Template talk:Hindu-German Conspiracy

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

William Wiseman[edit]

I'd like to change the link to William G. E. Wiseman to William G. E. Wiseman (template). As it stands, the 'What links here' page [1] for William Wiseman is rendered useless by the links generated by this template. - Crosbiesmith 18:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish connection[edit]

I'm not convinced by this assertion that many major Irish figures played such a huge role in this conspiracy. In terms of Devoy, the sum total of what the article says about him is "Those involved in this liaison, and later involved in the plot, included major Irish republicans and Irish-American nationalists like John Devoy, Joseph McGarrity, Roger Casement, Eamon de Valéra, Father Peter Yorke and Larry de Lacey." That tells us slightly more than nothing at all. Usually things appear in a subject's template so one can go there for further information on a subject. If one were to do with Devoy, the information they would get is "Also, before and during World War I, Devoy is also identified closely with the Ghadar Party, and is accepted to have played a major role in supporting Indian Nationalists, as well as playing a key role in the Hindu German Conspiracy which led to the trial that was the longest and most expensive trial in the United States at the time." It seems those two statements are the only ones in all of Wikiepdia that deal with Devoy and the Hindu-German conspiracy. Does that warrant inclusion in a template? The the article on the trial, which he allegedly had such a significant role in, does not mention his name at all. His biography does not allude to this incident in any way. It seems a total of one book ever written makes any mention of the connection between this and Devoy. The situation is much the same with Casement. They are both merely names mentioned in passing. Does that warrant inclusion in this template? Links therein should be reserved for articles with a strong connection to the subject, where one can go to actually get more information on the subject. These don't fit. Why not just throw every link in the entire article into the template? It makes about as much sense. R. fiend (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Casement
The article says "Using the links established between Indian and Irish residents in Germany (including Irish nationalist and poet Roger Casement) and the German Foreign Office, Oppenheim tapped into the Indo-Irish network in the United States." For John Devoy, the very introductory section describes the context of Gaelic American, FH, the collaboration, etc. If you want more, I'll give you more. That their biographies dont mention it is not my fault, I didnt write them. But WP article is not a reference, nor a standard (per WP policy). Published verifiable and reliable sources are, and in this case this fits the bill. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, both men are only mentioned in passing. And the intro to the Hindu-German conspiracy article does mention the Irish Republican movement (which is why I left it in the template) but not these two individuals. And I'm not saying the WP article is a reference, but inclusion in a template such as this is a way of saying "for more information on this topic, see these articles:..." when the articles have no more information on the topic, there is absolutely no reason to include them. Why are they included in this overdone template and not some other randomly mentioned people like Bhai Paramanand, Mohan Singh, R K Narayan, Gandhi, Edward Grey, and any other random name I can pull from the article? If either of these people really did play a significant role in this conspiracy, then it should be made clear with reliable sources (preferably more than one; I find it very odd that these guys were so important to something this big, but no one except Matthew Plowman seems to be aware of the fact). This template looks like someone said "let's repeat every link in the article in a template at the bottom for easier navigation!" then realized it was a poor idea and gave up, leaving a haphazard collection of links, and a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Removing links to articles that will not promote further understanding of the topic seems to me like a good way of doing some cleanup. R. fiend (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of Gandhi being involved in the conspiracy, nor Mohan Singh, as for Bhai Paramanand and Grey, I was under the impression they were included!!! As for the John Devoy etc, here's from a Reliable source:

The first concrete reference to Devoy in Mat Plowman's Irish Republicans and the Indo-German Conspiracy of World War I, which describes and delves in Devoy quite a lot. If you wish I'll quote more. As for doubting Plowman's work, that's not my problem at all, it satisfies WP:RS, is a verifiable published sacholarly work of historical research published in a peer reviewed journal, and has moreover been presented in academic conferences etc and is therefore scrutinised by peers. That you dont like it for whatever reasons is none of my problem. That the biographies dont mention again is not my making. The fact is that te Irish movement was linked wuite intimately with the Indian revolutionary movement in Europe and North America in the first two decades pf the 20th century, but for varied reasons were not publicised not were the topic of historical research till 1950s-60s, and even more so lately. You're looking at Biographies written in wikipedia (and I dont think any of those are the best of Wp) from a very narrow perspective of populist history. And you're drawing that further to say since it is not mentioned, it doesn't need to be mentioned anyway, so hey...If you feel very strongly about this, call for an RfC, but I am finding you're edits quite obstructive and disruptive.

First of all, when I say their biographies don't mention the incident, I mean their published biographical books by professional authors, not their Wikiepdia biographies. Furthermore, I'm not saying Plowman is not reliable, but I do wonder why I cannot find another reference to this anywhere. I'm going to try to get my hands on Devoy's Recollections of an Irish Rebel, but it is long out of print and quite rare. I read it years ago and don't recall anything about this topic, but I am well aware that doesn't mean it wasn't covered.
As to the above quote concerning Devoy, all it says is that it was through Devoy that Papen was introduced to Casement. That in itself is not a role in the conspiracy; Devoy arranged them to meet so Casement could enlist German aide in the Irish independence movement, not for anything remotely connected with India. If this is the extent of the connection then Devoy really did play no role. If I introduce two people to one another at a party, and they later go on to pull of a bank heist, I have no connection with that crime. If Devoy is involved directly, then I would honestly be curious to know in what capacity. Likewise Casement is mentioned only in reference to his role in Irish independence. McGarrity seems to have a connection, I guess, but I have not removed him from the template as it seems he might well belong there, but I still see no specifics about Devoy and Casement. -R. fiend (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have access to the athens database, I am sure you will be able to locate Plowman's paper, in which case you'll see the coverage of Devoy and others in connection with the conspirace is much more than arranging a simple meeting (which btw, the author mentions in context of the Indian conspiracy, not the Irish one). You may also find Emily Brown'sbook on Har Dayal much more infomative. There is also the India House article and the references there in. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I found a reasonably priced copy of Devoy's Recollections online, which I've ordered. I'm going to hold off on this until it arrives and I have a chance to look through it. If he makes no mention of this, then I am going to have to seriously question how significant his role was. I don't know anything about an athens database, so that doesn't help me. As of now, the paragraph you quoted only says that it was through von Kliest that von Papen contacted Devoy, through Devoy that he contacted Casement, and through Casement he contacted McGarrity, who seems to be the major player in the conspiracy (I admit I don't know all that much about McGarrity). I do find it odd that he mentions de Valera, as at the time he was not a significant figure with no real connection to the Clan na Gael. He was primarily a math professor, and wasn't even a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood until the end of 1915. I don't believe he would have had any association with McGarrity until about 1918.
If you can quote some passages from the Plowman book that relate directly what Devoy did in this conspiracy, it would help. The books seems very obscure, and I found few google hits that were not Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Plowman's is not a book, its research article published in New Hibernia Review, which is a journal. I have given the citation, which you should be able to search for. Athens is an access resource to academic resources and scholarly works available over the internet through institutes of higher educations,ie, Universities and higher institutes, which it is obvious you're not familiar in working with. Going back to your comments, I gave an excerpt paragraph. Here's more:

"United States Attorney records, the Gadar publications, and other American sources demonstrate that Irish and Irish-American involvement was crucial to the Indo-German Conspiracy, as well as its investigation and trial, in San Francisco during World War I. The Germans walked into a preexisting Indo-Irish alliance in America, which had already established a plot of smuggling guns to India. This Indo-Irish alliance survived the conspiracy and the war itself. An analysis of the Irish factors will better place the San Francisco Indo-German Conspiracy and trial within the context of a much larger geopolitical game. On one side, British agents had infiltrated Indian and Irish organizations, pushed the American investigation with valuable information from informants or British infiltrators, and actually worked with American prosecutors and BOI agents to place the conspirators behind bars. On the other side, the Irish and Irish Americans provided valuable intelligence, logistics, communication, media, and legal support for the German, Indian, and Irish conspirators. It should be clear that the nationalist movements and processes to free Ireland and India did not exist in separate vacuums, but were influenced by external events and each other.Furthermore, many of the Irish and Irish-American nationalists involved in this matter are of major importance to the history of Ireland and [End Page 83] Irish-American consciousness, including John Devoy, Joseph McGarrity, Roger Casement, Eamon de Valéra, Father Peter Yorke, and Larry de Lacey (1885-1956). ", As part of this prewar collusion, Irish and Irish-American reporters and newspapers assisted the Indian nationalist movement and helped to create the network that later supported the conspiracy. Lala Har Dayal, the founder of the Gadar party in San Francisco and a major conspiracy leader in Europe and the Middle East, had strong Irish and Irish-American connections when he lived in the Bay Area, including John Barry at the San Francisco Bulletin, who wrote articles encouraging his readers to support the Indians.At one point, Har Dayal even asked his fellow Indian nationalist C. K. Chakravarty of New York to use the latter's own connections with New York Irish-American newspapers to help prevent efforts to arrest and deport him. 6 The most prominent of the Irish-American newspapers to assist the Indians was the Gaelic American, which was owned and published by John Devoy. A leader in the Clan-na-Gael movement in New York, John Devoy had the hope of reawakening the Irish Republican Brotherhood for an armed struggle [End Page 84] against Britain. Devoy had been the American liaison of the Irish Republican Brotherhood until he was replaced by Joseph McGarrity after the war, and he played a key role in organizing Irish-American support for the Irish war of independence largely through the political and financial power of his press. 7 He was eventually honored with a grave near that of Michael Collins in Dublin, and earned the following British epithet from the London Times: "[Devoy was] the most bitter and persistent, as well as the most dangerous, enemy of this country which Ireland has produced since Wolfe Tone." 8 Devoy was closely allied with Dáil Éireann President Eamon de Valéra until their 1921 rupture over the Treaty and Partition. He was also closely connected with Roger Casement, who was later executed by the British for a conspiracy to smuggle German guns into Ireland for the Easter Rising of 1916. John Devoy was clearly a strong ally for the Indians to have. 9

While living in New York in 1908, Muhammad Barkatullah (1864-1927), later Gadar vice president and an Indo-German conspirator, was friends with George Freeman, Devoy's editor at the Gaelic American. Barkatullah and Freeman worked together with another Gadarite and Indo-German conspirator named Taraknath Das (1884-1958) to produce the Free Hindustan, which was modeled on John Devoy's Gaelic American. The Indian periodical was even produced on the Gaelic American'spress and was later renamed the Independent Hindustan during the war for Irish independence. 10 John Devoy's press was clearly responsible for the Indian nationalists gaining a voice in the United States.", "British intelligence reports document further the Indo-Irish activities and growing mutual support before the war and German involvement. Before the Gadar Party was created, Muhammed Barkatullah went to the third National Convention of the United Irish League in Philadelphia during October, 1906, hosted by T. P. O'Connor. A leading Irish parliamentary party figure, O'Connor followed John Redmond's path of negotiation in the House of Commons. O'Connor was at this 1906 convention to raise money to take back to Ireland, which he did despite the cold shoulder he received from John Devoy's Clan-na-Gael. 13 Having worked in the offices of the Gaelic American, Barkatullah likely shared Devoy's suspicion of O'Connor. During the convention, Barkatullah stood up and requested a pledge from O'Connor against England for the sake of India even if Ireland were granted Home Rule in the Commons. 14 Unfortunately, we do not possess O'Connor's response. However, it is clear that the Indian revolutionaries distrusted such negotiations and were interested in a nationalist effort against Britain larger than what they could produce by themselves. At a later meeting in Oxnard, California, as vice president of the Gadar party, Barkatullah gave a speech that not only articulated a nationalist community between Indian, Irish, African, and Egyptian revolutionaries, but also indicated that the war afforded the supreme opportunity for global colonial rebellion. One participant at the Oxnard meeting told British authorities that...", " Also, John Devoy's editor George Freeman worked with Barkatullah—the same pair who published the Free Hindustan—to get another shipment of arms out of New York after the German-led Annie Larsen conspiracy sputtered, although there is no indication that this scheme had any success. 16 Regardless, this mutual support between the Indians and Irish continued throughout the Indo-German Conspiracy, trial, and its aftermath. The Germans were not the masterminds who put these revolutionary groups together into a useful network for themselves during the war. Rather, they plugged themselves into a preexisting network. ", I can give you more if you wish. Wether Devoy's personal memoirs record this or not doesn't matter. Historians and historical research has shown this to be the case, and per WP:RS I have tried to weed out biased and PoV accounts and tried to use research works and reviews more. Without offence, it seems to me your view is rather limited, and you're very obviously not familiar with a huge chunk of this phase and perios of Indo-American-Irish-German-British history. May I suggest you look up some of the references in the article (if you have access to these) before drawing a conclusions. I will also suggest you call an RfC if you feel so strongly about this, which I am particularly suprised (and now getting exasperated) about. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see now I did misread the Plowman reference, giving me the impression it was a book. I guess that explains why I didn't see it on Amazon. I'd be curious to read the article, as it would save you having to quote it here, but the last time I was enrolled in college Athens, Google, and all sorts of other online research tools were brand new. It seems I don't have easy access to the Athens service, but I can perhaps look into it through various channels.
You are certainly right about one thing, I know almost nothing about the Ghadar Conspiracy. I am, however, reasonably well versed in Irish and Irish-German affairs of this period, which is why I got wondering: if I know quite a bit about a few people who were apparently so involved in this conspiracy, why hadn't I heard of it before? It seemed either I was reading the wrong books, new discoveries had recently been made that hadn't been known before, or they weren't involved to the degree they are made out to have been. I'm trying to figure out which it is (I'm mostly speaking of Devoy and Casement here). If they were seriously involved, I would honestly like to know in what capacity. So far, what you've provided says very little.
The first mention of Devoy you gave says: "Furthermore, many of the Irish and Irish-American nationalists involved in this matter are of major importance to the history of Ireland and Irish-American consciousness, including John Devoy, Joseph McGarrity, Roger Casement, Eamon de Valéra [etc.]" I certainly won't deny that these men were of major importance to Ireland and Irish-American relations. The question is, what exactly was their role in this conspiracy? The rest of the paragraph mostly deals with Devoy's background, which addresses Ireland almost exclusively, not India. The connection seems to be that the Gaelic American published articles sympathetic to the Indian cause, and Devoy was the publisher of the Gaelic American. That's more an indirect connection; the personal connection seems to be his editor, this George Freeman character. The article makes frequent reference to "John Devoy's Gaelic American" and "John Devoy's Clan na Gael" (as well as "John Devoy's editor George Freeman"), which is the only time I recall hearing them described as such. The organizations are what seems to be key; sticking John Devoy's name in front of them tends to give the impression of his direct involvement, but I still see nothing he personally did. The link to Gaelic American in the template seems to cover John Devoy's entire involvement. As I said, my qualm is with creating the impression that Devoy and Casement, specifically, played important and direct roles in this Hindu-German Conspiracy, without providing adequate proof that they did. Links to Clan na Gael, Joseph McGarrity, and Gaelic American seem appropriate (Irish Republican Brotherhood less so but I'm uncertain on that one); without specifics of their significant involvement, links to John Devoy and Roger Casement do not. "Published a newspaper that featured some articles expressing sympathy with the cause of some of those who were involved in the Ghadar Conspiracy" is not my idea of a direct connection. And I'm still unclear what role Casement played. Perhaps the last sentence you quoted is most telling: "...they plugged themselves into a preexisting network." Casement and Devoy were certainly part of this pre-existing network, but that in itself does not constitute substantial involvement. I appreciate you supplying these excerpts, and I hate to ask you to do any more, but can you quote for me something specifically that John Devoy (not the Gaelic American, not the Clan na Gael) or Roger Casement (not his connections) did in this conspiracy? I'm sure Roger Casement, being anti-Imperialist, was sympathetic to the Indian cause, but the only thing I can recall him doing for Asian independence movements at the time was suggesting that if his Irish Brigade could not be sent to Ireland, it should go to fight the British in the Middle East (this was never more than an idea, and one outright rejected by Devoy, if I recall).
I'm open to an RfC on this, but I'm not sure it's necessary, and have hopes we can sort this out ourselves. I'm also not sure it would accomplish anything except to bring in some people who are ignorant of both the Hindu-German conspiracy and the contemporary Irish Republican movement. It might just muddy the waters. -R. fiend (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello R, I'm a bit busy till Tuesday, could you please with me till then. Thanks for your input. Rgeards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm hoping my Devoy book will show up soon, which may or may not have an impact on the discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a while and evidence of any major role played by Devoy or Casement is still not forthcoming. I have Devoy's Recollections, and though I have not reread it, the index has no entries on anything relating to this conspiracy, and looking through entries on the relevant period I see absolutely no reference to it. If he personally played any role in the Ghadar conspiracy, I cannot find it. I cannot believe he made major contributions to something this big and didn't mention it once in nearly 500 pages of his memoirs covering his political activities. The roles for both him and Casement appear to be introducing parties who were involved, and, in Devoy's case, editing a newspaper that ran a few stories sympathetic to the cause. There's very little there. Absent some specific, significant actions made by either Devoy and Casement, it really seems their names do not belong in this template. Therefore I am again removing them. -R. fiend (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)