age at the time of his execution, therefore it is only right that we should mention the fact that the three soldiers he murdered were as young as he was. What would be POV would be prominently emphasising Barry's age in the intro without mentioning the vital fact that the young men he killed were the same age, in fact one was only fifteen. ( (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Most people in Ireland and the rest of the world, particulalrly places that had been under British military occupation, did not even care about the deaths of a few British soldiers never mind care how old they were. The addition is POV pushing of the worst kind. (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. Kevin Barry was a cowardly terrorist dressed in civilian clothing who murdered three young men. Since the men he murdered were as young as him this needs to be mentioned. ( (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

It is your opinion, and your opinion only, that public opinion should have been affected by the age of the soldiers. Keep your opinions out of articles. (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The murder of the three soldiers actually caused outrage in Britain, as my history book on the conflict records. These teenagers were all conscripts and most were under the age of eighteen. Had it been known that one of the boys was only fifteen I am certain there would have been even more outrage. Ireland was not under occupation at all, it was legally joined with Britain as part of the UK. I think it is POV for the introduction to highlight Barry's age when the three boys he helped murder were as young as him and even younger. ( (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

File:Church Street immediately after Kevin Barry's arrest..JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Church Street immediately after Kevin Barry's arrest..JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers or RIC Auxiliaries?[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Whitehead, Washington and Humphries were soldiers not police. See ref.. The notion that there were no regular army in Ireland at this time per this edit and summary is simply incorrect. RashersTierney (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree Rashers Mo ainm~Talk 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Likewise, Agree Rashers.--Domer48'fenian' 18:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The three teenage boys were conscripted police auxillaries. Regular soldiers were never involved in the 1919-1922 conflict in Ireland at all. (JeremeyMurphy (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

That is patent nonsense, but lets see what sources you can provide for this view. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous books on the period for a start. Collins was never up against the British army, only police auxillaries like the Black and Tans or the Auxillary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He was forced to sign the Treaty on 6 December 1921 because Lloyd George promised him a fullscale military invasion if he did not. The introduction should mention the fact that the three teenagers murdered by Barry were conscripted police auxillaries, not regular soldiers. (JeremeyMurphy (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

So where are your sources for this novel theory, apparently overlooked by a generation of historians? RashersTierney (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford book on the British army confirms that there were no soldiers in Ireland. (JeremeyMurphy (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

ISBN and page number? RashersTierney (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This ref. should settle the matter. RashersTierney (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The three teenagers were conscripted police auxillaries, not soldiers. (JeremeyMurphy (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

The 3 British soldiers were armed and trained to kill so less of the poor little innocent teenagers, it shows your POV. Mo ainm~Talk 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Who said they were "poor little innocent" teenages Mo ainm? Please refrain from distorting other editors comments so you can label them as POV. JeremeyMurphy's arguement doesn't appear to have any POV motive and is simply a matter of specific classification which they have failed to provide evidence of thus far. Mabuska (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an implication that he is making or why mention that the "teenagers [were] murdered" twice in 3 posts, and you know exactly why they are doing it but I wouldn't expect anything more from you, have you anything to add or did you just arrive to shit stir? Mo ainm~Talk 23:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an assumption on your behalf and nothing more. Ironically what have you added? Rather than posting provocative comments Mo ainm, i suggest you be civil and assume good faith with JeremeyMurphy - a new editor who never posted what your implying he is, i.e. "poor little innocent teengaers". Mabuska (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So you agree with him that there were no british soldiers in Ireland, or are you just going to throw links around and pontificate. Mo ainm~Talk 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
If you even read my first comment, you'd notice the answer to your question was here before you even typed it. Mabuska (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There weren't any British soldiers in Ireland. They were all police auxillaries. The three auxillaries killed by Kevin Barry were conscripts sent to protect loyalist and Protestant civilians from attacks by paramilitary organisations. (JeremeyMurphy (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

As Rashiers has mentioned several times JeremyMurphy, you need to provide sourced evidence to back up your claims, and so far Rashiers has provided sourced evidence.Mabuska (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Editor is blocked as a suspected prolific sock. RashersTierney (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So i realised after i had posted my comment. Mabuska (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, especially banned ones. 2 lines of K303 11:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)