Talk:Manchester Martyrs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Speeches from the dock

The speeches from the dock really don't belong here. Huge block quotes such as that are discouraged, and should be in wikisource or wikiquote, if they are needed at all. Right now it just looks like filler. -R. fiend (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I think that someone ought to be bold and remove that section altogether. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Speeches like these are very important. They provide context. Now suggest which parts should stay and which should not? --Domer48 (talk) 21:06, ♦25 April 2008 (UTC)

Which parts of the speeches do you think should stay? I don't have a problem with short, apposite quotations, but it was overwhelming. In fact I don't have a problem with expanding the Trials, with a subsection for each of the accused if that's justified. But an encyclopedia article ought to be summarising and providing an accessible overview, not wholesale regurgitating large chunks of quoted text. There are other places for that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I see that you've restored the Speeches section without waiting to discuss the issue. Rather disappointing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They were removed without discussion, now again, suggest which section should stay and which should go. I'm open to discussion, are you. --Domer48 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering none of the speeches are widely quoted or well known, why should they be here at all? Wikisource is where this sort of thing goes. We don't have the entire speeches of any other figures that I know of, including I Have a Dream, Tear down this wall, and countless others that are widely known and referenced. These are simply unencyclopedic. -R. fiend (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My view at present is that they should all go, as the amount being quoted from one source appears to me to be a clear breach of copyright. And if it again restored without further discussion then I will be reporting it as such. Now, what do you think should be kept? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As this material has once again been restored without discussion, then I have reported this article as being in breach of copyright. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think there views on the trial are very important, and could be included in the section on the trial. This will lend its self to the context of the trial. There views and opinions are very important also on both the escape and politics they can be placed in alternative sections. As to the speechs, I'm not sure to be honest. What do you think is the most important aspect of them? Don't concern yourself copyright, this is only an extended edition, published in 1935, the origional was written by the Sullivans before the turn of the centuary 1882 to be exact, and I have an origional copy of that also, though the 1935 edition is more accesable should editors wish to purchase a copy. --Domer48 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my views on long quotes at Talk:Roger Casement#Speech from the Dock. If the speeches could be summarised in 100 words max, they would add to the article; as they are now I'm afraid they make the article unreadable. As said above, even articles about speeches that are well known to everybody don't include the entire text, just an article about them with one or two small quotes. It's the way things are done here on WP. Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, I've responded on the alternative articles. Thanks again, --Domer48 (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one except Domer thinks they belong here, I'm going to remove them again. If they can be summarized along the lines suggested by Scolaire, by all means put them back in in that form. If someone wants to add them to wikisource and provide links, that would probably be a good idea, but I'm not inclined to do it myself; I don't have the original sources and I don't know if they'd go under a Manchester Martyrs heading or under their individual names, anyway. -R. fiend (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As soon as editors agree on what should be removed, I'll make the edits. Less chance of edit warring then. --Domer48 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that everyone except you has already agreed haven't they? Are you waiting for someone to summarise the speeches in the way that Scolaire suggested? Why not try doing it yourself? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I said to you on your talk page, it's up to you to do the editing and put back what is clearly relevant. Scolaire (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've summarised the first two speeches, to give another idea of what's being asked for. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the article very readable the way it is now. Having had a look at the full speeches (which are here in talk section) I must say they are way too long to include in the article and the existing summary of their content provides sufficient insight into the thoughts, views and motivations of those who were tried. --I (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speeches from the dock (moved from main page)

No need to keep all that clutter in the article, it can be discussed here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The first to respond to the question “if the prisoners had anything to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced on them,” Allen was the first to respond:

A commemoration plaque at the site of the incident on Hyde Road, Manchester

Allen

“ My Lords and Gentlemen,—it is not my intention to occupy much of your time in answering your question. Your question is one that can be easily asked, but requires an answer which I am ignorant of. Abler and more eloquent men could not answer it. Where were the men who have stood in the dock—Burke, Emmet and others, who have stood in the dock in defence of their country? When the question was put, what was their answer? Their answer was null and void. Now, with your permission, I will review a portion of the evidence that has been brought against me. ”

Here Mr. Justice Blackburne interrupted. ‘‘ It was too late to criticise the evidence, and the Court had neither the right nor the power to alter or review it. If, you have any reason to give why, either upon technical or moral grounds, the sentence should not be passed upon you, we will hear it, but it is too late for you to review the evidence to show that it was wrong. Cannot that he done in the morning, Sir? asked Allen, but the Judge said not. ‘‘ No one could alter or review the evidence in any way after the verdict had been passed by the jury. We can only take the verdict as right; and the only question for you is, why judgment should not follow.” The prisoner proceeded to deliver the following address:

“ No man in this court regrets the death of Sergeant Brett more than I do, and I positively say, in the presence of the Almighty and ever-living God, that I am innocent, aye, as innocent as any man in this court. I don’t say this for the sake of mercy: I want no mercy—I’ll have no mercy. I’ll die, as many thousands have died, for the sake of their beloved land, and in defence of it. I will die proudly and triumphantly in defence of republican principles and the liberty of an oppressed and enslaved people. Is it possible we are asked why sentence should not be passed upon us, on the evidence of prostitutes off the streets of Manchester, fellows out of work, convicted felons—aye, an Irishman sentenced to be hanged when an English dog would have got off. I say positively and defiantly, justice has not been done me since I was arrested. If justice had been done me, I would not have been handcuffed at the preliminary investigation in Bridge Street; and in this court justice has not been done me in any shape or form. I was brought up here, and all the prisoners by my side were allowed to wear overcoats, and I was told to take mine off. What is the principle of that? There was an obvious object in that; and so I say positively that justice has not been done me. As for the other prisoners, they can speak for themselves with regard to that matter.

And now with regard to the other means by which I have been identified. I have to say that my clothes were kept for four hours by the policemen in Fairfield station, and shown to parties to identify me as being one of the perpetrators of this affair on Hyde Road. Also in Albert station a handkerchief was kept on my head the whole night, so that I could be identified the next morning in the corridor by the witnesses. I was ordered to leave on the handkerchief so that the witnesses could more plainly see I was one of the parties alleged to have committed the outrage. As for myself, I feel the righteousness of my every act with regard to what I have done in defence of my country. I have no fear. I am fearless of any punishment that can be inflicted on me. One remark more. I return Mr. Seymour and Mr. Jones my sincere and heartfelt thanks for their eloquent and able advocacy regarding my part in this affray. I wish also to return to Mr. Roberts the very same. My name, Sir, might be wished to be ‘known. It is not William O’Meara Allen. My name is William Philip Allen. I was reared in Bandon, in the county of Cork, and from that place I take my name. I am proud of my country, and proud of my parentage. My Lords, I have done.

”

Larkin

“ I have only got a word or two to say concerning Sergeant Brett. As my friend here said, no one could regret the man’s death as much as I do. With regard to the charge of pistols and revolvers, and my using them, I call my God as a witness that I used neither pistols, revolvers, nor any instrument that day that would take the life of a child, let alone a man. Nor did I go there on purpose to take life away. Certainly, my lords, I do not want to deny that I did go to give aid and assistance to those two noble heroes that were confined in that van—Kelly and Deasey. I did go to do as much as lay in my power to extricate them from their confinement; but I did not go to take life, nor, my lord, did anyone else. It is a misfortune that life was taken; but if it was taken it was not done intentionally, and the man who has taken life, ye have not got. I was at the scene of action when there were over, I dare say, 150 people standing by. I thought, my lord, I had some respectable people to come up as witnesses against me. I am sorry to have to say, but as my friend said,—I will make no further remarks concerning that.

All I have to say, my lords and gentlemen, is that so far as my trial went, and the way it was conducted, I believe I have got a fair trial. So far as my counsel went, they have done their utmost in the protection of my life; likewise, my worthy solicitor, Mr. Roberts. But I believe the old saying is a true one: what is decreed a man in the page of life he has to fulfil, either on the gallows, by drowning, death in bed, or on the battlefield. So I look to the mercy of God. May God forgive all who have sworn my life away. As I am a dying man, I forgive them from the bottom of my heart. May God forgive them.

”

Plaque on the Grave of the Manchester Martyrs

O’Brien

“ I shall commence by saying that every witness who has sworn anything against me has sworn falsely. I have not had a stone in my possession since I was a boy. I had no pistol in my possession on the day when it is alleged this outrage was committed. You call it an outrage; I don’t. My name is Michael O’Brien. I was born in the county of Cork, and have the honour to be a fellow-parishioner of Peter O’Neill Crowley, who was fighting against the British troops at Mitchelstown last March, and who fell fighting against British tyranny in Ireland, I am a citizen of the United States of America, and if Charles Francis Adams had done his duty towards me, as he ought to do in this country, I would not be in this dock answering your questions now.

Mr. Adams did not come, though I wrote to him. He did not come to see if I could not find evidence to disprove the charge, which I positively could, if he had taken the trouble of sending or coming to see what I could do. I hope the American people will notice that part of the business. The right of man is freedom. The great God has endowed him with affections that he may use, not smother them, and a world that may be enjoyed. Once a man is satisfied he is doing right, and attempts to do anything with that conviction, he must be willing to face all the consequences.

Ireland, with its beautiful scenery, its delightful climate, its rich and productive lands, is capable of supporting more than treble its population in ease and comfort. Yet no man, except a paid official of the British Government, can say there is a shadow of liberty, that there is a spark of glad life amongst its plundered and persecuted inhabitants. It is to be hoped that its imbecile and tyrannical rulers will be for ever driven from its soil, amidst the execration of the world. How beautifully the aristocrats of England moralise on the despotism of the rulers of Italy and Dahomey; in the case of Naples with what indignation did they speak of the ruin of families by the detention of its head or some loved member in a prison. Who have not heard their condemnations of the tyranny that would compel honourable and good men to spend their useful lives in hopeless banishment?

”

Judge Blackburne intervene, and appealed to the prisoner, “entirely for his own sake,’’ to cease his remarks. The only effect of your observations must be to tell against you with those who have to consider the sentence. I advise you to say nothing more of that sort. I do so entirely for your own sake.” But O’Brien proceeded;

“ They cannot find words to express their horror of the cruelties of the King of Dahomey because he sacrificed 2,000 human beings yearly, but why don’t those persons who pretend such virtuous indignation at the misgovernment of other countries look at home, and see if greater crimes than those they charge against other Governments are not committed by themselves or by their sanction? Let them look at London, and see the thousands that want bread there, while those aristocrats are rioting in luxuries and crimes. Look to Ireland; see the hundreds of thousands of its people in misery and want. See the virtuous, beautiful, industrious women who only a few years ago—aye, and yet—are obliged to look at their children dying for want of food.

Look at what is called the majesty of the law on one side, and the long deep misery of a noble people on the other. Which are the young men of Ireland to respect—the law that murders or banishes their people, or the means to resist relentless tyranny and end their miseries for ever under a home Government? I need not answer that question here. I trust the Irish people will answer it to their satisfaction soon. I am not astonished at my conviction. The Government of this country have the power of convicting any person. They appoint the judge; they choose the jury; and by means of what they call patronage (which is the means of corruption) they have the power of making the laws to suit their purposes.

I am confident that my blood will rise a hundredfold against the tyrants who think proper to commit such an outrage. In the first place, I say I was identified improperly, by having chains on my hands and feet at the time of identification, and thus the witnesses who have sworn to my throwing tones and firing a pistol have sworn to what is false; for I was, as those ladies said, at the jail gates. I thank my counsel for their able defence, and also Mr. Roberts, for his attention to my case.

”

Monument in Kilrush

O’Meagher Condon

“ My Lords, this has come upon me some what by surprise. It appeared to me rather strange that upon any amount of evidence, which, of course, was false, a man could have been convicted of wilfully murdering others he never saw or heard of before he as put in prison. I do not care to detain your lordships, but I cannot help remarking that Mr. Shaw, who has come now to gloat upon his victims, after having sworn away their lives,—that man has sworn what is altogether false; and there are contradictions in the depositions which have not been brought before your Lordships’ notice. I suppose the depositions being imperfect, there was no necessity for it. As to Mr. Batty, he swore at his first examination before the magistrates that a large stone fell on me, a stone which Mr. Roberts said at the time would have killed an elephant. But not the slightest mark was found on my devoted head; and if I was to go round the country, and he with me, I exibiting the stone as having fallen on me, and he as the man who would swear to it, I do not know which would be looked for with the most earnestness. However it has been accepted by the jury. Now he says he only thinks so.

There is another matter to consider. I have been sworn to, I believe, by some of the witnesses who have also sworn to others, though some of them can prove they were in another city altogether—in Liverpool. Others have an overwhelming alibi, and I should by right have been tried with them; but I suppose your lordships cannot help that. We have, for instance, Thomas, the policeman, who swore to another prisoner. He identified him on a certain day, and the prisoner was not arrested for two days afterwards. As for Thomas, I do not presume that any jury could have believed him. He had heard of the blood-money, and, of course, was prepared to bid pretty high for it. My alibi has not been strong, and unfortunately I was not strong in pocket and was not able to produce more testimony to prove where I was at exactly that time.

With regard to the unfortunate man who has lost his life, I sympathise with him and his family as deeply as, do your lordships or the jury, or anyone in the court. I deeply regret the unfortunate occurrence, but I am as perfectly innocent of his blood as any man. I never had the slightest intention of taking life. I have done nothing at all in connection with that man, and I do not desire to be accused of a murder which I have not committed. With regard to another matter, my learned counsel has no doubt for the best, expressed some opinions on the misgovernment to which my country has been subjected. I am firmly convinced there is prejudice in the minds of the people here, and it has been increased and excited by the newspapers or by some of them, and to a certain extent has influenced the minds of the jury to convict the men standing in this dock, on a charge of which—a learned gentleman remarked a few nights since—they would be acquitted if they had been charged with murdering an old woman for the sake of the money in her pocket but of a political offence of this kind they could not.

Now, sir, with regard to the opinions I hold on national matters with regard to those men who have been released from that van, in which, unfortunately life was lost, I believe that, certainly to some extent, there was an excuse. Perhaps it was unthought; but if those men had been in other countries, occupying other positions—if Jefferson Davis had been released in a northern city, there would have been a cry of applause throughout all England. If Garibaldi, whom I saw before I was shut out from the world, had been arrested, and was released, or something of that kind had taken place, they would have applauded the bravery of the act. If the captives of King Theodore had been released, that, too, would have been applauded. But, as it happened to be in England of course, it is an awful thing while yet in Ireland murders are perpetrated on unoffending men, as in the case of the riots in Waterford, where an unoffending man was murdered, and no one was punished for it. I do not desire to detain your lordships. I can only say that I leave this world without a stain on my conscience that I have been wilfully guilty of anything in connexion with the death of Sergeant Brett. I am totally guiltless. I leave this world without malice to anyone. I do not accuse the jury, but I believe they were prejudiced. I do not accuse them of wilfully wishing to convict, but prejudice has induced them to convict when they otherwise would not have done it.

With reference to the witnesses, every one of them has sworn falsely. I never threw a stone or fired a pistol; I was never at the place, as they have said; it is all totally false. But as I have to go before my God, I forgive them. They will be able to meet me, some day, before that God Who is to judge us all, and then they and the people in this Court, and everyone, will know who tells the truth. Had I committed anything against the Crown of England, I would have scorned myself had I attempted to deny it; but with regard to these men, they have sworn what is altogether false. Had I been an Englishman, and arrested near the scene of that disturbance, I would have been brought as a witness to identify them; but, being an Irishman, it was supposed my sympathy was with them. On suspicion of that sympathy, I was arrested, and, in consequence of the arrest and the rewards which were offered, I was identified. It could not be otherwise. As I said before, my opinions on national matters do not at all relate to the case before your lordships. We have been found guilty, and, as a matter of course, we accept our death as gracefully as possible. We are not afraid to die— at least I am not.

”

File:Manchester Martyrs Mural.jpg

Mural depicting the Manchester Martyrs.

At this his companions replied “Nor I,’’ Nor I,’’ Nor I,’’ which caused Condon to smile.

“ I have no sin or stain upon me; and I leave this world at peace with all. With regard to the other prisoners who are to be tried afterwards, I hope our blood at least will satisfy the craving for it. I hope our blood will be enough; and that those men, who I honestly believe are guiltless of the blood of that man—that those other batches will get a fair, a free and more impartial trial. We view matters in a different light from what the jury do. We have been imprisoned, and have not had the advantage of understanding exactly to what this excitement has led. I can only hope and pray that this prejudice will disappear—that my oppressed country will right herself some day, and that her people, so far from being looked upon with scorn and aversion, will receive what they are entitled to, the respect not only of the civilised world, but of Englishmen.

I, too, am an American citizen, and on English territory I have committed no crime which makes me amenable to the Crown of England. I have done nothing; and, as a matter of course, I did expect protection—as this gentleman (pointing to O’Brien) has said, the protection of the Ambassador of my Government. I am a citizen of the State of Ohio; and I have to say my name is not Shore. My name is Edward O’Meagher Condon. I belong to Ohio, and there are loving hearts there that will be sorry for this. I have nothing but my best wishes to send them, and my warmest feelings, and to assure them I can die as a Christian and an Irishman, and am not ashamed or afraid of anything I have done, or the consequences, before God or man. They would be ashamed of me if I was in the slightest degree a coward, or concealed my opinions.

The unfortunate divisions of our countrymen in America have, to a certain extent, neutralised the efforts that we have made either in one direction or another for the liberation of our country. All these things have thwarted us, and as a matter of course we must only submit to our fate. I only trust again that those who are to be tried after us will have a fair trial, and that our blood will satisfy the cravings which I understand exist. You will soon send us before God, and I am perfectly prepared to go. I have nothing to regret, or to retract, or take back. I shall only say, GOD SAVE IRELAND.

”

Again the voices of his companions raised in unison. “God save Ireland,” ‘‘God save Ireland !‘” From the few relatives who listened to the patriots’ prayer the responsive “Amen.” Condon then finished:

“ I wish to add a word or two. There is nothing in the close of my political career which I regret. I don’t know of one act which could bring the blush of shame to my face, or make me afraid to meet my God or fellow man. I would be most happy, and nothing would give me greater pleasure, than to die on the field for my country in defence of her liberty. As it is, I cannot die on the field, but I can die on the scaffold, I hope as a soldier, a man and a Christian. ”

References

Editing Speeches

I've edited the speeches as suggested. Like I pointed out before hand, having done so, some editors insist on knit picking. Now again, on the talk page suggest what should be included, or we can just re-write the whole speeches in our own words and include the lot. After all, its all relevant. --Domer48 (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in plain talk, that's bullshit. Nobody suggested you edit the speeches. Everybody said that you should write a short paragraph saying what was in the speeches, exactly as Malleus Fatuorum has done. This is not nit-picking, it is a plain, simple statement of the way in which an encyclopedia article is written. Continuing to paste large tracts of text against consensus and against WP guidelines is disruptive editing in any language. And as for "including the lot", not only is it not all relevant but you have not yet produced a shred of evidence that any of it is relevant. Now again, come up with a short paragraph that can be used or drop the whole thing. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Though, contrary to what Scolaire says, there is one aspect of the speeches that is relevant: the cry of "God save Ireland." That, however, has been in there all along. -R. fiend (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the speeches do not belong in the article, but they don't really belong here either. They're disruptive and annoying in either location. Let's face it, that's really not what talk pages are for. If there are certain elements under discussion that's one thing, but that doesn't warrant inclusion in their entirety here. I'll remove them from this talk page as well; does someone feel like doing a wikisource transwiki? -R. fiend (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the speeches here just to have them conveniently at hand so that they could be summarised. Once that's done thay ought to be removed. But I haven't got easy access to the sources of these speeches, so I wouldn't be prepared to move them anywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't edited the speeches at all, and nor were you ever asked to; you were asked to summarise them, which I've now done. Hopefully this nonsense is now finished. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Malleus. I'm still not entirely convinced the speeches are notewrithy enough to take up the proportion of the article that they do, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it; it's a huge improvement. However, am I missing something or does O'Meagher Condon suddenly appear making a speech from the dock without it explained who he is and why he's there, in fact, without him being previously mentioned in the article at all? Could he and Maguire be mentioned as having been indicted in an earlier section? That would really clarify things. -R. fiend (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"William O'Mera Allen, Michael Larkin, William [Gould] O'Brien, Thomas Maguire and O’Meagher Condon, were found guilty and sentenced to death" - from the paragraph immediately following the speeches. The problem is that the trial itself is poorly covered. It appears from the speeches that there may have been still others charged, and that they were tried separately. Scolaire (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a very big gap in the story between Background and Trials. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced as well. I also don't understand why O'Meagher Condon's spech is significant, as he isn't one of the three Manchester Martyrs. In fact, I'd argue for removing O'Meagher Condon's sppech on that basis. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It seems Condon and Maguire are side players in this drama. -R. fiend (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you snap out of it the lot of ye. I'll edit the article later, and all of it will be relevant as are the speeches. Remove Condon's speech? Who was the one who came out with God save Ireland, do any of you have a clue? Get your books out on this, because having read your contrabutions its like the blind leading the blind. --Domer48 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Three words - no personal attacks. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, when your reading and writing skills progress beyond the 4th grade level we'll have something to talk about. -R. fiend (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Three words - no personal attacks. Scolaire (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I think it's worth noting that Cardinal Herbert Vaughan expressly forbid the commemoration of the "Manchester Martyrs" in the Catholic Church. This is from Alan Kidd's book, Manchester: A History (page 174). The only problem is I'm not sure which section is most appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While Herbert Vaughan may have expressly forbid the commemoration, he was in a minority. I'll source and references some information on it for you. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, however according to Kidd it sounds like Vaughan wasn't in a minority. He states that the Catholic hierarchy opposed Fenianism (and therefore the "martyrs"). Kidd also mentions that the acts of the martyrs were labelled the "Manchester Outrages" by the majority of the local populace (also page 174), would this also deserve a mention. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned, all of it. I will get back to it as soon as I can, I'm a bit tied up at the moment. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not urgent. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested reorganisation

Since the public hanging section only contains two sentences about the actual hanging, I suggest the section should be split up. The rest of the information seems to relate to the aftermath and could be placed in the effects section, which I think should come before monuments. The first two sentences of the public hanging section could become part of the trials section, although maybe the title should be changed. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, I finally remembered. Nev1 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

hanging

The lead says they were hanged in Manchester - but wasn't the New Bailey Prison actually in Salford? Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was, you're quite right. Well-spotted! --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Titles

I have added titles for Colonel Thomas J. Kelly and Captain Timothy Deasy, but two editors, Malleus Fatuorum and Jza84 are removing them without explaination. What's going on here? Tfz 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What's going on is reining in you pov warriors, like it or lump it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF, and none of your name calling. Thanks! Tfz 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF isn't synonymous with suspend all disbelief. Or at least it ought not to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For clarity I removed them per WP:BRD, but I'm also unsure if there's any evidence of the titles of the two, if they are relevant, and if they are in the spirit of WP:NCNT. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The titles refer to ranks they held during the American Civil War, as the article already describes. To use those honorifics in the lead implies that they also held those ranks in the Fenian movement. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In which case I concur it was the right call to remove them. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line is, you both removed facts from the article. Tfz 01:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? The ranks that Kelly and Deasy held in the US Army are there for anyone with an open mind to see. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Many readers just read the intro, I did go through it. Own it if you wish. Tfz 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not presented a rational argument why their rank in the American Civil War has any bearing on Kelly's and Deasy's arrest. It's relevant in the background section, but not the lead. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it has relevance in the article. Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, because it believes learning is important, and hiding facts does not equate with learning. Tfz 01:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What are these facts that you believe have been hidden? Were the Fenians organised along conventional military lines? What were the ranks of Kelly and Deasy in the Fenian movement? Does anyone know? It appears that Kelly was the "chief executive of the Irish Republic", so why not call him President Kelly? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What books have you read on the subject? Tfz 01:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What bearing does that have on your blatantly false assertion that facts are being hidden? Were the Fenians organised on conventional military lines? What were Kelly and Deasy's ranks within the Fenian movement? If you don't know, then why not just admit that you don't know? There's no shame in admitting your ignorance; the only shame is in trying to hide it behind a facade of bluster. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The bearing it has in relation to the subject and on the books which cover the subject is that they all include their ranks. There is no reason why they can not be included here (referenced if required) and the information which clarify the ranks can also be included. The reason they obtained their positions in the Fenian's is because of their military experiance. That can also be included if more clarity is needed. Now I suggest that editors remain civil and stop with the personal attacks. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Did they hold those ranks within the Fenian movement, or not - and if so, do you have sources which explicitly state so? That's all that matters here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Their titles are used in all the books on the subject, and can be referenced to quite a number. Now what is the problem with them in this article? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. This is an encyclopaedia, not a book. What were their official titles within the Fenian movement? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The titles they held in the American Army during that country's Civil War are already mentioned. If you don't know what ranks they held within the Fenian movement, which clearly you don't, then do you at least know what names they were charged and convicted under? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What book, or books have you read. It's a fair question, I'm not questioning your competency to make edits to the article, but you did not seem to know anything about the subject some months ago. Are you a historian, and what's your field of specialty? Tfz 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What relevance does any of that have to the article? None. I suggest you mind your own business, and discuss the article only. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance is that the article has virtually no or very little historical backdrop to it. I thought that should be obvious to you Parrot. Tfz 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If take the trouble to look through the history Tfz you'll see that my first edit to this article was almost two and a half years ago. What is obvious to me is that the "historical backdrop" presented is simply not the one that you would like to see, as it is neutrally stated. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I had to make some changes to get it more NPOV, remember? Tfz 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Now why not try sticking to the point for once? What ranks did Kelly and Deasy hold in the Fenian movement? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, so the whole 'Background' section should be bigger? I don't see why, the article is about this one incident, not the history of Ireland under British rule. Anyway, what titles did the two (actually, three) men hold in the Fenian movement? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the Famine where a million people were condemned to starved to death, is not mentioned at all. It would be important to set this event in the context of the nineteenth century from Act of Union to the Great Famine, amongst other events of that era. That's why I asked you about your experience at historical portrayal. Tfz 15:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble concentrating. What were Kelly and Deasy's ranks in the Fenian movement? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the Great Famine the 'great unmentionable'? I think it is important to frame events in their contemporary historical settings. Tfz 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think its important that you stop ignoring the question you've been asked repeatedly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it now your contention, Tfz, that the prison escape that is the subject of this article was triggered by the potato blight? A somwhat radical view of history. And also very revealing that you are constantly focusing on the Irish background, when a neutral observer would be be very well able to see that these events took place in England, against a backdrop of increasing alarm at what were perceived to be the increasing number and audacity of the "Fenian outrages". That is the relevant political background to this event, not some tragedy that happened 20 years earlier elsewhere. The broader aims and political background of the Irish nationalist movement should be dealt with elsewhere, as indeed they are.

But back to the subject. What ranks did Kelly and Deasy hold in the Fenian movement? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to lack any sensitivity to the importance of the historical background. I notice you didn't mention Act of Union, and dismissed the holocaust of a million people as a mere blight. We are of two very differing opinions, and that is unlikely to be bridged. Other editors will eventually correct the omissions. Tfz 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your refusal to address a simple question in my eyes marks you as a Troll. I shall therefore treat your posts with the attention they deserve - none. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other editor who holds similarly prejudiced views as your own will be dealt with in exactly the same way if they attempt to "correct the omissions" that are not there. You will not be allowed to use this article as yet another platform for your intolerant, bigotted, and unbalanced view of history. If you want to do something useful instead of trolling here why not fix up the dreadful Irish nationalism article? Or any other of the equally dreadful Irish republican articles? This article is about a prison escape, not another vehicle for the endless regurgitation of republican propaganda. Got that? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A curious but not unexpected anomaly

A neutral observer of the discussion may by now be beginning to wonder why User:Domer48 and User:Tfz are so concerned about the ranks that Kelly and Deasy had held during the American Civil War, which ended two years before their arrest, but are completely unconcerned about the rank of another of the convicted men Thomas Maguire, who was a serving Royal Marine. Well, they might if they were hopelessly naive and unfamiliar with the one-sided presentation of history that's become endemic in any Irish related article. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A neutral observer of the discussion may by now be beginning to wonder why your provocative and persistent incivility and likewise your consistent personal attacks have gone unchecked. This article is not about a prison escape, it’s about the trial and execution of three men. Now, I’ll ask again, why are the titles which are used in every book on the subject being removed from this article? Personal attacks will be ignored, posts containing personal attacks will also be ignored. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And you consider yourself to be a "neutral observer"? Don't make me laugh. What about answering the simple questions that have been asked here repeatedly. What ranks did Kelly and Deasy hold in the Fenian movement? Why is there not similar concern for the rank that Maguire held in the Royal Marines?

If you were able to read, you would see that Kelly and Deasy's title have not been removed from this article; they are there for anyone with an open mind to see. Which clearly rules out you and Tfz. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The titles were removed from the article? The version I'm looking at states "Both were Irish Americans who had fought with distinction in the American Civil War—Kelly achieving the rank of colonel and Deasy that of captain" in the background section, and it should do in yours. The titles have been removed from the lead because, while they provide background, they are not an important part of the article as it has not been demonstrated that their ranks in the American Civil War had any relevance to their arrest in Shudehill. Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency and outright dishonesty on display here is starting to make my ears bleed. Apparently now this article "is not about a prison escape, it’s about the trial and execution of three men." Earlier it was supposed to be about the Irish Famine caused by the potato blight, but now clearly everything not directly related to the trial and execution should be deleted. Let's not forget as well that there were more than three men tried and sentenced to death, and that there were many in England who were sympathetic to the cause of Irish home rule, but who were opposed to the violent methods adopted by the Fenians. Let's just stick to the one-sided view so popular among the pov-pushers like Domer and Tfz. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see very little here that would constitute a violation of WP:CIVIL. What I do see however, are some quite serious suggestions that, if carried out, would violate WP:POV. I know which I consider to be the more serious charge.

Its very simple. You either provide a source to back up your claim that the military ranks of these three men are important, and that they carried those ranks in the Fenian movement (at which point this discussion will have served its purpose), or you edit the article to reflect your (presently) POV stance, and risk raising the ire of people who may be moved to block your account. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a very touchy subject subject with some editors, I have been accused of all kinds of innuendo because I made some edits to the article a couple of weeks ago. I have rarely seen such bald prejudice here on Wikipedia before, and I'll edit the article as I see fit, threats or no threats at the time of my choosing. 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfz (talk • contribs)

You have yet to address the issue at hand. Nev1 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been accused of pov-pushing, because that's what you've been doing. You have repeatedly lied about information being removed from this article when it plainly hasn't, just doesn't appear as prominently as you'd like, and have repeatedly tried to use this article as a soapbox for your Irish republican agenda. That will stop. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be ignoring this soapbox and just editing the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're able to do so in a fair, neutral, and balanced manner, then your contributions will no doubt be welcomed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead issue...

"Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien were part of a group of between 30–40 who attacked a police van two arrested leaders of the Brotherhood..." ... something is missing between "van" and "two" but I have no clue what it might be. Someone familiar with the article might be able to fix the issue? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"carrying", no? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed that now. You need eyes in the back of your head with this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What mainland?

Apparently according to an editor who above claims to be editing fairly and neutrally "English mainland" is a perfectly appropriate phrase, maybe in little England but not in a neutral encyclopedia. Unless you happen to be stood on the Isle of Wight or similar, England does not have a mainland. Obviously in this article it is nothing to do with the Isle of Wight, but is the usual tactic of trying to portray Ireland as some minor island just off the west coast of the "mainland". O Fenian (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem. England consists of many islands. It's mainland is something that is verifiable. Just like Ireland. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pity you went awfully quiet above when Irish editors were being attacked isn't it? My point remains the same, references to mainland in articles dealing with Ireland use a verifiably offensive phrase. O Fenian (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The only verifiable offensive phraseology I see here is your first post in this section, where you attack Malleus. You are quite incorrect, England does have a mainland. And Scotland. And Wales. And Ireland. Now why don't you apologise for your error, and for your slur, and stick to discussing only the article? Or is that too much to ask? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When I attacked him by saying he "claims to be editing fairly and neutrally"? Yes, obviously repeating his own words are an attack. O Fenian (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Let's just get on with what we're supposed to be doing eh... --Jza84 |  Talk  14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Why don't you quote what you actually wrote, which was "maybe in little England but not in a neutral encyclopedia. Unless you happen to be stood on the Isle of Wight or similar, England does not have a mainland. Obviously in this article it is nothing to do with the Isle of Wight, but is the usual tactic of trying to portray Ireland as some minor island just off the west coast of the "mainland"". Were those also his words? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

References to mainland have been removed as it is far from neutral. BigDunc 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm stuck on how "English mainland" is not neutral. It's not a phrase I'd use, but as has been pointed out above, it refers to the mainland of England, rather than than including the various small islands that are part of the country. Verifiability over truth: if the source uses the term, we should emulate the source. Nev1 (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:Verifiability is not exempt from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as it makes clear. Simply because a source used a biased term, there is no need for us to do so. You are assuming that the source means the small islands, when it seems to me to be talking about the relationship between England and Ireland. Both this and this point out the problems with mainland. Unless there is some dire need to differentiate between England and related islands, simply "England" is fine for this article. O Fenian (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"English mainland" is quite different to "the mainland" (i.e. it is not a English perspective bias). --Jza84 |  Talk  17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with O Fenian WP:NPOV must be adhered too on this. BigDunc 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem here, but I don't consider the phrase as important enough to bother too much about. The exact wording the source uses is "metropolitan Britain". Is that any less contentious? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought "English mainland" was exactly what the source says? I am happy with anything except mainland, as it is always a problem in relation to Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought so too, but I took the trouble to check again, and on the page cited the exact wording is "metropolitan Britain". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the clarification, but the reference in this article is to England rather than Britain, and the links say "do not use to refer to Great Britain in reports about Northern Ireland" and "Please remember that referring to Britain as “the mainland” is deeply offensive to Irish people" (own emphasis added). Both refer to Britain rather than England. It's wrong to use "mainland" when talking about Great Britain as it excludes Ireland, but "England" excludes the rest of Great Britain. However, I would prefer to use simply England rather than "mainland England" as realistically there isn't much difference. That said, can it be proven that Rose is not a neutral source? If not, verifiability over truth still stands. Nev1 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Except it is not what Rose says, apparently. And I believe it is pedantry to think "English mainland" is any less problematic than "British mainland" or just "mainland" when used in relation to Ireland. And Rose is British, and British people do tend to see less of a problem with "mainland" than Irish people. O Fenian (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree it's pedantry as England and Britain are not synonymous, but now the article has now been changed to "metropolitan Britain" (I didn't realise England was being used to describe Britain in this instance) so hopefully we can move on from this. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "English mainland" might be used elsewhere in the book, but on the page I cited it's definitely "metropolitan Britain". Perhaps to avoid the sort of nonsense we've just seen here. I'm not aware that there were many Fenian attacks (is it allowed to use the word "attack"?) in Lundy or Sark, for instance. Were there any in Scotland or Wales either? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fucking POV warriors, they get everywhere. I could have sworn "mainland" didn't equate to "betterland" or "spudkickersaren'twantedland". It's a fucking geographical term not a political one. Jeezus there must be a link to somewhere these shoulder chips are being bought from... they seem to be selling an awful lot of big ones in this locale. "Mainland"? Offensive? Get a fucking life! --WebHamster 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Trial

I have some minor issues with this revision, but since I'm not in possession of any sources (or a particularly involved editor) I'll just ask, rather than do.

• The trial had took place in what was described as a "climate of anti-Irish hysteria," - described by whom?
• and was the product of an ignoble panic which seized the governing classes. - is that a quote?
• A yell of vengeance it said had issued from every aristocratic organ and that before any evidence had been obtained the prisoners guilt was assumed and their executions had been demanded - is that also a quote?
• The above certainly needs an opposing view, from an English newspaper, does it not? Otherwise it seems to me to be a wholly one-sided presentation of contemporary opinion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Reynold's Newspaper Reynold's News? Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've attributed the text and the paper was an English newspaper. If you want we can add some of the quotes illustrating the points made by the paper using additional English newspapers and some Irish papers also? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though it is, in which case I apologise for assuming that the above quote is from an Irish publication. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with 19th century newspapers, so I had to check myself. My reaction was, what makes Reynold's worth mentioning? What were the big papers of the day? More than one opinion needs to be added. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Its probably well worth the mention as from my extremely limited search above it seems to be a publication for the working-classes. I can do a search of the Times Archive, but I suspect that Malleus has already been there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if those making these kinds of additions had at least a passing acquaintance with basic English grammar, or the common sense to be able to judge where such additions were best placed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I just tried, but my free trial has ended. Nev1 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Richerman (talk · contribs) has access to academic journals and historical news archives that require a membership. He might be worth a nudge on this one. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just had a quick read (apologies for any errors, I'm tired) of Reynolds's Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, November 3, 1867; Issue 899. It's in Gale's 19th century British Library Newspapers. The quotes are from the leading article. The same issue contains a description of the trial (described as a special commission). I haven't read enough other material to know how accurate and unbiased it is, but it sheds some light. The Grand Jury included seven MPs and Henry Tootal Broadhurst. I think one of the two presiding judges was Colin Blackburn. It seems about 20-30 shots were fired in the rescue (probably mostly to scare people away) and one of those hit a man coming to the van's assistance. A number of rocks and bricks were thrown. It seems agreed amongst several witnesses that Larkin shot the horse early in the proceedings and that Allen fired the shot that killed Brett. Larkin and Allen were chased/followed from the scene and arrested nearby, not in some random sweep of Irish communities. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

These are mere facts. This article is supposed to be a memorial, not an accurate historical account. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do hope you're joking there. Canterbury Tail talk 11:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. We were considering moving the article to "Three honourable Fenians, murdered by the evil English". ;) In seriousness though, we're (well Malleus mostly) trying to make this a good quality, but more responsibly, a neutral, article. There's nothing wrong with heated debate, and even swear words, but there's everything wrong with, for example, O Fenian's comment that kicks off "What mainland?". Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article due to the levels of edit warring currently going on and the massive levels of incivility and abuse between the various editors on this. I don't want people blocked, but everyone needs to back off and calm down on this. Canterbury Tail talk 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that just about all the incivility and abuse is coming mostly from one direction, and that you'd need 50 years of protection to get past the obvious POV pushing going on here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Provide diff's it helps. I agree that the incivility and abuse is coming mostly from one direction. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you agree. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, provide some diff's which allow editors to become aware of comments which cause problems. While I agree that there is no problem at all with your edit, adding a link on the article, that the article is locked it really should not be edited. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should've been locked really. There have been a few skirmishes and a little difference in emphasis and opinion, but I think we're all doing quite a good job in the scheme of things - the article has really come on a great deal.

Re incivility, I was joking, sorry, I couldn't help myself. I was trying to break the ice a little. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If we get some civility restored among the editors, and some consensus, I'll happily unprotect it early. Just give me a buzz when you think that time has come and I'll return and read the talk and see if it has happened. Canterbury Tail talk 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If we put aside the supposed 'incivility', what about the obvious POV-pushing? Which do you consider to be the more serious? Parrot of Doom 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you ask that question, as the answer's obvious. The plan is that when the article is unlocked we'll all have forgotten about it, allowing the republicans to return to their revision of history unhindered by having to be concerned about the historical facts, or presenting them neutrally. Just look back to the top of this talk page to see what Domer's preferred version looks like. Long, stirring speeches from the dock is what this article is supposed to look like. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tut tut, don't see anyone screaming "British Nationalism" on this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Religious_polemics . Tfz 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why they couldn't go to Wikiquote and we have a link from here; infact that's what should happen anyway really. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it safe to edit here again?

I'd like to expand a little bit on the trial, on Maguire's conviction and subsequent "pardon", and on the aliases the Fenians used. Any objections? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester Martyrs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede

• I note you've got a citation point for "where the Irish community made up more than 10% of the population"; ledes should be either completely cited or not cited at all (excluding quotes).

• I'm aware that there are differing views on citations in the lead, none of them supported by the GA criteria. I tend to prefer a citation-free lead myself as well though, so I've removed it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest compressing the four short paras into two long ones.

• I've compressed it into three. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• "a group of 30–40" - "a group of 30–40 people"? I know they're unlikely to be confused for, say, ducks, but it helps clarify.

• Changed that to 30–40 Fenians. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• The lead seems to be in reverse order. You start by saying they were sentenced to death, then that two other sentences were overturned, then why they were sentenced to death. I'd suggest changing the order to have the para starting "Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien" before "The sentences of execution on".

• It did look a bit muddled when I looked at it again, so I reorganised the whole thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Background

• "The whole of Ireland had been " - unnecessary, just "Ireland had been"; additionally, probably best to link Ireland to our article on the body of land.

• I think that's a good idea, so I've done it. I'm less certain that it'll stick with the Irish Republican editors though, but we can but hope. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) was founded on 17 March 1859 by James Stephens, aimed at the establishment of an independent democratic republic in Ireland" - "was aimed", or alternately just "The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) was founded on 17 March 1859 by James Stephens, and aimed for the establishment of an independent democratic republic in Ireland".

• Changed to "with the aim of establishing ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• "number of Fenians and Fenian sympathisers".. you need to make it clear that you're referring to the IRB membership as well, and 100k Americans didn't choose to move to the UK just to piss off some bastard Englishmen.

• I don't agree that's what the sentence is suggesting. I think it's fine as it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• "During the early hours of 11 September 1867, police arrested two men found loitering in Oak Street, Shudehill, suspecting them of planning to rob a shop. Both were charged under the Vagrancy Act and held in custody. The Manchester police were initially unaware of their identities, but their colleagues in Ireland identified them as Kelly and Deasy." - is unreferenced.

• Now cited. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

• Seems fine.

Investigation

• Link The Times, for the benefit of our international readers.

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The Times of 14 November" - "on 14 November, The Times.." I'd suggest.

• Changed to "An article published in the 14 November edition of ... --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Link "reign of terror".

• It's already linked. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Committal proceedings

• Link prima facie

• Linked. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Trial

• You use "Twenty-six appeared" and "It was decided to charge the five" here; above you use "28 accused", but also "nine of the men". Please standardise.

• It is already "standardised". Sentences ought not to start with "26", for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest compressing the short paras.

• I think they're just fine as they are. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reprieves

• Fine.

Execution

• Fine.

Aftermath

• "The rescue inspired many to join the Irish cause for independence, and was also the inspiration for the song "God Save Ireland", Ireland's unofficial national anthem until it was replaced by "Amhrán na bhFiann" ("The Soldier's Song"). The events were important in shaping physical force Irish republicanism, the strand of Irish nationalism later represented by the Provisional Irish Republican Army. The events also – several years later – served to bring the parliamentary nationalists of the Irish Parliamentary Party under new leader Charles Stewart Parnell closer to the physical force men. Parnell told the Commons "there was no murder", and so helped create the conditions for the New Departure and the Irish National Land League and the subsequent "Land War" struggle against landlordism." - is unreferenced.

• Rewritten and cited. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Monuments

• Fine

Misc

• I note most of the images are on the right; I appreciate some are left-orientated, which is problematic, but generally they should alternate.

• I've switched one from right to left, despite the fact that image orientation is not one of the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Point. I've passed the article, since all my concerns that were in the GAC have been dealt with. Ironholds (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)