Talk:Fenian raids

Painting and Battle Box

Hi,

I have contacted Archives to see if I can get a copy of the painting mentioned in the article:

(A well-known fanciful painting of the skirmish in the National Archives of Canada depicts a green flag with the letters IRA over a gold harp; in fact, the most common Fenian emblem at this time was a sunburst.)

I am wondering if we should create a Battle Box for the Fenian Raids? Envelope 22:26, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

The image is actually in use on the Battle of Ridgeway page, which also has a battle box. --BruceR 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Two articles?

Why is there two in-depth articles on the same subject? Perhaps, the Fenian Raids article should be shortened a link to the main article added? Envelope 12:08, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Actually, until last week there were three... much of what's in Fenian Raids now came from Fenian Brotherhood. But Ridgeway was just one of two fights in one of five distinct raids stretched over five years. You need an overarching article that links all the battle writeups within a campaign (there are three so far that I know of) together. The analogy would be the differences between the Hundred Days article and the Battle of Waterloo and Battle of Wavre articles, to take one of a hundred possible examples.--BruceR 15:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the preferable logical next step would be to continue to flesh out the other four raid subheadings a little more. Then Fenian Brotherhood is free to focus on the Fenians as an Irish-American political organization, Fenian Raids can focus on the overarching military history, and the individual battle writeups on the circumstances of the specific skirmishes. Any other approach will just lead to more redundancy in the long run, I suspect. --BruceR 15:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, I think that is a good idea. The Fenian Raids page could be setup similiar to the North-West Rebellion page, to allow users to find information quickly. What do you think ? Envelope 16:14, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

I created a skeleton format for the topic, we just need to put the meat on the bones :) WritersCramp 22:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying changing the subject head to "Niagara raid," to make it more obvious where future Ridgeway-battle-specific material should go (ie, not here), and I put them in chronological order... Campobello needs to go first, obviously. The NWR article needs a lot of fleshing out, as they admit on the talk page... right now it's just repeating the battle page info, and is scanty on the campaign info... frankly I think they should break that page out into the actions of Middleton, Otter, and Strange's columns, plus a subhead on the initial massacres, and group the various skirmishes according to which of the three prongs of the Canadian advance they belonged to. Then you'd end up with something similar there to what's shaping up here... a "war" write-up, with subheads for individual "campaigns," and separate battle writeups, which seems to be the best way to go with milhist in Wikipedia.--BruceR 06:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.192.198.154, 17 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the article a medal is shown titled "Fenian Raid Medal", there is no such medal. What is shown is a Canadian General Service Medal 1966-1870 [without its ribbon] but showing the Fenian Raid 1870 Clasp [Bar]. Please see www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group03/cgsm&CFID=4290534&CFTOKEN=85221817 for full description of the medal. 94.192.198.154 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this clarification.

I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve more articles.  Chzz  ►  08:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Anonymous IP editor in Ireland

I'd like to invite the anonymous IP editor, who has been systematically changing the "outcome" of this conflict found in the infobox for the past several months, to engage in a dialogue here on the article's talk page and explain why they believe that the Fenian raids resulted an Irish victory. Rather than simply continuing to re-add the material without references or discussion; which many editors would see as a disruptive editing practice, I'd like to request that they enter into a discussion here instead. thank you cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that once again the same anonymous IP editor in Ireland has begun to make the unreferenced claim that the Fenian raids constituted an "Irish military victory". Unless you're prepared to provide a reference for what appears an outlandish claim on the surface; the reverting and posting of warning templates will continue indefinitely. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does the link in the infobox lead to British North America instead of Canada? After 1867, the territories being raided by the Fenians were no longer directly ruled by the UK and were instead formed the Dominion of Canada. I am going to change that link, unless somebody can explain why it is so. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Vandalism

A user keeps changing the infobox & puts United Kingdom in a supported role despite the fact that Metropolitan troops were present during the raids, not to mention a commander also (Doyle). Would the user please refrain from deleting this content and changing it. 46.233.116.158 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Irish Canadians "divided"

Were Irish Canadians "divided"? There is little or no evidence that the Fenian raids had any support in Canada.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Stalemate or?

Hi, I am a bit confused on the outcome. Is it a military stalemate or a British/Canadian victory as the raids failed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.187.60 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fenian raids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511032535/http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/sweeny.html to http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/sweeny.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)